I’ve been mentoring a lensmaster recently. I felt one of her lenses could perhaps be broken up. She wanted to know the advantages. I could not give a good answer. I thought about it and here are a few reasons lenses could be shorter (if they’re long enough obviously).
- Breaking up lenses into more focused smaller lenses means that they are more likely to rank for more specialized searches in the search engines. Specialized searches are more likely to lead to visitors actually buying something.
- Smaller lenses are easier for visitors to understand. Respect your visitors.
- Having a lot of lenses on similar topics means all of them have a higher chance of being found in the search engines, if you link them up properly (linking them to each other).
I guess that’s pretty much it.
Just don’t take this to mean you should make a lot of lenses with just one module in them
More on making lenses rank in the search engines.
{ 5 comments }
If a lens is really going to be too long, I definitely agree about breaking it up. Make separate lenses for the parts, then use the original as an Index or Lensography for the group.
It’s a very good idea, and allows you to expand more easily on the topic.
Really long lenses (some of my own included) tend to lose focus as they go on. It’s an easy trap…you get on a roll and throw everything but the kitchen sink in. That results in confusing the reader.
Almost every new lens I broke out from one that got too long has had good results.
I haven’t been around here long enough to have a lens get too long – other than my lensography which I changed because it had too much off-topic information about my life in general. But I agree that shorter lenses are more fun to visit and learn from. The longer ones rarely get read all the way through.
Actually – even lensographies should often be split up, in my opinion.
A lensography about a specific topic is much more likely to be interesting to specific readers than a general one. My 70 lenses would be very hard to wade through if they were all in one lensography. Instead I have 5
or is it 7???
Comments on this entry are closed.