Research: Correlation Between Post Length & Reward
I have done a research on how the article length and word count correlates to the reward it makes. I have analyzed my own posts, since that is the only thing I keep record of, and it would be awful to manually compile other data. Maybe somebody can code a bot for this...
I wrote 158 articles excluding this one, but I didn't count the previous once since it's not curated yet. I have made rewards ranging from 0 to 74.38$, a typical reward for kind of newbies like me, I wasn't amongst the early adopters and I don't write about "pop" stuff, so take that into account. But my research should give an accurate insight into what whales prefer, in my content.
I haven't counted the amount of comments, because I found it problematic, kind of like the chicken & egg problem, you cannot know if whales upvote articles that are commented a lot, or that articles upvoted by whales get the comments. Probably the latter, so I didn't analyze the comments.
I also haven't analyzed the upvotes because it's the same thing, whales bring a lot of upvotes with them, so the correlation is probably strong there, but it doesn't say us anything.
What I did analyze:
| Profit vs. Images | Profit vs. Lines | Profit vs. Words | Profit vs. Characters (ex space) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19.9962% | 24.5165% | 30.6672% | 30.6309% |
As you can see, the correlation is very weak, almost nonexistent, so it doesn't really matter how long an article is, nor how much images it contains. It's totally irrelevant, what probably matters is the quality only.
Therefore I will probably write shorter but more compressed articles in the future because it is a waste of my time to write longer ones when it doesn't get rewarded.
I have 16 articles with reward over 15$, that I would consider acceptable:
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Profit >15$ | 16 |
| Median Image | 5.5 |
| Median Lines | 59 |
| Median Words | 950.5 |
| Median Characters (ex space) | 4384.5 |
These are the median values of the articles with reward over 15$, so it's probably worth sticking to them. If I sort the profit by descending order, it can clearly be seen that the values are random, and the correlation is weak. Even amongst the word/character count.
Conclusion
Since the correlation amongst article length and image count are barely related to the amount of profit it gives. Obviously it's worth sticking to shorter articles since the extra length won't reward you, so why waste your time? I also hardly doubt people read lengthy articles, so why waste your and other people's time? Just write short but good posts!
Upvote, ReSteem & 
Well done. Some great points made
I thank you for your research @profitgenerator, interesting it is...but my own intuitive (if you can call it that) conclusion is that it is purely serendipitous.
I see a post with one captioned image make scads of rewards while well thought out posts make zip... who knows maybe it is karma ripples for that day.
In the end I like posting so what moves me that day goes up, if people like it swell, if not the next day brings another post.
No that is the what I call "pop" posts, things like #art and #life, where people just talk about silly pop things like on Facebook. Yes if you post some great photography or a picture of an attractive lady, people will upvote that.
But I don't really call that quality. I am writing here lengthy articles about finance, money management, and investing, that are actually beneficial for people who read them, but I barely get rewarded.
I must have a very bad karma lol, or just people don't want to make money....
I tend to have a feeling that in Steemit in the fight between Quality vs Quantity, -> Quantity wins.... and that is sad.
I sense that as well... if people come here for fun or entertainment then in depth post will have less success. Concerning Money whoa baby that is a biggy, people are very touchy, scared, comfortable. Same with Health Articles posted, I read a great quote (but I must paraphrase due to old brain cell recall); "People work so hard during their life to make money, only to spend it later on their deteriorated health due to stresses of working so hard".
What I offer is a more efficient way to make money than a 9-5 job. I wrote a guide about automatic money making. I am earning good income from altcoin trading, but setting up a few passive systems is even better, it requires less micromanagement, and money comes through affiliates.
Health articles are risky though ,because people with no medical experience give advices. But money articles are not since the risk is way way less, than to play with your health.
This saved a lot of time, thanks!
Doesn't it all depend on algorithm of the voting bots?:)
Probably not, if the bots would vote based on algo then they would look how long your article is, but that is simply not the case.
My bet is that whales have a list of people who they upvote, and if you are lucky you get a vote, if not then not. If you are on top of their list then you get lucky, but if not then they run out of voting power before they would get to you.
That is why Steemit should have a more equal distribution of SP, because this way it's like playing the lottery.
I know of one whale I think you can bait with a very good, high-contrast B&W photo. I haven't tested this hypothesis yet, though.
Another thing that may be worth analysing: time of posting.
I highly doubt any tricks like that will work.
The time of posting has been analyzed already, search it up, there are researches about that by other users.
But I just think it's all automated, because they probably use Steemvoter.com.
Great post! The data is really interesting, and I think it's pretty sad that very short posts with little quality makes more money than lengthy in-depth posts. I suppose a lot of people browse and upvote Steemit posts looking for a quick laugh or just a cool image, and are not all that interested in in-depth stuff. However, as the site grows, I do believe people who post great content will be able to get lots of followers and eventually make a lot of money.
No that is my conclusion. The research shows that there is no correlation between length and profit, that means that long articles and short articles have the same potential for profit.
So my conclusion was that, then just write shorter ones, since why waste time if the reward is the same.
I read (and write) lengthy articles! I like reading long good posts and small posts as soon as the news inside is interesting.
Now a question concerning the write-up of a long post. It is clear that the reward normalized to a word is small. But who cares? Are we blogging only for the rewards (and then we may care) or for sharing something with the Steemit community (and then the reward is not the incentive, but is actually the little 'plus')?
That is good, but most of the users here don't do that, and that is sad.
I am blogging mostly for hobby, I like this platform a lot, it gives me room to express myself. But it would also be good if the value of the posts would reflect more the value of it.
We are giving out here a lot of useful info, but with little reward, I just feel we can do better than that.
For example if some academics or professors would come here to write lectures about their fields, they would not do it for free, since they need a paycheck. But if they would get rewarded for it properly, then the entire government run education system could dissapear overnight. Steemit could do that.
What a huge tax relief would that be....
I do it for free. I I know another researcher doing it for free as well. Just for the fun of doing it and sharing, exchanging, etc.
That is good, but they should do it for profit. In my opinion researchers should crowdfund their research, instead of relying on govt grants, to be more independent, and can research more "taboo" subjects that don't get politicized.
And for that cryptocurrencies are the best place to start. For example Folding Coin that helps protein researchers.
My research is not the type of research currently favored by governments. It is just very hard to get any money at all. Without the little peanuts given by governments, I would just get nothing.
I wrote about it 3 months ago. If you are interested, you can maybe give it a look.
I would be in favor of your proposal, but for some field where there is no clear direct application, this would mean their death. And this is not good. It is not because something looks boring for the general audience that it is meaningless.
Everything is possible. Perhaps reserachers should team up with marketing experts to market their ideas better. It is nothing that cannot be achieved voluntarly with some good organization.
The marketing experts know how to market any research no matter how boring it is. You know quantum mechanics is very boring with a lot of math behind it, but look how the documentaries look like , very exciting with many animations, and visual aspects.
So even something as boring as psychology can be marketed very well, and the funds will come pretty quickly.
This is how a voluntary society can be achieved without governmentis, if management is done properly, and people from various fiends are hired and cooperate in a project to make it successful.