contentious.com

Lately there’s been a fair amount of discussion in the blogosphere on this perennial issue: Is it better for online publishers to offer their complete content (full text) via feed, or just headlines and summaries.

Personally, I strongly prefer summary feeds – but that’s just me.

In my humble opinion, this dispute largely boils down to a matter of taste from the audience’s perspective. That is, whether it’s better for you to subscribe to full-text or summary feeds in your feed reader is entirely up to you! Choose whichever suits your feed-reading habits, tools, and tastes – and don’t let anyone bully you. If you’re not sure which you prefer (if either), then experiment. You’re not required to make an across-the-board commitment.

That said… From the feed publisher’s perspective, I think it’s best to offer both full-text and summary versions of your feed. However, if you must choose only one content format for your feed, I suggest that for now, it’s more important to offer a summary feed.

Here’s why I say that, plus a conversation which demonstrates why some folks disagree with my advice…

(Background: What’s a feed?)

PURPOSE: FEEDS AID SPEED-READING

Why do feeds exist at all? Despite the misleading “Really Simple Syndication” name, true syndication – republishing one person’s content on another’s site – appears to comprise only a small fraction of how and why people use feeds (either RSS or Atom-format).

Actually, people far more commonly use feeds to quickly discover what’s new online – either from specific sites (which you subscribe to directly in your feed reader program or service) or on specific topics (via keyword searches of tools such as Technorati or BlogPulse).

So the bottom line is that feeds and feed readers are supposed to be time savers. They allow people to skim in one place selection of the latest online content. This makes it more efficient to choose which content you wish to read. Feeds and feed readers eliminate the need to visit a site or read an e-mail newsletter just to learn what’s new online.

HERE’S WHERE IT COMES DOWN TO TASTE

So the question then becomes: Which type of feed content makes feed reading more efficient and enjoyable? This, I contend, is almost entirely a matter of taste.

• Fans of full-text feeds (some of whom seem inexplicably fanatical on this point) claim it’s more efficient to read complete articles or other text content directly in their feed reader. They don’t like starting to read something in one channel and then having to switch to another (their web browser) to finish.
• Fans of summary feeds claim that the presence of full text items in a feed reader slow down the skimming process, making it harder for them to see all of what’s new from their chosen online venues and decide which new pieces they wish to read.

Who’s right? They both are! This matter hinges on which feed reader you prefer, how it displays content, and simply what you like.

WHAT ABOUT INCREASED USE OF MOBILE DEVICES?

It’s true that more and more people around the world are using handheld mobile devices (cell phones, PDAs, pagers) to access online content. As the bandwidth, storage, display, and interface capabilities of these devices continually improve, and as costs drop, it’s likely that more people will subscribe to and read feeds on handheld devices. This is undoubtedly the rationale behind Feedburner’s new SmartFeed Mobile Server offering.

For people who rely heavily on handheld devices for online access, and who prefer sites that generally offer briefer content items, full-text feeds will probably make the most sense.

But then again, maybe not! The daily content of, say 50 full-text feeds would probably impose significantly greater bandwidth demands on a handheld device than summary feeds from those same venues. Also, if the usability and display of handheld web browsing improve sharply, it might not be burdensome to switch to a device’s web browser to access and read a full-text item.

So even considering the impact and popularity of handheld connectivity, the feed-format debate is likely to remain a matter of taste.

PUBLISHERS: WHY I RECOMMEND SUMMARY FEEDS, IF YOU MUST CHOOSE

If you absolutely must choose only one feed format to offer (or to debut only one first) I think offering a summary feed should take top priority.

This is because summary feeds serve the needs of both types of feed audiences. Obviously, summary feeds satisfy people who prefer summary feeds. They may be a bit less directly satisfying to full-text feed fans, but those people still can access full text via a summary feed. So you can indirectly meet their needs, too.

In contrast, full-text feeds fail to meet the core need of summary-feed fans. They force you to wade through the full content of all new postings. It becomes impossible to do the kind of ultra-fast skimming summary-feed fans prefer.

I have no doubt that my recommendation is colored somehow by my own feed-format preference. However, I stand by what I say, and I accept that others disagree. But you’re on my blog right now, aren’t you!

SHEL HOLTZ AND I TALKED THIS OVER

On June 11, PR maven and full-text feed fan Shel Holtz posted Beating the dead RSS feed horse – a detailed rebuttal to the points B.L. Ochman raised in her surprisingly controversial June 9 article, Why Full Posts in RSS Feeders Don’t Make Sense.

Shel and I had a good discussion in the comments to his blog item. Since most full-text and summary feeds and feed search/aggregation tools currently ignore comments, this discussion isn’t very “findable.”

Therefore, with Shel’s permission (thanks, Shel!), here’s our discussion. I’m including it in this posting so that people will be more likely to find it and join in. I think we explored some interesting angles.

Comment posted by Amy Gahran on 06/13 at 04:51 PM:

Actually, I prefer headline-and-summary feeds rather than full-text. I find full-text feeds generally difficult to read and tedious to navigate in most feed readers. I like feeds for quick perusals and speed reading. If you want me to read your entire article, prove its value with a damn good headline and summary.

That’s just my own personal preference, of course. But in most cases I couldn’t care less about full-text feeds.

——————————————-

Posted by Shel Holtz on 06/13 at 06:02 PM:

Thanks for the thought, Amy…and hence, the debate will rage on. For me, though, the idea that I can start reading something on one channel but have to switch to another to finish it is aggravating enough to keep me from reading any of it. It’s like watching a show on TV and then, halfway through, being told you have to pop in a DVD to see the rest.

——————————————-

Posted by Amy Gahran on 06/14 at 06:05 AM:

Shel wrote: “For me, though, the idea that I can start reading something on one channel but have to switch to another to finish it is aggravating enough to keep me from reading any of it. It’s like watching a show on TV and then, halfway through, being told you have to pop in a DVD to see the rest.�

See, I don’t look at headline-summary feeds as “reading the article.� In my mind, that’s a way to simply find out what’s new. So that’s more like reading the TV listings and then switching on a show, rather than starting to read in one channel and then having to switch to another.

Actually, I find many full-text feeds very frustrating because so many online publishers DON’T write intuitive headlines and leads. They make you wade through a bunch of crap just to figure out what they’re talking about.

Because of the total deluge of online content, I personally think online publishers (including bloggers) have a responsibility to provide clear, intuitive headlines and summaries. And when it comes to feeds, it’s more important to offer a headline-summary feed than a full-text feed. (Ideally both options will be available.)

But if you insist on offering only a full-text feed, then you bear an even greater responsibility to get right to the point with your headline and lead.

Rambling, poorly edited writing makes full-text feeds a very annoying experience.

IMHO, of course

————————————-

Posted by Shel Holtz on 06/14 at 07:36 AM:

All of your points are very well taken, Amy. My problem comes from blogging utilities that don’t let you provide a summary, or bloggers who don’t use the utility. Instead, the reader in the RSS aggregator sees the first several lines of the article itself, but has to finish by clicking to the blog. If we had well-written ‘at-a-glance’ graphs that help determine whether the article is worth reading, I’d have less of a problem with the notion—although I’d still have a problem! I still think the word “aggregator� means it ought to aggregate the content, not introductions to the content. Also, of course, IMHO.

———————————–

Posted by Amy Gahran on 06/14 at 08:03 AM:

Shel wrote: “My problem comes from blogging utilities that don’t let you provide a summary, or bloggers who don’t use the utility.�

People should avoid and publicly pillory such tools, as well as the people who have them but fail to use them. I agree, the problems they create in terms of overall quality of blogs, feeds, and search tools/services are so severe that we’re past the point of neutral education and into the point where we need to get a bit strident. Humiliation is a powerful motivator for change.

There are plenty of good (and free or cheap) blogging tools and services that allow you to create summaries and versatile feed formats. There’s no excuse not to use them. Also, it’s possible to switch from one blog tool to another. True, that’s not always an easy switch to make—so again the motivational force of public humiliation can prove useful

And of course, if you absolutely cannot switch from a substandard blogging too, it’s even more important to write intuitive headlines and leads.

I know I sound a bit nasty about this, but this problem bugs me so much because it affects me personally. It wastes my time, and it clutters and pollutes my media environment. Enough is enough.

You also wrote: “I still think the word ‘aggregator’ means it ought to aggregate the content, not introductions to the content.�

I disagree.

First of all, I think “aggregator� is a horrid, clunky, unappealing word. I prefer “feed reader.� It sounds better, and it’s more relevant to how people use those tools and services.

Second, you can “aggregate� anything you want. I see no reason to tie that concept to full-text content. Especially if (in many cases and for many people) headlines and/or summaries would acutally be more valuable and useful.

Personally, I’d also like to see more ways to aggregate comments, too. Some of the best content of blogs comes in comments, which are generally hidden from view in the world of feed readers.

Which inspires my next question: Would you mind if I copied our conversation here as a posting to my blog, CONTENTIOUS? I’d link back to your original posting prominently, of course. I just think we’re onto some interesting stuff here and it would be more findable (and thus widely accessible) as a posting rather than a comment thread. Whadya think?

——————————————

Posted by Shel Holtz on 06/14 at 12:35 PM:

Amy, I couldn’t agree more about comments. I’d be shocked if we didn’t see a reader (or aggregator) introduced in the next six months that displays comments as a matter of course and also permits you to submit comments directly from the reader.

I should note that I’ve been a fan of yours since Contentious was a Web site, before blogs, and I’d be thrilled to have our conversation appear as a piece on your site.

——————————-

…And that’s how this article came about.

As a final note, I know CONTENTIOUS currently offers only summary feeds, in a variety of formats. I’ve taken a little heat about that, but not much.

I plan to debut a full-text feed, but honestly it hasn’t been a high priority for me. I don’t expect it to make that big a difference to my total readership. Also, I don’t like it when my content gets ripped off, and it seems like a full-text feed would only exacerbate that problem.

Sure, I could be wrong about all that. However, consider this: Even the highest-profile fan of full-text feeds, Robert Scoble, (who claims he won’t subscribe to, read, or link to any site that doesn’t offer a full-text feed) still links to me. So I doubt my blog’s lack of a full-text feed is hurting my overall readership very much.