△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Beating the dead RSS feed horse

More than enough has already been written about the RSS feed full text vs. partial text debate. But I found it interesting when my friend BL Ochman posted five reasons for producing partial text feeds, I disagreed with every one of them. So, as if we can beat this horse to death a second time, let’s take a look at BL’s rationale:

You can’t add comments to a post on a feed reader. You have to visit the blog to interact with it and interactivity is a key element of blogging.

This is true, you can’t add comments to a post on a feed reader. To which I say: So what? I add comments to, I’d guess, one out of every 25 posts I read, and that may be a high guess. Do I really want to visit each and every blog in order to find that one in 25 or 30? The idea of the reader is that it saves me from having to visit these sites, which provides me the time to get through all this information. When I read a post to which I’d like to comment, I have no problem visiting that one blog in order to do so. Partial text doesn’t make it any easier or more likely that I’ll make that effort.

Although I haven’t applied it yet, there is a way to include comments in an RSS feed, which would enable readers to see all the other comments, which would help them decide whether they might want to add something to the conversation.

Finally, I’m not convinced that BL’s final observation—that commenting is integral to blogging—is true. Plenty of highly regarded blogs (e.g., Wonkette) don’t accept comments. Even Dave Winer, widely recognized as the inventor of blogs, is on the record saying that comments aren’t important. His rationale is quite simple: If you want to comment, do it on your blog and trackback to the blog about which you’re commenting. That way the links kick in and visibility is heightened.

Feed readers are not set up to allow bloggers to differentiate their blogs with graphics or design—imbuing them with personality.

That’s true, too. But what are you going to do about it? As people migrate to readers (because reader enable them to absorb far more content in less time), they’re simply not going to click over to a site to see the template design, logos, etc. This means writing—headlines and body text—becomes that much more important. We’d better learn to convey these ideas with our words. I believe more people are likely to unsubscribe from blogs that force them to visit a site than they are to click on over and look at all the pretty puffery surrounding the words.

It’s just plain ridiculous to put posts that are thousands of words long onto a device that is meant to speed up reading. In fact, if bloggers weren’t so in love with their own prose and learned to write tight and short, we’d all have a lot more time

The reason readers speed up reading is (and let’s all chant this in unison) because we don’t have to spend time surfing over to each individual site! Besides, as BL suggests, if a blog post is too long, I’m not going to read it regardless of where it resides.

To people who don’t want to read ads in RSS feeds: I hope you’re enjoying your trust funds. Some of us are trying to make a living blogging. We are keeping our content free with advertising.

I’m sympathetic. I really am. But I’m just not going to inconvenience myself in order to help somebody else make money. On the other hand, I’m not opposed to ads in the feed itself, as long as they don’t obstruct the readability of the text.

Blogs are just a content management system. Just like we can’t possibly read every book ever published, we can’t read every blog. Content is still king, and the blogs with the best content are the ones we’ll still be reading years from now.

And..? I may be dense, or tired, but I just don’t get the point here. I’m not trying to read ever blog ever written in my reader—just the several hundred I found valuable or worthwhile. And that includes BL’s What’s Next Blog. But the post has to be pretty damn compelling for me to click away from the reader to the site just to finish what I started on the reader. Why in God’s name should I have to see two different platforms to read one item?

As I’ve said before, news readers will disintermediate much of the Web. As with any such change, there will be those who resist it because they don’t want to be disintermediated? Who does? But trying to stop it is a futile endeavor. Better we learn how to adapt to it.

BL’s predictions are good ones, though. Someone will invent a reader that shows more of the blog, including comments and the comment submission form, if not the entire blog, graphics and all. And we’re already deleting most of the feeds to which we subscribe because they just don’t live up to our initial expectations.

06/14/05 | 10 Comments | Beating the dead RSS feed horse

Comments
  • 1.Shel: Thanks for taking the time ti disagree in such detail. :>)
    BL

    B.L. Ochman | June 2005 | New York City

  • 2.P.S. As a concession to your full text fanatics, I did expand my feed. And I am including ads in it, and they are selling. But I can still bitch. :>)

    B.L. Ochman | June 2005 | New York City

  • 3.Actually, I prefer headline-and-summary feeds rather than full-text. I find full-text feeds generally difficult to read and tedious to navigate in most feed readers. I like feeds for quick perusals and speed reading. If you want me to read your entire article, prove its value with a damn good headline and summary.

    That's just my own personal preference, of course. But in most cases I couldn't care less about full-text feeds.

    - Amy Gahran
    Editor, CONTENTIOUS

    Amy Gahran | June 2005 | Boulder, CO

  • 4.Thanks for the thought, Amy...and hence, the debate will rage on. For me, though, the idea that I can start reading something on one channel but have to switch to another to finish it is aggravating enough to keep me from reading any of it. It's like watching a show on TV and then, halfway through, being told you have to pop in a DVD to see the rest.

    Shel Holtz | June 2005 | New York, NY

  • 5.Shel Holtz on posting full RSS feeds. There has been a lot of back and forth on this for the past few weeks. Shel's argument for full feeds pretty much sums up all the

  • 6.Shel wrote: "For me, though, the idea that I can start reading something on one channel but have to switch to another to finish it is aggravating enough to keep me from reading any of it. It?s like watching a show on TV and then, halfway through, being told you have to pop in a DVD to see the rest."

    See, I don't look at headline-summary feeds as "reading the article." In my mind, that's a way to simply find out what's new. So that's more like reading the TV listings and then switching on a show, rather than starting to read in one channel and then having to switch to another.

    Actually, I find many full-text feeds very frustrating because so many online publishers DON'T write intuitive headlines and leads. They make you wade through a bunch of crap just to figure out what they're talking about.

    Because of the total deluge of online content, I personally think online publishers (including bloggers) have a responsibility to provide clear, intuitive headlines and summaries. And when it comes to feeds, it's more important to offer a headline-summary feed than a full-text feed. (Ideally both options will be available.)

    But if you insist on offering only a full-text feed, then you bear an even greater responsibility to get right to the point with your headline and lead.

    Rambling, poorly edited writing makes full-text feeds a very annoying experience.

    IMHO, of course :-)

    - Amy Gahran
    Editor, CONTENTIOUS

    Amy Gahran | June 2005 | Boulder, CO

  • 7.All of your points are very well taken, Amy. My problem comes from blogging utilities that don't let you provide a summary, or bloggers who don't use the utility. Instead, the reader in the RSS aggregator sees the first several lines of the article itself, but has to finish by clicking to the blog. If we had well-written 'at-a-glance' graphs that help determine whether the article is worth reading, I'd have less of a problem with the notion -- although I'd still have a problem! I still think the word "aggregator" means it ought to aggregate the content, not introductions to the content. Also, of course, IMHO.

    Shel Holtz | June 2005 | Another hotel

  • 8.Shel wrote: "My problem comes from blogging utilities that don?t let you provide a summary, or bloggers who don?t use the utility."

    People should avoid and publicly pillory such tools, as well as the people who have them but fail to use them. I agree, the problems they create in terms of overall quality of blogs, feeds, and search tools/services are so severe that we're past the point of neutral education and into the point where we need to get a bit strident. Humiliation is a powerful motivator for change.

    There are plenty of good (and free or cheap) blogging tools and services that allow you to create summaries and versatile feed formats. There's no excuse not to use them. Also, it's possible to switch from one blog tool to another. True, that's not always an easy switch to make -- so again the motivational force of public humiliation can prove useful :-)

    And of course, if you absolutely cannot switch from a substandard blogging too, it's even more important to write intuitive headlines and leads.

    I know I sound a bit nasty about this, but this problem bugs me so much because it effects me personally. It wastes my time, and it clutters and pollutes my media environment. Enough is enough.

    You also wrote: "I still think the word 'aggregator' means it ought to aggregate the content, not introductions to the content."

    I disagree.

    First of all, I think "aggregator" is a horrid, clunky, unappealing word. I prefer "feed reader." It sounds better, and it's more relevant to how people use those tools and services.

    Second, you can "aggregate" anything you want. I see no reason to tie that concept to full-text content. Especially if (in many cases and for many people) headlines and/or summaries would acutally be more valuable and useful.

    Personally, I'd also like to see more ways to aggregate comments, too. Some of the best content of blogs comes in comments, which are generally hidden from view in the world of feed readers.

    Which inspires my next question: Would you mind if I copied our conversation here as a posting to my blog, CONTENTIOUS? I'd link back to your original posting prominently, of course. I just think we're onto some interesting stuff here and it would be more findable (and thus widely accessible) as a posting rather than a comment thread. Whadya think?

    - Amy Gahran
    Editor, CONTENTIOUS

    Amy Gahran | June 2005 | Boulder, CO

  • 9.Amy, I couldn't agree more about comments. I'd be shocked if we didn't see a reader (or aggregator) introduced in the next six months that displays comments as a matter of course and also permits you to submit comments directly from the reader.

    I should note that I've been a fan of yours since Contentious was a Web site, before blogs, and I'd be thrilled to have our conversation appear as a piece on your site.

    Shel Holtz | June 2005 | New York, NY

  • 10.Done! See Full vs. Summary Feeds: Mostly a Matter of Taste.

    Thanks for the conversation, Shel. I've enjoyed it :-)

    Great job on your podcast, too!

    - Amy Gahran
    Editor, CONTENTIOUS

    Amy Gahran | June 2005 | Boulder, CO

Comment Form

« Back