Webfeed Content: Synopsis Only, or Full-Text?

In the online world, people seem to have very strong opinions concerning which type of webfeed content is better: webfeeds that offer only headlines and a synopsis (or the first few sentences of the entry), or webfeeds that contain the full text of each entry.

Which type of feed content should you offer with your site or weblog? Here’s my opinion: If possible, offer BOTH types. Let individuals select the webfeed option they prefer.

(NOTE: Yes, I realize that currently this weblog only offers a synopsis webfeed. That will change shortly. When I switch to new blogging software, I will offer both types of feed.)

Aside from your audience’s personal preferences, there are some other reasons why offering both types of webfeed content is a good idea. Each has its own uses and advantages…

FULL-TEXT WEBFEEDS: PROS & CONS

By supplying your complete content (full text, images, etc.) via webfeed, you offer readers the convenience of avoiding extra clicks in order to access your content. They don’t have to sort through “teasers” – everything is right there for them in their feed reader.

This may not seem like a big deal, but it can be – especially for people who access the Internet using slow dialup connections. According to a recent report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 55% of US adult Internet users have broadband access at home or work – which means 45% of adult US Net users have only slow dialup access. And that’s just in the US – in much of the rest of the world, dialup access is the norm. Indeed, often it’s the only access offered.

To conserve time and bandwidth, dialup Net users often prefer to log on, grab your content, log off, and read it offline. This is especially true in countries where you typically are charged by the minute for both local and long-distance calls.

However, some broadband users have voiced a strong preference for full-text webfeeds. Recently, the famed blogger Robert Scoble wrote:

“…you should ALWAYS include full text in the feed. Why? Because you’ll get far less traffic if bloggers don’t read you and don’t link to you. We can send a ton of Google traffic your way (three links from “A list” bloggers will guarantee you first page appearances).”

“…if you don’t give me full text I’m not gonna visit your Web page. AND, I’m not going to link to you.”

While Scoble’s view may sound a bit petulant, it’s important to realize that many bloggers feel that way. These people generally plow through such huge volumes of content on a daily basis that the “convenience” of a full-text feed becomes, for them, an absolute necessity.

On the down side, the syndication aspect of webfeeds presents a potential disadvantage when it comes to providing full-text content via webfeed.

Here’s what I mean. The first and most popular type of webfeed is called RSS – for “Really Simple Syndication.” The first vision for this new medium was NOT primarily to provide individual Net users with a more convenient way to gather and access fresh online content for their personal reading pleasure. Rather, it was to provide a way for online publishers to syndicate their content so it could appear on other Web sites (or get free content from webfeeds to present on their own sites).

Content syndication via webfeed is great. However, some online publishers may prefer to not make their complete content available for presentation on other sites. There are lots reasons for this, mainly involving business models, incoming link patterns, and control of intellectual property.

You’re free to stipulate in your webfeed’s copyright notice whatever terms you like regarding syndication permission. Simply because you distribute content by webfeed does NOT mean you’re automatically giving up control over where and how that content gets presented.

However, the reality of the situation is that unfortunately many people believe that if content is offered by webfeed, then it’s OK to republish it freely. Therefore, if you offer your full content by webfeed, you probably should expect that, regardless of the permissions you grant, some people are going to republish your complete content elsewhere in a manner that may or may not please you or complement your own intentions or business model. This can be a hassle to deal with.

SYNOPSIS WEBFEEDS: PROS AND CONS

A webfeed that contains only a headline and synopsis for each item appeals to people who prefer to quickly scan new content on offer. For instance, that’s one of the main reasons why I personally enjoy webfeeds – they save me time by making scanning vast amounts of content easy for me. I think of this as the “Headline News” approach to Web surfing.

Again, this aspect of webfeeds tends to appeal to dialup users primarily because it saves bandwidth and time. However, broadband users are just as likely to want to scan the offerings of many sites all at once.

The syndication aspect of webfeeds brings out one of the key advantage of synopsis-content webfeeds. There are many “aggregator” sites and weblogs that republish the content of other sites’ feeds. These aggregators tend to present synopsis content rather than full text, since they typically present the content of several webfeeds on a single page.

One example of this is Travis Christopher’s Clin Ed Blog (“E-learning from the trenches”), which republishes selected content from several other e-learning-oriented webfeeds. This kind of aggregation blog is unlikely to republish the full text of an article – but a synopsis works great.

Such aggregator sites exist in almost every profession or area of topical interest. Most online publishers would probably want their content listed in such aggregators. Synopsis webfeeds make that kind of publicity much more likely.

…What’s your preference for the format of webfeed content? Do you have other pros and cons to add to this list? E-mail me! I plan to update and expand this article.