Comments on: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:06:53 +0000

I just switched to full, and it is bugging me how much room it takes on the sidebar of Bloglines. I do believe I’ll be switching back. I can see the reasons for both sides of the argument, really. I’d like it if the RSS readers would show a preset length of a post so the user can determine how much they want at a time, then I would just keep it with a full post.

As it is now, I feel that I’m crowding others out.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:22:47 +0000

Kevin, I took a look at your RSS feed and it’s fine – I get enough from your summary and headline to determine if I want to click an article. And I don’t mind clicking if I know I’ll find something useful.

The only RSS feed recently that frustrates me is the Lonestartimes.com feed which is too short and way too vague.

By: kevin whited

kevin whited — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:59:44 +0000

I don’t offer full feedson my sites for one reason — I’m more interested in building somewhat of a community (however small) and having conversation than making things easier for readers.

I want readers who will come over, read the post, read the comments, and join the conversation. If that’s too much trouble — fine, nobody has to come read the content I’m providing for free.

But that’s my bargain. That’s what I want out of the effort. I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:32:33 +0000

You’re starting to think like me? Uh oh.

By: Diane

Diane — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:24:41 +0000

Oh my gosh, I actually know what yawl are talking about. It must be that tecky guy I married rubbing off on me!

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:29:33 +0000

Rodney: I’m actually not sure why I’d want more people to click through my site. I don’t do any advertising, so RSS feeds accomplish almost the same thing.

Stephen: It’s ok. Here’s a cookie.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:54:38 +0000

I have no idea what youâ€™re talking about.

By: Rodney Olsen

Rodney Olsen — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:24:40 +0000

I publish a full feed of my posts. I thought about doing the partial thing so that more people would click through to my site but then I thought that if I’m only posting to get site hits I might as well give up now. I prefer to do whatever makes life easier for those who are kind enough to be reading my posts in whatever way they choose to do that.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:14:14 +0000

I don’t mind the click; the partial feeds usually give me enough information. Usually.

I wish I could figure out how to set Sharpreader up on 2 separate computers, but 1 account though.

By: Vox

Vox — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:04:32 +0000

I am a big fan of the full feed. I like being able to quickly get through my blog reading, and with the full feed I get all the meat with none of the bells and whistles that slow down loading. There are a few site that only send partial feeds, like Lori's, that I care enough to read and so I have Sharpreader set to automatically load the whole article. But it is SLOW because of all the pretty stuff she has on her site, and I would prefer to just get the facts. But I'm a geek and I prefer simple anyway. I prefer sites with minimal overhead, quick load times..... BTW: for those not familiar with the full feed, any images in your post come through, just not all the images on your site.