Consensus on what constitutes thin content?

Forum Moderators: not2easy

Message Too Old, No Replies

Consensus on what constitutes thin content?

kenroar

3:56 pm on May 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

We've been hearing a lot about thin content as a major indicator of Google's algorithms. I am going through all my pages to examine them for what might be considered thin content. I was wondering if there is a consensus on the issue. For example, does a page filled primarily with images and not much text qualify as thin content?

For example: pages with mostly images:

Some lessons are shorter. Do you think this is thin content? If so, would combining lessons be the answer?

In short, exactly how much text has to be on a page to not be considered thin content (Assuming that the text is relevant of course) Has anyone at Google addressed it specifically?

[edited by: not2easy at 2:25 pm (utc) on May 20, 2014]
[edit reason] to conform with TOS [/edit]

not2easy

2:56 pm on May 20, 2014 (gmt 0)

There are some Free Tools available here: [freetools.webmasterworld.com...] and one of them offers word count, another offers a keyword density count, just for some basic numbers you could compare with a competing site for example.

The Thin Content issue generally is a text to ads or links ratio, so there is no magic number to go by. It is a good practice to have your content visible above the fold and to have enough text that your page is not out of balance in its ratio.

kenroar

8:21 pm on May 20, 2014 (gmt 0)

Thanks not2easy!

tangor

10:08 pm on May 27, 2014 (gmt 0)

Sites that are primarily screenshots for how to do "something" are a dime a dozen. Thin content also means it is not unique, special, or engaging for the user. Image sites sans context and textual content will usually rank lower than those that provide more helpful information.*

As humans we can determine this subconsciously just by viewing it. Google (and other SEs) have to do it with algorithms, and in that many mistakes are possible as they don't read IMAGES well. Words on the web, however, speak louder than pictures. Just something to consider.

*Assumption made from the image/lessons paradigm presented.