subscribe to a partial RSS feed - one that displays only the first part of each post ("except for my brother's blog," he admits). Scoble is correct in saying that partial feeds tend to deter some RSS users who find it annoying to have to actually visit the content owner's website to read the rest of a long post. Kent Newsome sides with Scoble. (In the other corner we have The Blog Herald.)My own feed is partial. Whenever I think of switching to a full feed (and I admit that I have often been tempted to do so), I remember Darren Rowse's main reason for using partial feeds: to keep people from stealing his content. Others use partial feeds because they find that it drives more traffic to their site. For them, RSS advertising - actually sticking ads within posts in RSS feeds - might not be as profitable as advertising on their own website.
So I'm torn, and have been for months, over whether to offer full or partial feeds. I can see the benefits and drawbacks of both options. Of course, there's also the possibility of offering both and letting my readers decide. (Believe it or not, some like it partial!)
Poll time. Should I offer full feeds only, partial feeds only, or both?Bonus question: How should I implement your solution?
For what it's worth, my feed has now been full for a few months. I intend to keep it that way because my readers tend to prefer it, and because I've goten much better at fighting content theft.
Posted by: Easton Ellsworth | October 11, 2006 5:30 PM | Permalink to Comment