I find your comment really interesting because I see things the opposite: the shorter the paper the better, in my view. This is grounded on the general principle that in 99% of cases, any particular paper will only have one really important key new insight (if even that much). I suppose I'm biased because I primarily read theory papers, maybe it's a different story when it comes to experimental stuff.
Exactly; I come from robotics which is highly experimental and it is very easy to design a robotics experiment where there will be no way to fit a description of the experiments plus the theory in three pages.
