Comments on: Should you use full-text or summary articles in your RSS feed?

By: jared_w_smith (Jared Smith)

jared_w_smith (Jared Smith) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:24:56 +0000

@lyndiWP Good overview of full articles vs. summaries on RSS by @afhill at [link to post] Full articles for me, please.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: Andrea Hill

Andrea Hill — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:14:09 +0000

Hmmm, you raise a really interesting point. I don’t do it myself, but increasingly there are widgets with teasers of content to drive people to a site, these are done leveraging an RSS feed. In that case, that would be like the teaser, “tune in at 11″ – driving people who may not otherwise tune in. It’s a means to increase attraction.

This IS different than the person who’s already made the choice to subscribe: in that case, the RSS feed is serving to increase interaction.. to keep someone engaged and informed. You’re totally right that it’s a bit misleading to say “get my news in your inbox” and then only provide a piece of it.

I still think RSS as a tool can be used to drive people to a site, but I will agree that perhaps it’s not ideal for people who’ve already subscribed. But that’s not on the format of RSS to dictate, that would be moreso as to how it’s being used.

Thanks for helping me see things in a new light!

By: Ari Herzog

Ari Herzog — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:00:05 +0000

Ahh, so you compare the “Tune in at 11″ remark to an RSS feed? I’d take a broader approach and compare that to the personal choice of subscribing to the feed.

After all, you typically don’t subscribe to feeds haphazardly but do so because of some mash of variables including topic, language/style, author, social networking prowess, number of comments, etc, right?

So, when you’re looking at the blog is when you’ll see the subscribe buttons, which is analagous to hearing on TV about the times of the broadcasts to tune in. Imagine if the news broadcast said five sentences and referred you somewhere else for the rest? Same difference.

Partial feeds are the same with RSS or TV, using your analogy. Where’s the value?

By: keif

keif — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:17:40 +0000

If an article began with an effective summary and relevant title, @Andrea’s statement would hold true – you’re given the basis of what you are about to read. Unfortunately, too many people want to be “cute” with titles and initial paragraphs that cause it to be pointless and disinterested – “major tools, news at 11″ or “top ten twitter tools – at 11″ or “stuff I like – followed by a paragraph of analogies of being a kid before you delve into your topic at hand”

New outlets use pictures and words to direct you to them (and appeal to emotions). RSS feeds rely on powerful titles and openings – which, sadly, most “summary” feeds I’ve seen fail at.

By: Andrea Hill

Andrea Hill — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:54:29 +0000

I don’t follow that analogy at all?

This is media. “Tune in at 11″ is pretty standard. It gives you the right to opt-in if you’re interested in learning more, rather than forcing you to sit through the entire thing.

Granted, there is a tie to time investment with television that there isn’t with an RSS reader, but I don’t see it as a commodity..

By: Ari Herzog

Ari Herzog — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:16:10 +0000

Echoing the bandwagon, quality always outperforms quantity.

Would you buy a car without a steering wheel, forcing you to visit a parts store or a junkyard to pick one up? Of course not. Shouldn’t be any different with a blog feed!

By: David Griner

David Griner — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:57:10 +0000

I’m a bit late to the party, but hey, why not post my opinion anyway?

I will always forgive a blogger for using limited feeds on one condition: They are ad-supported. OK, ad-supported and awesome. It’s an annoyance, but I can’t blame folks for trying to make a few bucks off their work.

For people like us (corporate bloggers, for lack of a better term), I think it’s always best to go full-feed. If people like what they see, they’ll come around. But to me, 500 subscribers is better than 1,500 one-time viewers, so I’d always rather keep my RSS crew happy.

By: JustinSMV

JustinSMV — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 05:58:05 +0000

Hey Andrea Most people hate the partial feeds and the major companies that have that in place now are losing most of the readers. Full text is still king. Great topic here though. JustinSMV’s last blog post..Are You A Twitter ReTweet Thief ?

By: Andrea Hill

Andrea Hill — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:43:26 +0000

The non-linking “read more” was weird, wasn’t it? That’s the way feedburner configures it. It was a bit of a pet peeve for me as well

By: @leighhouse (leighhouse)

@leighhouse (leighhouse) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:34:50 +0000

Andrea - @ahill - took on the full vs. partial feed issue yesterday. Overwhelming response: FULL FEEDS. Love that. [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher