<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Does Feedburner&#8217;s &#8220;Reach&#8221; Really Mean?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.contentious.com/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/</link>
	<description>Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:38:23 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adrimar</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/comment-page-1/#comment-1230057</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrimar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:27:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/archives/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/#comment-1230057</guid>
		<description>I was in doubt about this &quot;reach&quot; in feedburner. I prefer using the google analytics too, but I think that feedburner completes the analytics, supplying more informations about the readers.

Congratulations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was in doubt about this &#8220;reach&#8221; in feedburner. I prefer using the google analytics too, but I think that feedburner completes the analytics, supplying more informations about the readers.</p>
<p>Congratulations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/comment-page-1/#comment-1229941</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/archives/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/#comment-1229941</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this - I only recently noticed the &quot;reach&quot; metrics as we rarely check our feedburner stats - we&#039;ve got stats on site usage in any case, and feedburner was (originally) only intended to reduce server load rather than for any bells and whistles.

What you say about full text feeds is interesting, however, we have moved away from full text feeds because these are always used by content scrapers whenever we have offered them. At least with a summary, people will have to access our website to read the information (rather than a third party website). Naturally, this depends upon your business model, but if you rely on users actually accessing your website at some stage, then its likely that summary feeds are the best compromise. In my opinion.

In any case, this statistic does interest me and the main issue is having constantly updating feed as far as I can tell - the sites which have more regular content have more &#039;reach&#039;. However, unless you have a team of writers, it is likely this won&#039;t be practicable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this &#8211; I only recently noticed the &#8220;reach&#8221; metrics as we rarely check our feedburner stats &#8211; we&#8217;ve got stats on site usage in any case, and feedburner was (originally) only intended to reduce server load rather than for any bells and whistles.</p>
<p>What you say about full text feeds is interesting, however, we have moved away from full text feeds because these are always used by content scrapers whenever we have offered them. At least with a summary, people will have to access our website to read the information (rather than a third party website). Naturally, this depends upon your business model, but if you rely on users actually accessing your website at some stage, then its likely that summary feeds are the best compromise. In my opinion.</p>
<p>In any case, this statistic does interest me and the main issue is having constantly updating feed as far as I can tell &#8211; the sites which have more regular content have more &#8216;reach&#8217;. However, unless you have a team of writers, it is likely this won&#8217;t be practicable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Sheaffer</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/comment-page-1/#comment-1229907</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Sheaffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:46:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/archives/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/#comment-1229907</guid>
		<description>&quot;Reach&quot; has always been a mystery to me as my blog readership increases.  The more I read from Feedburner&#039;s &quot;help&quot; information the more confused I get because of its ambiguity.  I&#039;m not sure Google knows how they&#039;re measuring reach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Reach&#8221; has always been a mystery to me as my blog readership increases.  The more I read from Feedburner&#8217;s &#8220;help&#8221; information the more confused I get because of its ambiguity.  I&#8217;m not sure Google knows how they&#8217;re measuring reach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/comment-page-1/#comment-1227423</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/archives/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/#comment-1227423</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m still confused what reach means. What does it mean when your reach is double your feed count?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m still confused what reach means. What does it mean when your reach is double your feed count?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Delaney</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/comment-page-1/#comment-1204842</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Delaney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/archives/2007/08/16/what-feedburners-reach-really-means/#comment-1204842</guid>
		<description>So you could artificially increase your reach by offering partial feeds? Sounds like the old publisher&#039;s trick of increasing page views by splitting an article over several pages.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So you could artificially increase your reach by offering partial feeds? Sounds like the old publisher&#8217;s trick of increasing page views by splitting an article over several pages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
