Comments on: Are Full Feeds Evil?

By: Jorged

Jorged — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:52:13 +0000

I came to your blog because of the Design and found interesting content, now your blog is in my feed catcher.

Anyway, I think content is more important than count visits, but if you´re more worried about visits, creating quality content is a way to get it. Maybe is a combination of both: create great content and Take care of your design and the links to your site will come from everywhere.

By: ?X

?X — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:24:31 +0000

Full feeds, please.

Is the point to be read, or to count visits?

I read you!

By: mojaam

mojaam — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:55:30 +0000

Full feeds for the win. I love well designed websites, but time is almost always scarce so when going down my feeds via bloglines, I get to save some time. Some sites I remember for having a great design and will revisit it for the sake of seeing it again. Also, if the content is really interesting, readers will want to look at other people’s comments or comment themselves. Also, as an avid social bookmarker, finding good content fast leads you to read at the direct link since that’s what you will be submitting. It’s a good thing!

By: Mark Eagleton

Mark Eagleton — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:18:29 +0000

The graphic you made for this entry is entirely bad ass.

By: Blogsolid

Blogsolid — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:19:10 +0000

I love the fact that there are so many passionate opinions on the topic of feeds!

By: Elle

Elle — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:57:57 +0000

I really hate partial feed and that’s why I tend to delete those blogs from my reader as soon as I notice that… and with no regrets.

By: ixley

ixley — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:11:40 +0000

I’ve only recently started using a feed reader regularly and I still have trouble keeping up with all the content I like to browse. I certainly acknowledge that in many cases, full content feeds are more convenient, though many times I prefer to browse article titles and then click through to the site to read (assuming it’s a nicely designed site). I don’t see any advertising on your site, so what do page visits actually matter? People will explore what they want and if full feeds are enough, then it’s probably better for both parties. If advertising is an issue, many blogs offer partial feeds w/o ads and full feeds with. Seems fair to me.

By: Armen

Armen — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:19:00 +0000

Full feeds, or there’s little point. The benefit of RSS is for the visitor, not the author, so to give partial feeds is to place the purpose of RSS back into the hand of the author, not the visitor.

I visited this site when it was all over the galleries. However, after a while it was rarely updated, so I drifted off. Maybe in the coming days, you may gain the confidence of the initial visitors again.

By: Bikram

Bikram — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:32:41 +0000

Partial feeds for my site. No two words.
Man, I’ve designed it with so much passion, if you don’t even see it, then wat’s d use?

By: Blogsolid

Blogsolid — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:23:08 +0000

Hi sbpoet. Readers are the life blood of blogs, so full feeds stay!

Adam, I also read that somewhere… I find it interesting that excerpts don’t promote clickthroughs. Seems like people are getting too lazy to even click these days

Hi Memo. You see, it’s a vicious cycle – work keeps me too busy to blog more, so the answer is to make money blogging, but for that I need more subscribers and my update rate is so awful that I won’t get more… I quit!

Bush, you’re right. If people wish to interact on the site they will probably leave the comfort of their feedreaders and drop by.