My abstract was 299 words long, and with the spacing I had to use that only just fitted in 1 page. 500 words sounds way too much, even if you did it as as single spacing. It's going to feel like a lot for the examiners to read. You probably need to trim much more. What are the most important things you need to say.

Oh and I got my main supervisor another gift later, when something he could really use research-wise - but would never have come across himself - came up for sale. So I snapped it up, and sent it in, along with another card :-)

I waited until after I'd passed and my corrections were signed off. I'm afraid that my gift was just a hard bound copy of my corrected thesis, and a card with a handwritten note of thanks. But they really appreciated it.

I'm on the site too, but just use it as another venue for advertising my research. As a non-affiliated post doc (albeit currently with an honorary research fellowship) I think it's important for me to promote my name as much as possible. So I have profiles on Academia.edu, LinkedIn, Google+ etc. They all ultimately lead to my home page, but the more ways people can find me the better. I'm not following other people's research though, and disabled the auto email updates.

Mine was 70,000 words long, though my department expected 80-100,000 words. There were various reasons why mine came in at that length, but I was assured by staff that it would be fine. Though they advised me to include the substantial databases I built as an electronic appendix, on CD. And I passed my viva in 2010. So the shorter length was fine. I was reassured that it's quality not quantity that counts. And if you do have a non-standard length it's much better for examiners to be too short than way too long.

I had two supervisors: one external who used to be my original supervisor but moved 500 miles away and sort of turned into a second supervisor, and one internal who took over as primary supervisor after the first one left. Both read through my thesis drafts and gave me feedback on them. They took different time scales to do this, but it worked out ok. And they often disagreed with each other in their feedback. But they told me very clearly not to worry about that and that I should make my own mind up.

Or why don't you just tell your supervisor that you're not happy with the proposed research route, and see if you can come up with a better one? This could solve things much more easily if it works, without all the subsequent potential problems.

I'd read that article before. I was surprised that the writer didn't pick up on the lack of talker's block as a way of overcoming writer's block. If I am totally stumped about what to write I will often simply speak my ideas out loud, recording them onto my computer. I find that gets ideas out and flowing, and when I play the recording back I've come up with lots of good stuff, much unexpected. I type those up as I listen, and use those as the basis for further development.

I also find mind mapping hugely helpful. I've recently bought an iPad and bought a good mind mapping app for it. I can start with a blank canvas that way, but put down sub nodes, and sub sub nodes, including typically things I'd never imagined at the start. And soon I have a very detailed plan, which can be turned into proper sentences and paragraphs with little effort.

I wouldn't say your chances are nil, but they won't be as good as starting a PhD for the first time. It also depends upon what your sources of funding were for the first PhD and what they might be for the second PhD. Specifically are we talking research council funding here? If not in either case that might improve your chances.

I started a full-time computer science PhD in 1994, funded by EPSRC. I had to leave that after falling seriously ill - later found out I had a progressive neurological disease. I started a part-time history PhD in 2003. I applied for AHRC funding to run from my second year onwards. On the application form I was asked to declare what prior research council funding I had received, so I had to declare my past PhD and funding situation. I was warned my funding for any new PhD could be reduced accordingly. It wasn't though. I think I was lucky. And I completed that second PhD successfully.

But my situation was a bit unusual. I was switching between totally opposite disciplines, and different funding councils. Also I had medical reasons for having had to leave the first PhD.

You will also have the problem that any potential supervisor might be concerned about your ability to stick things out the second time. What's not to say there won't be more personal problems? And what about another potential bad match, though that's something you really should try to avoid before you start your PhD. You're interviewing your potential supervisor as much as they are interviewing you.

On the plus side though there have been reports on here from other students (usually science - where most funding is) who have left one funded PhD and have secured a second funding PhD, with no penalties. So it can be done. But you're going to have to be honest about what happened the first time, both when you apply for new funding, and when dealing with new potential supervisors.

Good luck!

Keenbean's advice is very good. I would also adds that if you get very very low suddenly and need help urgently please feel free to contact the Samaritans whose contact details you can find in the phone book or online. They are there to help, available at all hours, and will listen to you if that's all you need, or also offer more practical help. Don't be afraid to seek help. There are lots of people who can help you. Don't carry on suffering in silence.

Dunleavy in his "Authoring a PhD" (or some such title) book recommends that chapters around about 10,000 are good to aim for. Much longer and they're unbalanced and too much for examiners too wade through. Much shorter and they are likely to be lacking content.

My thesis was 70,000 words long and in 7 chapters. My chapters averaged at about 10,000 words, but they varied quite widely in lengths. Some were quite a lot shorter, some quite a lot longer. Basically they were as long as they needed to be. But I still found 10,000 a nice length. Just don't try to make every chapter that length!

I was in the humanities (history). My literature review was about 6500 words long. That included a brief description of my methodology, and key questions. It was sort of a combined introduction chapter. My entire finished thesis was about 70,000 words long.

I am not in favour of too-long literature reviews. Much that goes into them is not relevant to the student's specific topic and should have been trimmed. And it's not fair to expect examiners to wade through all the irrelevancies. Try to keep it coherent and focused.

I agree there's nothing to be gained by comparing yourself to others. That is good advice for PhD students in general, who can do themselves no good by comparing themselves to others seemingly doing better, and to people who've submitted and are dealing with corrections, or, like you, a resubmission.

Just get on with what you need to do. You have plenty of time to do it, and plenty of time to do it in. So keep sticking at it. Yes it's a slog. Yes it's a pain. But you need to stick at it to get to the end goal. So persevere. Getting a PhD is a marathon not a sprint. I was a part-time PhD student over 6 years and learned that lesson very clearly. There's no easy quick end to this process.

How are you getting on with the corrections? Do you have any sense of progress yet? Do you have a to-do list that you are ticking things off for example? Or are you still grappling with figuring out the big changes to make before you start getting down to the nitty gritty?