There?s tons of studies that show a correlation between content length and rankings. However, its never shown if there is a causation between content length and rankings. Also, there?s no clear indicator of how much content you would need to rank #1. Should you have more content than everyone else? 75%? Or does it even matter? This case study is to test: 1.) how important content length is to rankings and 2.) how much content is required to rank. This study is done by tracking the rankings of a new Wikipedia page for its keyword (ie if the keyword was ?widget? the page would be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget). The widget is a new health/weight loss product where one can get a custom label and sell on Amazon. Here?s the word counts for the top 10: * Min - 0 (as reported by TermExplorer) * Max - 5000 * Average - 2100 * Standard Deviation - 1500 Here are other stats: Search volume: 4,400/month Difficulty: 4.93 according to TermExplorer Here?s the activity log so far: * October 2014 - wrote a 300 word Wikipedia page (similar to the thin 250 word articles a lot of people used to use for PBNs). Added about 12 interlinks from other entries. * November-January - Rankings are ~25. * February-March - Rankings are stable at 20. * April - Rankings go up for a bit and back down. * Late April - double the word count to 600 words (about the length of most SEO?s blog posts). Rankings go up by 2, now at 17. Update schedule: 18 May - increase content length to 1,000 words 1 June - increase content length to 2,100 words (50th percentile) 15 June - increase content length to 3,600 words (75th percentile) Current findings: Google doesn?t rank Wikipedia pages instantly, surprising as its DA100 and the on-page SEO is spectacular. Google doesn?t pull the Wikipedia data into the SERP instantly. It?ll be interesting to see at what point would Google pull Wikipedia data into the knowledgraph.