I remember discussing docs length with some seasoned technical writers (TW) when I was a junior TW. I believe I was expressing doubt in the idea that we should

I remember discussing docs length with some seasoned technical writers (TW) when I was a junior TW. I believe I was expressing doubt in the idea that we should always aim for short docs. They of course had a wise and pithy summary of the correct (IMO) course of action: make docs as short as possible, and no less. Sometimes you have a meaty topic that takes many words to cover comprehensively and accurately. Don't beat yourself up over it. Providing full and complete information is usually more important than some arbitrary limit on length. With that said, it's also a fundamental truth that there almost always ways to make your docs more concise without a loss in information. And in general this is worth doing because it really does improve the odds that people will read the docs. The article's prescription to use short, self-contained pages that link extensively to each other is right out of the playbook of my favorite TW book ever: Every Page Is Page One (don't judge this book by its cover, literally) I would have liked to see the article focus on more of the SEO and LLM arguments for short docs, which I think are compelling. Short docs basically give you that Stack-Overflow-style SEO boost, because the main content is tightly relevant to the page title. Small docs are easier to embed, and probably easier to do automated updates on with text generation models.