Comments on: Full-Text Feeds: A Choice, Not a Requirement

By: fire

fire — Tue, 02 May 2006 11:49:40 +0000

At least chemistry’s better, My time is limited, I track about 900 feeds, and I just canâ??t invest the time it takes to visit individual sites â?? thatâ??s why Iâ??m using a reader in the first place. It is, indeed, a matter of personal perference, and if those sending partial feeds donâ??t mind that some percentage of their readers simply wonâ??t bother to read the whole post, more power to â??em.

By: DENIEL

DENIEL — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:46:45 +0000

Thatâ??s a good point, Mark. I know some people prefer full-text feeds.

By: Lumpy

Lumpy — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 06:55:28 +0000

As usual, good points and I agree. There are many reasons to choose one or the other and, with the technology availabe, it is not that difficult to offer both to the subscriber, which reminds me that I should do just that.

If the web is about connectiviey shouldn’t we all strive to make the end user as comfotable as possible by giving them the most comfortable option available? I do read blogs on my PDA. I do like the abreviated versions on that device. On my PC, however, I like the full feeds.

Granted, many of us bloggers, myself included, would like to generate revenue via ads but RSS (Feed) ads are now here and an option. I feel, MHO, that giving more options to the reader is the best route for conversation, readership and connectivety.

Keep writing… I shall keep reading.

By: Shel Holtz

Shel Holtz — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:52:01 +0000

I come down on the full-text side of the argument. For me, the whole point of the “aggregator” is to get web content coming to me. If I have to go out to the site to get it, it kinda defeats the purpose of the feed in the first place. Nine times out of ten, if a feed is partial, I DON’T go to the site; I skip the rest of the article. My time is limited, I track about 900 feeds, and I just can’t invest the time it takes to visit individual sites — that’s why I’m using a reader in the first place. It is, indeed, a matter of personal perference, and if those sending partial feeds don’t mind that some percentage of their readers simply won’t bother to read the whole post, more power to ‘em. By the way, I DID read this entire post from Contentious — but none of the others.

By: Easton Ellsworth

Easton Ellsworth — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 04:13:26 +0000

Amy, thanks for giving me more reasons to stick with partial feeds. I’ve got the partial (angel?) on one shoulder and the full (diablo?) on the other, and your comments have made the choice easier for me.

Question: Do you think a blog network should keep all of its feeds uniform, or might it be wise (and would it be possible?) to offer partial feeds on some network sites and full feeds on others, depending on the nature of each site? (There’s this blog network I happen to know … )

By: Dave Taylor

Dave Taylor — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:23:31 +0000

This whole debate is a bit daft because it’s really just pointing out the shortcomings of the RSS aggregator / reader tools we’re using. Look at how Apple’s Safari browser shows RSS feeds and you’ll see what I mean: you can determine how much of the feed you want to see. I prefer summary feeds or partial feeds, personally, because I don’t use a tool that lets me shrink down the ridiculously long full feed articles (publications like InfoWorld are particularly annoying because their 4-5 screen columns are reproduced in their entirety on the RSS feed, but I really only want to see the first paragraph of ‘em).

I predict that this entire debate will vanish as we gain better tools, personally.

By: Doyle Albee

Doyle Albee — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:45:24 +0000

It’s about conversation. If I subscribe to a blog and want full feeds, I can ask. It starts a dialog. It helps us all deliver what our audience wants. While I enjoy Scoble’s work and thoughts, I can’t agree with a blanket definition of right vs. wrong. Let things evolve and understand that “one size fits all” is perhaps the biggest problem with “traditional” media outlets.

By: Axinar

Axinar — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:22:45 +0000

Perhaps one day more than, oh, six people will actually READ my blog and then there will be room for debate as to whether to turn off the full feed [[Grin]].

By: Douglas Cootey

Douglas Cootey — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:27:28 +0000

Very good points, Amy. I have decided to test Scoble’s assertion and see what change happens in my stats. I changed my feed to full text today. I have my doubts, however, that I’ll see an upswing in links and an increase in revenue, but I’m game enough to try it out for a few weeks. I think Scoble, as an A-lister, simply works in a different world than I do. He also posts much terser blogs than I do. My blogging style is more similar to yours in that regard. At any rate, we will see if he’s just blowing smoke again.

By: Amy Gahran

Amy Gahran — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:56:07 +0000

DJ, I see what you’re saying, but it’s time for a reality-check.

Just about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard is the suggestion that my main motivation for Contentious is the Adsense revenue.

Yeah, right. That covers only the bare hosting cost for the site. I wouldn’t consider it “profit” by any means.

I offer this blog in order to first connect with people to share information and insights, from which all sides realize many benefits. I also have used this site to promote my professional services (although The Right Conversation is taking over that role as I shift my career to focus on conversational media).

Finally, I have always had links that appear on my home page (that is, in the summary/intro portion of any post) open in a new window because I usually include these to show something I’m about to discuss further. So yes, I want people to see what I’m talking about and be able to keep reading.

Nothing nefarious or underhanded here. Not my style.

- Amy Gahran