Hey Joshua,I don't think there is a conflict. As interesting as Bill's data is, I think the "which is better?" argument is essentially flawed. What works for one site (or control group, in this case) may not necessarily work for another. Rather than trying to determine which content format is "best," a better approach is to give each piece of content the room it , I think worrying about word count/post length before an article is even finished is a mistake. I usually have a pretty accurate idea of how long a post will be before I even sit down to put pen to paper as it were, but I never force a post to be longer or shorter than it deserves. Let the topic dictate the length, not an arbitrary formula. Of course, it's vital to remain focused in your writing, and not drone on for the sake of it, but that's a different discussion for reading and taking the time to comment.
Almost any kind of artifact can last 10 millennia if stored and cared for properly. We have examples of 5,000-year-old wood staffs, papyrus, or leather sandals. On the other hand, even metal can corrode in a few years of rain. For longevity a 10K year environment is more important than the artifact’s material. The mountain top in Texas (and Nevada) is a high dry desert, and below, in the interior tunnel, the temperature is very even over seasons and by the day (55 degrees F) – another huge plus for longevity since freeze-thaw cycles are as corrosive as water. Dry, dark and stable temperatures are what archivists love. It’s an ideal world for a ceaseless Clock.