3 ms·

As a feed consumer, I actually thought about this too; but truthfully I haven't settled on any preference. Say if I wanted to leave a comment, I'll be heading t

by kleevr 18y ago

As a feed consumer, I actually thought about this too; but truthfully I haven't settled on any preference. Say if I wanted to leave a comment, I'll be heading to the site anyway. But the extra click, when necessary, hasn't aggrivated me at all. (If you were running your feed through feedburner, you could have ads inserted into the feed as well.)

Oompa 18y ago
I'm with you on this one. Sometimes it's also nicer since you don't have embedded videos/images load up unless you find the article interesting and wish to click through. That being said, I know a lot of people that prefer full article feeds, so I would go that route, since I don't know any who would stop reading something if it went from partial feed to full.
- silencio 18y ago
  On a sidenote, the embedded videos/images is RSS reader dependent. I like having them load in my reader because I don't get any of the other cruft I don't care for half the time (e.g. comments on TechCrunch...).
silencio 18y ago
Having partial content (where it would be feasible to provide the full thing) in a feed annoys me because I have to click through not because I'm really interested in leaving a comment, but because I don't even know if it interests me that much because there's not enough information to make that decision. Especially with the feeds that at most just have a link to the full content in the feed (not talking about how it works with feeds from here and reddit and the like, which is something else altogether). It's so much faster to ignore content I don't care for and move on than having to open the link in my browser to do so. If it's ads that are the problem, by all means, I'd prefer full content with tons of ads to partial content with none. I usually unsubscribe to feeds providing only partial content, it's only a matter of time and how soon I find an alternative that has full content in their feeds.

by kleevr 18y ago

Oompa 18y ago

I'm with you on this one. Sometimes it's also nicer since you don't have embedded videos/images load up unless you find the article interesting and wish to click through. That being said, I know a lot of people that prefer full article feeds, so I would go that route, since I don't know any who would stop reading something if it went from partial feed to full.

silencio 18y ago
On a sidenote, the embedded videos/images is RSS reader dependent. I like having them load in my reader because I don't get any of the other cruft I don't care for half the time (e.g. comments on TechCrunch...).

silencio 18y ago

Having partial content (where it would be feasible to provide the full thing) in a feed annoys me because I have to click through not because I'm really interested in leaving a comment, but because I don't even know if it interests me that much because there's not enough information to make that decision. Especially with the feeds that at most just have a link to the full content in the feed (not talking about how it works with feeds from here and reddit and the like, which is something else altogether). It's so much faster to ignore content I don't care for and move on than having to open the link in my browser to do so. If it's ads that are the problem, by all means, I'd prefer full content with tons of ads to partial content with none. I usually unsubscribe to feeds providing only partial content, it's only a matter of time and how soon I find an alternative that has full content in their feeds.