"readable" = ?

[Toz]

I've been seeing this verbiage for years now, but the concept of it always just seems a bit strange.
What does it mean when someone says the content is "readable"?

Does it simply mean you can make out the words, but it doesn't have to make any sense?
Or is it that it does make sense but the spelling is horrible?

I see the word "readable" being thrown around quite a bit, and I never bothered to make sense of what it actually means.
Anyone?

 

[reuse]

Depends on the context. In general, it means legible.

If related to design, it could mean large enough font and enough contrast with background, along with other factors.
If related to writing/reading, it could mean words simple enough to easily read through.

Here are two examples of the second context, both excerpts of content written by famous writers:

By Hemingway:

Manuel drank his brandy. He felt sleepy himself. It was too hot to go out into the town. Besides there was nothing to do. He wanted to see Zurito. He would go to sleep while he waited.

By William Faulkner:

He did not feel weak, he was merely luxuriating in that supremely gutful lassitude of convalescence in which time, hurry, doing, did not exist, the accumulating seconds and minutes and hours to which it its well state the body is slave both waking and sleeping, now reversed and time now the lip-server and mendicant to the body's pleasure instead of the body thrall to time's headlong course.

The former is more readable.

 

[Toz]

Depends on the context. In general, it means legible.

If related to design, it could mean large enough font and enough contrast with background, along with other factors.
If related to writing/reading, it could mean words simple enough to easily read through.

Here are two examples of the second context, both excerpts of content written by famous writers:

By Hemingway:



By William Faulkner:



The former is more readable.

In this regard, are we saying that "readable" is synonymous with "simplistic" or even "elementary"?
Or, is it something more?

I saw an SEO service with its content promoted as "readable".
A quick look at a few sample posts revealed a very poorly spun piece of gibberish that looked like robot vomit.
I feel like we need a more clear definition for what the hell this term actually means.

 

[noellarkin]

Depends on the context. In general, it means legible.

If related to design, it could mean large enough font and enough contrast with background, along with other factors.
If related to writing/reading, it could mean words simple enough to easily read through.

Here are two examples of the second context, both excerpts of content written by famous writers:

By Hemingway:



By William Faulkner:



The former is more readable.

Hemingway would have made a piss poor SEO content writer. His articles would be too short, very to-the-point, with no keyword related fluff. He'd have a tough time getting a good sales thread on BHW.

 

[reuse]

In this regard, are we saying that "readable" is synonymous with "simplistic" or even "elementary"?
Or, is it something more?

I saw an SEO service with its content promoted as "readable".
A quick look at a few sample posts revealed a very poorly spun piece of gibberish that looked like robot vomit.
I feel like we need a more clear definition for what the hell this term actually means.

In that context, it means "something you can read easily, because it is interesting to read".

Regarding the SEO service: Sadly, that happens more often than not. Someone may claim to offer "the best SEO service" and it may turn out to be the worst, but that is not because the definition of "best" is something else. It is plain and pure "deception in marketing claims".

Should call them out on that.

Hemingway would have made a **** poor SEO content writer. His articles would be too short, very to-the-point, with no keyword related fluff. He'd have a tough time getting a good sales thread on BHW.

He he

Fun fact: There is even an app available to write like Hemingway: https://hemingwayapp.com/

 

[Toz]

In that context, it means "something you can read easily, because it is interesting to read".

I respectfully disagree. If someone handed me that as content that I paid for, I'd demand either a revision or my money back.
That was pure eye torture to slog through. Definitely did not hold my interest.

 

[Roger Marquez]

What does it mean when someone says the content is "readable"?

Your confusion comes from the word itself..."readable".

A more appropriate word to describe what it means would be "understandable" or "digestible".

Because, in the end, that´s what "readable" really means. It´s just a measure of how easy it is for the non-educated person to fully grasp and understand what the blog article it´s about.

The Flesch–Kincaid readability formula it´s the most common use method to measure the level of readability of a text.

Unless you´re developing content for a very tech-savvy audience for like a medical journal or something, you should aim to publish content that can be easily understandable by the masses. Otherwise, why publish it at all?

Why does readability matter?

Did you know that the average American adult can only read at a 7th to 9th grade level?

If your text is too complicated and hard to understand, people will leave your page and return to the search results.

On the other hand, if your test scores a very low grade level, users will likely assume that your content isn’t valuable.

Both of these things can prevent site visitors from interacting with your content and contribute to a high bounce rate.

In order to maximize your readership, it’s important for the content on your website to reflect the readability expectations of your audience.

This is how the Flesch-Kinkaid score is calculated...​

​

These are some great resources about the topic...

https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/flesch-kincaid.htmlhttps://netpeaksoftware.com/blog/why-is-the-flesch-readability-score-important-for-seo-strategyhttps://www.portent.com/blog/content/study-how-content-readability-affects-seo-and-rankings.htmhttps://www.thirdwunder.com/how-readability-affects-your-content/https://screpy.com/readability-and-seo/
I hope this helps...Cheers!!

​

 

[Toz]

Your confusion comes from the word itself..."readable".

A more appropriate word to describe what it means would be "understandable" or "digestible".

Because, in the end, that´s what "readable" really means. It´s just a measure of how easy it is for the non-educated person to fully grasp and understand what the blog article it´s about.

The Flesch–Kincaid readability formula it´s the most common use method to measure the level of readability of a text.

Unless you´re developing content for a very tech-savvy audience for like a medical journal or something, you should aim to publish content that can be easily understandable by the masses. Otherwise, why publish it at all?

Why does readability matter?

Did you know that the average American adult can only read at a 7th to 9th grade level?

If your text is too complicated and hard to understand, people will leave your page and return to the search results.

On the other hand, if your test scores a very low grade level, users will likely assume that your content isn’t valuable.

Both of these things can prevent site visitors from interacting with your content and contribute to a high bounce rate.

In order to maximize your readership, it’s important for the content on your website to reflect the readability expectations of your audience.

This is how the Flesch-Kinkaid score is calculated...​

​

These are some great resources about the topic...

https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/flesch-kincaid.htmlhttps://netpeaksoftware.com/blog/why-is-the-flesch-readability-score-important-for-seo-strategyhttps://www.portent.com/blog/content/study-how-content-readability-affects-seo-and-rankings.htmhttps://www.thirdwunder.com/how-readability-affects-your-content/https://screpy.com/readability-and-seo/
I hope this helps...Cheers!!

​

I like your take on it, but "readability" and "readable" seem to be two completely different things.
Someone handing you spun garbage while dubbing, "readable", is often quite the opposite of what you've just laid out, in that it's so nonsensical that it becomes impossible to follow - and therein lies the conundrum. I'm familiar with the readability formula, but this is something entirely different. I get what you're saying, but within this context, the two have nothing to do with one another.

Surely I'm not the only one who has seen this. This isn't a shitlist and I don't want to name names here, but it's so common a bad practice that I'd be willing to bet money that I'm not the only one who has seen it.

 

[GenesisOne]

Readable is the difference about building spamblogs.
You may be ranking for a bunch of keywords from "unreadeable" content - that's why you should cloak and redirect the trafficto a readable landing page.
You may still want to build those in a readable fashion though.

 

[reuse]

Flesch–Kincaid

I wrote about Flesch–Kincaid back in 2019. Reposting.

I don't fret too much about Flesch–Kincaid readability score. It seems to be overly obsessed about syllables. Shopify's successful landing page has an average F-K readability score, for instance.
At the same time, content should not be too difficult to read. So, it is a guideline rather than a metric.

Anyone producing content should know proper use of transition words (use when necesary) and passive voice (minimize).

However, measuring all the above and more shoehorns you into a narrow space where being creative becomes difficult.

So, I don't use them as metrics for assessing performance. I just make sure no content which is too difficult to read gets out of the gates. Same for most of the other metrics you mentioned.

"I don't fret too much about Flesch–Kincaid readability score. It seems to be overly obsessed about syllables. Shopify's successful landing page has an average F-K readability score, for instance.
At the same time, content should not be too difficult to read. So, it is a guideline rather than a metric.

Anyone producing content should know proper use of transition words (use when necesary) and passive voice (minimize).

However, measuring all the above and more shoehorns you into a narrow space where being creative becomes difficult.

So, I don't use them as metrics for assessing performance. I just make sure no content which is too difficult to read gets out of the gates. Same for most of the other metrics [...]"