Chasing the Wind - Latest Comments in Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Doug — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:06:53 -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. :lol:

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Michael — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:22:47 -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.

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

kevin whited — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:59:44 -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. :)

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Michael — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:32:33 -0000

You're starting to think like me? Uh oh. :P

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Diane — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:24:41 -0000

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

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Michael — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:29:33 -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.

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Stephen — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:54:38 -0000

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

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Rodney Olsen — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:24:40 -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.

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Michael — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:14:14 -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.

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Vox — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:04:32 -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.

Re: Full Vs. Partial RSS Feeds

Jo — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:06:41 -0000

Huh? :???: