FS's vs. Wikipedia
 

I've noticed when I search for things on Google Wikipedia has the #1 position for quite a lot of things I'm searching for. Reason I'm sure is the page is loaded with relevant, text rich content. Our free sites might be at or near the top results if we could put that much content in them but I feel surfers would get bored with too much text to sift through. Has anyone made free sites with lots of text? If so, did LL's list your sites? How are/were conversions? For some reason I feel a need to keep sentences as short as possible without losing their meaning. Try to grab the surfer's attention with the fewest words possible. Maybe it's time to try making free sites that look like a newspaper....|huh Your thoughts?

In my opinion Wikipedia is not on top of the SERPs for many searches because of its relevant text but because it's a so called "authority site" and millions of sites link to it.
Why do thumb tgps rank high otherwise? Lots of incoming links...

Another example Amazon ranks high (#1) for certain product names too but they don't have much text neither.

Licker, I have made some freesites with much more text than average freesites and had 0 declines for too much text. I wouldn't think any LL owners would decline for that, but you never know... :)

Give it a try, that's the only way you will truly know how it works for you.

I've had the same experience as Mr. Wood, I've made more then a few freesites with 300+ words on every page and never had problems with LL because of it. Although MML did describe it as annoying a couple times. |loony|

In fact, for a while it was standard practice for me to write 200+ words of unique text on every page of every freesite, including mirrors! But it took so long to make a single freesite the overall return was effected by a lack of raw numbers.

IMO, a few lines of unique text on each page is all that's needed. And, it's an easier habit to maintain.

That freaked me out. My last name is Wood and I was wondering how the hell you knew that |huh until I realized you were talking about LowrybigWOOD.

The universe speaks to hippies in weird ways... WoOoOoOo. |loony|

Ever heard about whois information, George? :D

Of course, but that didn't register in my brain for at least .5 seconds which gave me time to be shocked. And who would check whois in a post like this? And any time I hear "George" I think telemarketer or bill collector because they're the only people that use my legal name. Anyone that knows me knows my "real" name. :D

I agree with Jeka, it's not the rich text that brings up wikipedia sites in SERP's. It's the fact that people link to them all over the place, when they want to clarify/explain a term they're using. People prefer to link to a wikipedia page rather than to someone else's site. Result: lots and lots of organically built inbound one-way links from genuine on-topic pages... Best way to get to the top of the SERP's in Google, even if you have an empty page.

As for the content, man that would be a ton of text. As far a text vs. links... do you think blogs would rank higher than free sites if they had the same amount of incoming links?