Quantify Quality

Quality vs. Quantity Article Debate: Over the past year, I’ve been encouraging you to increase or double your article inventory. It seems like every time that I discuss QUANTITY, someone will blast back at me and say, yeah, quantity is nice… but QUALITY will suffer, right?

While the definition of QUALITY is somewhat subjective when it comes to reviewing articles, I really believe it is possible to quantify quality.

Example: My article will be a minimum of 325 words, with 3-5 paragraphs that are each 3-5 sentences in length. I will include either 3-5 bullet points of fact or a numbered list to strengthen the value of my article. I will research at least 3 sources to be certain that I cover the various angles to support my arguments.

Sometimes, QUALITY can be easily remedied by increasing the quality of your sentence structure…while other times, you must go more in depth or give at least (1) solid secret or tangible data to serve your reader responsibly.

How do you define article QUALITY?


qualityg writes:

I do NOT have a definition for Quality, only a comment ” Q is the difference between What Is, and What Should Be. No more, no less, just stick with your customers (internal & external) and treat your suppliers as equals.

For example; measuring quality & quantity in IT code it is done all the time.

Article – What is the Aim, Who is the Customer, How do you gather feedback?

Comment provided January 8, 2006 at 5:36 PM


Dina writes:

1. The Blah Blah Factor. If you find yourself going, “blahh blahh” as you read it, then it didn’t pass QA (quality article inspection of course).

2. The “Would You Take ‘Er Home?” Test. Sure, the article looks good, but is it good enough for a high-profit-generating website to showcase on their HOME page?

3. Target Market Torque. Does the article apply just the right amount of pressure to swing your reader over to your side of the fence?

4. The Delicate Balance. Keyword triggers balanced with your own original phrasing.

5. Parrot Squawk Factor. Do your articles just echo what someone else (or many people) already said? ZZZZZ… bo-ring.

It’s tough for the untrained writer or the new web marketer to crank out those short-but-sweeties that you refer to. I spent three days reading 135 “Top Five” articles before I was able to a. master the pace, and b. muster the few but concentrated details that makes such an article an easy and worthwhile read.
By golly, I think I just wrote an article.


Comment provided January 8, 2006 at 6:00 PM


Edward Weiss writes:

Giving the reader the information that was promised in the headline! Sometimes, I’ll click on an article because the headline drew me in only to be disappointed by very little “meat” in the body of the article itself.

I then conclude that this particular author is not worth reading and will skip him or her in the future.

Comment provided January 8, 2006 at 9:43 PM


Lance Winslow writes:

I would like to make a comment on this and wish to not be labeled arrogant in doing so. Although also realize that there will be folks to attempt to use such labels anyway. My comment is that; I really believe in writing articles, which are indeed factually worthy for the reader and I have written many such articles. Unfortunately in actual observation and test marketing in my own articles I have found that the articles that are read the most have titles which include words such as; sex, skinny, rich, wealth, hair, clothes, style, gadget, electronics, etc.

What I am saying is that the average readership and their searches on the Internet is lacking of any potential intellectual capability. If we are to suggest that you give the reader only one tidbit of new information in each article, then sure you can do that. It is probably all the reader can handle anyway, yet in doing so aren’t we driving down the society? Or could you say that most information on the Internet is completely worthless and has no worthy information and thus one tidbit is better than none, so we are driving it upward, albeit in a very small increment? In which case why bother?

Additionally if I write an article on the Mars Rover, which is a high-hit Google search for 2005, but it gets buried in the Search Engine and no one reads it and in 8-months gets 97 article views. But if I write an article of ridiculous nature such as 2006 Paris Hilton Hair Cut and it gets 158 hits the very first day, before it even hits the search engines, then quickly climbs to 900 in three weeks. If this is the case then what we have is problem with humanity. So if I give one ‚¬“secret tip‚¬ on Paris Hilton’s hair is the reader really served and what could you possibly write about Paris Hiltons public or private hair, which is not already on the Internet in full-motion video? I would encourage dialogue on this issue. Because from what I see quality articles is completely subjective and has a lot to do with what the people want, rather than one’s writing ability to deliver real quality.

Comment provided January 9, 2006 at 9:17 PM


Kenneth Hoffman writes:

I have noticed the dramatic quantity of hits on hair, sex, etc. I just laugh, attribute it to the teen factor and continue to write factual, easy to read articles on something I know about. The right interested people will read them.

Comment provided January 21, 2006 at 9:48 AM


Dina writes:

Well there’s always the sneaky way in, also known as Article Topic Fusion (I’ve read about this).

Perhaps something like “Best Prom Hairstyles for Internet Marketers…”

Comment provided January 22, 2006 at 7:02 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Please read our comment policy before commenting.