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.
Michael
· 4 years ago
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.
Rodney Olsen
· 4 years ago
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.
Stephen
· 4 years ago
I have no idea what you’re talking about. :???:
Michael
· 4 years ago
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.
Diane
· 4 years ago
Oh my gosh, I actually know what yawl are talking about. It must be that tecky guy I married rubbing off on me!
Michael
· 4 years ago
You're starting to think like me? Uh oh. :P
kevin whited
· 4 years ago
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. :)
Michael
· 4 years ago
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.
Doug
· 4 years ago
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. :lol:
All Comments
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.
I wish I could figure out how to set Sharpreader up on 2 separate computers, but 1 account though.
Stephen: It's ok. Here's a cookie.
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. :)
The only RSS feed recently that frustrates me is the Lonestartimes.com feed which is too short and way too vague.
As it is now, I feel that I'm crowding others out. :lol: