John doesn’t want everything to be full-text

Another thing about using RSS to escape ads, some of the feeds i subscribe to have ads in them, albit much more relevant, and much much less intrusive then going to the website itself.

Another thing about using RSS to escape ads, some of the feeds i subscribe to have ads in them, albit much more relevant, and much much less intrusive then going to the website itself.

Another thing about using RSS to escape ads, some of the feeds i subscribe to have ads in them, albit much more relevant, and much much less intrusive then going to the website itself.

Didn’t Chris change his blog to be full-text a while back? Lockergnome isn’t but at least his blog is.

Didn’t Chris change his blog to be full-text a while back? Lockergnome isn’t but at least his blog is.

Didn’t Chris change his blog to be full-text a while back? Lockergnome isn’t but at least his blog is.

Neither Shelley or Chris are typical bloggers. They both seem very selective about what they publish where, e.g. I find there’s enough in Shelley’s feed that goes to Planet RDF to tell whether or not I want to read the whole post. Ok, almost always the answer is yes on direct tech points. But because she regularly posts essay-length pieces, if I want to read some Shelley I’d go visit her site anyway to get the full experience. So I think there is some justification for non-full-length posts.

But having said that, for people that aren’t submerged in the tech of syndication to Chris and Shelley’s extent, where a choice has to be made, I would think it’s better to err strongly on the side of full-length. Why? Simply because it’s easier for an aggregator to make a summary from a full-length post, going the other way around is more effort (having to scrape the original post).

One part of the problem has to be that people don’t tend to have very useful summary versions – arbitrary length cropping doesn’t give a clear picture of the content as a whole. But I’m optimistic as Atom creeps onto developer’s radars we’ll see more care taken about summary vs. full-text, making it easier to skim productively. (Maybe I’ll get around to writing summaries…and meaningful titles…).

Neither Shelley or Chris are typical bloggers. They both seem very selective about what they publish where, e.g. I find there’s enough in Shelley’s feed that goes to Planet RDF to tell whether or not I want to read the whole post. Ok, almost always the answer is yes on direct tech points. But because she regularly posts essay-length pieces, if I want to read some Shelley I’d go visit her site anyway to get the full experience. So I think there is some justification for non-full-length posts.

But having said that, for people that aren’t submerged in the tech of syndication to Chris and Shelley’s extent, where a choice has to be made, I would think it’s better to err strongly on the side of full-length. Why? Simply because it’s easier for an aggregator to make a summary from a full-length post, going the other way around is more effort (having to scrape the original post).

One part of the problem has to be that people don’t tend to have very useful summary versions – arbitrary length cropping doesn’t give a clear picture of the content as a whole. But I’m optimistic as Atom creeps onto developer’s radars we’ll see more care taken about summary vs. full-text, making it easier to skim productively. (Maybe I’ll get around to writing summaries…and meaningful titles…).

Neither Shelley or Chris are typical bloggers. They both seem very selective about what they publish where, e.g. I find there’s enough in Shelley’s feed that goes to Planet RDF to tell whether or not I want to read the whole post. Ok, almost always the answer is yes on direct tech points. But because she regularly posts essay-length pieces, if I want to read some Shelley I’d go visit her site anyway to get the full experience. So I think there is some justification for non-full-length posts.

But having said that, for people that aren’t submerged in the tech of syndication to Chris and Shelley’s extent, where a choice has to be made, I would think it’s better to err strongly on the side of full-length. Why? Simply because it’s easier for an aggregator to make a summary from a full-length post, going the other way around is more effort (having to scrape the original post).

One part of the problem has to be that people don’t tend to have very useful summary versions – arbitrary length cropping doesn’t give a clear picture of the content as a whole. But I’m optimistic as Atom creeps onto developer’s radars we’ll see more care taken about summary vs. full-text, making it easier to skim productively. (Maybe I’ll get around to writing summaries…and meaningful titles…).

So, if I am to understand your position – “full text” means you want the entire item in the “content:encoded” tag but it is OK to have a summary in the “description” tag? That’s what your blog does.

Only asking because I’m in the process of designing my feed.

So, if I am to understand your position – “full text” means you want the entire item in the “content:encoded” tag but it is OK to have a summary in the “description” tag? That’s what your blog does.

Only asking because I’m in the process of designing my feed.

So, if I am to understand your position – “full text” means you want the entire item in the “content:encoded” tag but it is OK to have a summary in the “description” tag? That’s what your blog does.

Only asking because I’m in the process of designing my feed.

Innocent: Right. It works fine in NewsGator. I get full text feeds in NewsGator.

Innocent: Right. It works fine in NewsGator. I get full text feeds in NewsGator.

I don’t want the HTML. I find that makes it harder to read the content. I want control of my reading experience. RSS gives me that. I try to avoid people who force me to visit their Web site to read their content (no matter what the motivation).

I don’t want the HTML. I find that makes it harder to read the content. I want control of my reading experience. RSS gives me that. I try to avoid people who force me to visit their Web site to read their content (no matter what the motivation).

I don’t want the HTML. I find that makes it harder to read the content. I want control of my reading experience. RSS gives me that. I try to avoid people who force me to visit their Web site to read their content (no matter what the motivation).

The great thing about the net is that one size does not fit all. Some like partial feeds, some like full. It seems to me Bobby that you’re implying that somehow the author is losing out if you (by you, I mean you) don’t read his post. The reality is that you’re likely the one to miss an interesting point or post. If you are reading offline there is something to be said for full feeds but for those not addicted to being in touch with what’s happening on the network 24/7 partial feeds and summaries work just fine and it’s not harder to click one extra link and load a page than it is to read it in a aggregator. It’s like the stance on “fire marketers without feeds on marketing sites”. It’s a whole lot of evangelising tools and not really providing solutions that help people manage and grow a business.

When the only tool one uses is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail…

The great thing about the net is that one size does not fit all. Some like partial feeds, some like full. It seems to me Bobby that you’re implying that somehow the author is losing out if you (by you, I mean you) don’t read his post. The reality is that you’re likely the one to miss an interesting point or post. If you are reading offline there is something to be said for full feeds but for those not addicted to being in touch with what’s happening on the network 24/7 partial feeds and summaries work just fine and it’s not harder to click one extra link and load a page than it is to read it in a aggregator. It’s like the stance on “fire marketers without feeds on marketing sites”. It’s a whole lot of evangelising tools and not really providing solutions that help people manage and grow a business.

When the only tool one uses is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail…

Bubba: I’m very unlikely to miss any interesting post. Believe me, if something is interesting that I’m not subscribed to it’s very likely that one of the other 740 people will see it and link to it.

It’s pretty obvious you’ve never tried to read 740 feeds because of your attitude here.

Bubba: I’m very unlikely to miss any interesting post. Believe me, if something is interesting that I’m not subscribed to it’s very likely that one of the other 740 people will see it and link to it.

It’s pretty obvious you’ve never tried to read 740 feeds because of your attitude here.

Bubba: I’m very unlikely to miss any interesting post. Believe me, if something is interesting that I’m not subscribed to it’s very likely that one of the other 740 people will see it and link to it.

It’s pretty obvious you’ve never tried to read 740 feeds because of your attitude here.

I’m glad it’s obvious because I have other things I’d rather do with my time. Not meaning to be confrontational but if you want to read 740 feeds, great. Even better that you get paid for it. Kudos though it’s not a gig for me. That’s the point, one size does not fit all.

I keep track of just south of 100 and regularly (as in daily) read perhaps 30 or so. If someone like Battelle or either of the Gilmors or Doc or Lessig or Mena or Chuqi write something, I usually hit the site instead of reading the feed. Some of the other stuff I find interesting is the bouncer in NY that got a book deal from his blog, the film school grad that is trying to make it in Hollywood or the big time screenwriter that shares insight to the movie biz. I don’t know that your 740 would have found those.

Riddle me this Bobby… Of those 740 feeds, how much of that is echosphere offering circular linking rather than real input and insight on the issue? Are you really sure that everything those mavens post are finding every interesting post of the millions of blogs and sites on the network? Like I said, if you read offline it is handy though personally I’d rather listen to Gilmor Gang, Rowdy Racing or TWIT (among others) when I’m offline. The stance of not reading partial feeds I think is imposing an arbitrary boundry that has no direct correlation to the actual content. To me it seems that by stating you don’t read partial feeds repeatedly, that somehow if you (as in you I mean you) don’t read the feed than somehow it’s less relevant, insightful or useful to others.

BTW, I do provide a full feed…

I’m glad it’s obvious because I have other things I’d rather do with my time. Not meaning to be confrontational but if you want to read 740 feeds, great. Even better that you get paid for it. Kudos though it’s not a gig for me. That’s the point, one size does not fit all.

I keep track of just south of 100 and regularly (as in daily) read perhaps 30 or so. If someone like Battelle or either of the Gilmors or Doc or Lessig or Mena or Chuqi write something, I usually hit the site instead of reading the feed. Some of the other stuff I find interesting is the bouncer in NY that got a book deal from his blog, the film school grad that is trying to make it in Hollywood or the big time screenwriter that shares insight to the movie biz. I don’t know that your 740 would have found those.

Riddle me this Bobby… Of those 740 feeds, how much of that is echosphere offering circular linking rather than real input and insight on the issue? Are you really sure that everything those mavens post are finding every interesting post of the millions of blogs and sites on the network? Like I said, if you read offline it is handy though personally I’d rather listen to Gilmor Gang, Rowdy Racing or TWIT (among others) when I’m offline. The stance of not reading partial feeds I think is imposing an arbitrary boundry that has no direct correlation to the actual content. To me it seems that by stating you don’t read partial feeds repeatedly, that somehow if you (as in you I mean you) don’t read the feed than somehow it’s less relevant, insightful or useful to others.

BTW, I do provide a full feed…

I’m glad it’s obvious because I have other things I’d rather do with my time. Not meaning to be confrontational but if you want to read 740 feeds, great. Even better that you get paid for it. Kudos though it’s not a gig for me. That’s the point, one size does not fit all.

I keep track of just south of 100 and regularly (as in daily) read perhaps 30 or so. If someone like Battelle or either of the Gilmors or Doc or Lessig or Mena or Chuqi write something, I usually hit the site instead of reading the feed. Some of the other stuff I find interesting is the bouncer in NY that got a book deal from his blog, the film school grad that is trying to make it in Hollywood or the big time screenwriter that shares insight to the movie biz. I don’t know that your 740 would have found those.

Riddle me this Bobby… Of those 740 feeds, how much of that is echosphere offering circular linking rather than real input and insight on the issue? Are you really sure that everything those mavens post are finding every interesting post of the millions of blogs and sites on the network? Like I said, if you read offline it is handy though personally I’d rather listen to Gilmor Gang, Rowdy Racing or TWIT (among others) when I’m offline. The stance of not reading partial feeds I think is imposing an arbitrary boundry that has no direct correlation to the actual content. To me it seems that by stating you don’t read partial feeds repeatedly, that somehow if you (as in you I mean you) don’t read the feed than somehow it’s less relevant, insightful or useful to others.

BTW, I do provide a full feed…