Comments on: Posting Less Frequently Can Lead to Higher Reader Engagement

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:00:22 +0000

I am a new blogger. After reading all the comments I think something important to notice is that there are varied opinions on what each person who writes a blog thinks is best for their site. However the people who spoke from a blog readers perspective, all went with the don’t overwhelm me opinion. I think that pretty much answers it for me.
I have been trying to post every little thought I had on sports and I have made them seperate posts in the interest of driving traffic. I will now reduce this to 1-2 posts a day with my collected thoughts.

By: kristarella

kristarella — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:46:25 +0000

pavs – you’re right that this blog and lifehacker post a lot and aren’t twitter blogs, but I think you’re wrong to assume that people are attracted to them because they post a lot. People are attracted to those blogs because they’re so damn useful. They publish well researched and informative posts, so they can get away with several posts a day.

Most blogs do not come into that league and should not follow the example of posting that often until they have things that are worth saying that often.

Serge – I think photoblogs are different all together. Less frequent is usually not a lot better than frequent. Sometimes less words in the description in good, although it’s good to give a small description of each photo in case someone wonders about it.

By: Serge

Serge — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:47:50 +0000

I have a photoblog where I mostly post pictures, sometimes combined with text. Sometimes I post only a short text. I’m very consistent about the amount of postings but I’m wondering if this theory “less is more” is only valid for text messages or also for pictures only messages?

By: pavs

pavs — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:16:22 +0000

martin, ever read lifehacker.com or techcrunch (I am guessing you did). They have more feed readers than darren you and I can ever dream of. Yet they have more “featured posts” meaning “not one-liners like twitters”. How do they do it? It means people are more gravitated towards blogs that are updated more often. While people will read blogs that updated les often (2-3 times a week), it’s growth will be very limited, and success rate is very low.

And the fact that darren himself posts 2-3 times a day, should give you some hint!!

Darren I think you should stop telling others to post less when you yourself post so often.

By: Martin Belam

Martin Belam — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:59:23 +0000

I try and post one good article a day – and I thought that *was* posting frequently. I’d give up on someone posting 20 times a day – that isn’t a blog, that is Twitter!

By: Aruni

Aruni — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:41:18 +0000

I agree that it really depends on the blog and the topic but I too find myself gravitating more to blogs that space their posts with the only exception being Boing Boing. Their posts are short and graphic and easy to skim and check out one I like.

By: pavs

pavs — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:46:14 +0000

Thats not fair darren you yourself post 2-3 a day! And it works! How can argue against it ?

By: Rae

Rae — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:52:52 +0000

I only post like once a WEEK, but if you take a look at the number of comments posted per post I write, you’ll see that for me, your theory holds weight. I tend only to post when I have something specific to say.

By: kristarella

kristarella — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:26:24 +0000

Josh, I think in this case “regulary” might not be the same as frequent. If you ony post three times a week, but always post on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, that’s regular and readers know when the best time to visit is.

By: Katie

Katie — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:23:23 +0000

I don't post to my blog with any other thought than "I have something to add so I'm gonna add it." I don't post just to post. Some blogs I don't post to much at all because there isn't anything to add. This also keeps my readers checking back to see if I've added anything. If I kept it to a schedule it would be too mundane. InternetOpportunitesorScams

By: Katie

Katie — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:21:17 +0000

I don’t post to my blog with any other thought than “I have something to add so I’m gonna add it.” I don’t post just to post. Some blogs I don’t post to much at all because there isn’t anything to add. This also keeps my readers checking back to see if I’ve added anything. If I kept it to a schedule it would be too mundane.

By: Ebony Jones

Ebony Jones — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:56:42 +0000

I agree that in general for most blogs less is more…but for some 1 post a day may not be enough.

We will tend to have more posts per day because of multiple bloggers and the topic of our blog. We’re news/politics/gossip centered so alot of stuff is always happening. With the elections coming up I’m sure we may even have to increase our posts to keep our content fresh and relevant. I think it would hurt our standings if we only had 1 new post a day.

http://www.urbanswirl.com

Besides, I especially can’t help adding my 2 cents about every topic that comes up in the news.

By: Josh Hall

Josh Hall — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:49:43 +0000

I just read an article that said post more REGULARLY. I think that’s the key. When people know when to expect something, they’ll come back.

By: wagg dogg

wagg dogg — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:14:52 +0000

I think it depends on the type of blog you have which should determine the number of times you post a week.

By: Andy Merrett

Andy Merrett — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:03:46 +0000

Several tech blogs I work on go into overdrive during shows, for example the CES currently running in Las Vegas. Post levels can often go up at least fivefold. However, we announce beforehand what’s happening, and I think a lot of our readers expect the frequency to increase. It does feel a bit strange, though. I’ve posted well over a normal week’s worth of posts in the last two days!

(Visitor numbers have doubled, partly because it’s super-topical, partly because of increased posts, and partly because of some timely “stumbles”)

By: Franck Silvestre

Franck Silvestre — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:06:17 +0000

The real question is should you sacrify traffic for new visitors?

My answer is yes. I always prefer to deliver more quality content to my exisiting visitors.

What do you think?

By: kristarella

kristarella — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:19:26 +0000

Oops, missed an apostrophe.

By: kristarella

kristarella — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:15:27 +0000

I think that your friends strategy of posting as much as possible might work for some readers, but I would probably unsubscribe.

In busy times, too many posts dramatically increases my unread feed count and if it comes to a point where I feel I have to cull my feeds – the one that posts too often will probably go. Unless I really love a majority of their posts, but if they’re posting on the assumption that not all their posts will get read then it’s not likely I’ll love all of them.

3-5 times a week of well written, useful posts seems a good number to me. Perhaps more if some are quicker posts or updates.

By: Adviser

Adviser — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:42:49 +0000

Yes, and Darren and all people here should take the advice and post less often.
I was about to unsuscribe today because you post too much, and when I saw only 2 articles, it was a joy.

It is better to post less and better.

And by the way, the “win money” blogs are full of scum. If only those who really win money posted, or only post when one actually knows something, all the internet would appreciate.

So again: post less, but better content.

By: balootisme

balootisme — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:37:18 +0000

yes it’s true..

im totally agree with u.

im also fed up with posting frequency everyday like other famous blogger.

because i dont like much of full-inbox…(dont have time to read all blog posting)

p/s: ’success’ is very mean to me…(successful blogger)