RSS Feeds and Contact

August 6, 2004 at 12:33 am — Blogging, Relating

Jack Vinson, in a recent article expanding on my thoughts about automation, lamented, “Now if we could just convince Dale to provide a full web feed [in his RSS feeds] instead of the brief teasers.”

Someone else (I forget who) gave me a similar nudge many months ago. That makes two nudges in 17 months of blogging.

I publish only the excerpts in my RSS feeds because that helps me to “see” all of you, to know that you’re out there reading what I write. My web server logs what pages people visit. When your feed reader tells you that I’ve posted a new article and you click the link to read it, my web server notes that. Every day I look at the logs to learn what pages are being visited. I don’t know who is visiting, but I know how many people are visiting each page. I care about that little bit of information. It helps me to “make contact” with you, if only in a very small way.

If I were to publish the full articles in my RSS feeds, I would lose information in two ways. First, my RSS feed is a single page that includes my ten most recent blog articles. When your feed reader reads the feed, my web server logs a visit to that single page. That would give me little information about what entries you read.

Second, feed readers are automatic. They read my feed once per day, or several times per day, or once per hour. If I were to notice a jump in the number of visits to my RSS feed, that might mean that a whole bunch of people subscribed. Or it might mean that one of you configured your reader to check my feed once per hour instead of once per day. The visit count for my RSS feed tells me very little about how many real people are out there.

So my “excerpt only” feeds give me a teeny tiny bit of information. And that information is important to me, because it gives me a teeny tiny connection with all of you. I’d miss that if I didn’t have it.

I’m aware that by publishing only excerpts, I make things less convenient for those of you who subscribe to my RSS feed. And I care about that.

I try to make sure that the excerpts are not mere teasers. but are themselves informative. Most of the time I try put the main point into the excerpts, to help you decide whether you’re interested in reading the full article.

I revisit this issue from time to time, especially when someone nudges me. Consider me nudged.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

12 Comments »

Comment by Adrian Howard — August 6, 2004 at 11:11 am

Some random thoughts:

* Are you more interested in people reading what you write, or knowing that people read what you write?

* I know people who don’t read content outside of their RSS aggregator - they’ll never read what you write

* I often read my aggregator on the train which, sadly, doesn’t yet have wireless net access.

* Nudges and demand are not necessarily correlated

(consider this another nudge :-)

Comment by Sergey Vlasov — August 6, 2004 at 12:54 pm

Personally, I open your blog each Friday evening in my browser and read all new articles. I don’t have/use feed readers.

Comment by Mark Siegal — August 6, 2004 at 1:36 pm

I’ll second Adrian’s nudge. By publishing excerpts only, you’re saying that gathering information is more important than encouraging readership. Your words will reach more people if you publish full RSS feeds.

Perhaps you can use comment activity as a proxy for readership.

Comment by Brian Kennemer — August 6, 2004 at 4:18 pm

So publish both of them and track IP addresses on those hits to the full post feed. This can give you information about how many times someone hits.

Look at http://www.feedburner.com. It can give you stats about who is reading your feeds.

I agree with some of the others that publishing partials is saying that you gathering information is more important than making it easy for people to get your stuff. And really how useful is the data you get?

Lastly, I often read my feeds offline. I connect and get my feeds and then read them in the airport or elsewhere. Cant do that with partials.

Comment by Robert Watkins — August 7, 2004 at 2:54 am

I’m confused… why do people think they can dicate how you deliver your content? You choose to give only an excerpt in your RSS feed, that’s your business (I have a similar practice, BTW).

If people want to be able to read the content offline, they can use the offline-reading features of popular browsers, after all.

(BTW… one way to track people reading your RSS feed vs just downloading it would be to put an image link in; when the feed is rendered, you’ll get the hit from the image)

Comment by Dale Emery — August 7, 2004 at 6:45 am

Adrian and Mark, I’m interested in people reading what I write, and I’m interested in knowing something about that. That’s one of the things I’ve learned about my motivation: I’m far more motivated when I can experience some contact with my audience. It’s a big deal for me.

It isn’t clear to me how many readers I lose by publishing only summaries. Unfortunately, the people who I lose that way aren’t likely to tell me about it. And the people who are likely to comment here, like the two of you, seem willing to put up with having to click to get the full articles.

Maybe I lose lots of people; maybe only a few. Maybe I lose some goodwill (publishing this article, for example, probably served mostly to re-annoy everyone who was already annoyed).

Mark, comment activity ebbs and flows in ways I don’t understand. As far as I can tell, it has little correlation with readership.

I spent much of the day today writing code to deliver two Atom feeds, one for full entries, and the other for summaries only. I’ve been wanting an Atom feed for a while, so I’ll publish at least the summary feed soon. I don’t know yet whether I will publish the full-entry feed.

Comment by Dale Emery — August 7, 2004 at 7:16 am

Brian, I use a terrific program called WebLog Expert to analyze my server statistics. It slices and dices the information in all kinds of wonderful ways.

But it can’t easily tell me, when an aggregator requests one of my feeds, whether there’s a person at the other end reading anything. If an aggregator checks once per hour, I see 24 hits for that feed every day. I can’t tell, from the feed hits alone, whether there’s a real live person making the request. It might be just an aggregator reader doing its thing.

The hits for the specific article pages tell me more than that. They tell me that some person clicked a link to get to that page. Now, I know that there are also automated systems that access pages — search engine robots, for example. But the ratio of automated hits to real-live-warm-person hits is low.

When I publish a new article, I see about 50 hits to that page in the next day or so. That tells me that nearly 50 people clicked to read the article.

As for how useful the information is, see my earlier comment to Adrian and Mark. The information gives me just enough of a connection with you to keep me motivated. It matters a great deal to me.

Comment by Dale Emery — August 7, 2004 at 7:25 am

Robert, I don’t think people are trying to dictate how I deliver my content. They are telling me what they want, and how my current delivery mode affects them, and how all of that might affect me. That’s reasonable enough, and it’s important stuff for me to know.

Comment by Pete TerMaat — August 9, 2004 at 1:44 pm

Another vote for full feeds. Summary-only feeds are an annoying waste of time when I’m reading offline on a bus, which is most days.

Comment by Thomas Quas — August 12, 2004 at 2:52 pm

I’m pro full content because it’s annoying to switch between programs to read an article. It doesn’t exactly support effective reading habits. Besides, the teasers have only little more meaning than the subject line, so I wonder whether it wouldn’t be better to put a whole paragraph in it–if it has to be that way.

Dale, you’re right when you say, interested crowd will stay with you, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. However, from a usability point of view it’s a D- for what you expect users to go through.

Comment by Alan Francis — August 17, 2004 at 12:07 pm

I’d say it just makes me read the site less often.

I check my FeedReader multiple times a day and note the little comments you put in the summary. I only visit the site once or maybe twice a month to catch up on what articles I missed.

I think the context switch is what stops me, not the offline reading. I read almost EVERYTHING in my feedreader and yours is one of only 2-3 sites with no fullfeed that I spend time to go read.

Comment by kevin rutherford — December 27, 2004 at 9:47 pm

Perhaps it’s the length of the excerpt that helps to cause problems? I just saw an alternative on Elise’s blog (http://www.elise.com/mt/), in which she feeds a couple of paragraphs, with a click-through to the full article. The feed contains enough text to permit the reader to know whether the article will be interesting when he clicks through. This doesn’t seem to have aroused the same degree of opposition as your stance. I’m considering doing the same (http://cgi.bramwell.plus.com/krblog/2004/12/short_or_long_s.html) - have you considered it?

Leave a comment