Fandango got the idea for today’s question from Melanie, who was talking about the issue of long vs. short posts. She said that another blogger felt that "anything over 350-500 words is just ‘too long.’" I left her a comment, which said in part…
I never have a pro[b]lem with the length of a blog post, though there are times I might stick it in the “read later” pile, and may not get to it for a day or two if I see it’s going to take some time to plow through or if the post has a lot of charts and figures in it.
When you start following a blog, you have a general idea of the topics the blogger writes about and how long the average article is. I’ve followed some bloggers that post dozens of short articles every day, and some who only post once or twice a week, but whose articles make Melanie’s (who says she’s a "long post" writer) seem positively terse. Every blog and every blogger is different. You read their stuff because you like how they write and what they write about. The length of the articles really doesn’t matter.
At the same time, there are bloggers who have a tendency to ramble, often saying the same thing (in a different manner) over and over, and after a while the reader starts thinking "come on, get to the $%^&*! point, willya?" It’s incumbent on bloggers to proofread and eliminate redundacies and to generally tighten up their prose.
So, that’s my two cents.