More discussion on the full text vs. partial text RSS debate. Two articles that suggest that
full-text feeds can actually lead to more page views.
TechDirt Wrote:...in our experience, full text feeds actually does lead to more page views, though understanding why is a little more involved. Full text feeds makes the reading process much easier. It means it's that much more likely that someone reads the full piece and actually understands what's being said -- which makes it much, much, much more likely that they'll then forward it on to someone else, or blog about it themselves, or post it to Digg or Reddit or Slashdot or Fark or any other such thing -- and that generates more traffic and interest and page views from new readers, who we hope subscribe to the RSS feed and become regular readers as well. The whole idea is that by making it easier and easier for anyone to read and fully grasp our content, the more likely they are to spread it via word of mouth, and that tends to lead to much greater adoption than by limiting what we give to our readers and begging them to come to our site if they want to read more than a sentence or two....
full article:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070813/014338.shtml
mathewingram blog Wrote:Im a huge fan of the Freakonomics guys, and a subscriber to their RSS feed, but I didnt realize until I saw a MediaPost item on Techmeme that they had been acquired by the New York Times. I also didnt realize until I read through the item that they have switched to partial RSS feeds, which I absolutely loathe...
The bottom line is this: if I wanted to click through to the website, then I would just go to the damn website in the first place. Partial feeds defeat almost the entire purpose of reading RSS feeds in the first place. Bad idea, guys.
full article and comments:
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/08...-bad-idea/