This link has been bookmarked by 9 people . It was first bookmarked on 26 Aug 2007, by John Donovan.
-
04 Aug 10
-
21 Apr 09
-
30 Mar 08
-
01 Sep 07
Suvi KorhonenThis has kicked off yet another round in the debate with some thoughtful discussions about full vs. partial feeds.
analysis content freakonomics rss web web2.0 nytimes techdirt for:erkka for:hessuj for:matrixx2.01 for:matnel for:yritys20 for:teppo for:jjmajava for:marikoo for:marjut for:marylkayoe for:jalkanen for:tlehtiniemi
-
26 Aug 07
-
Full text feeds makes the reading process much easier. It means it's that much more likely that someone reads the full piece and actually understands what's being said -- which makes it much, much, much more likely that they'll then forward it on to someone else, or blog about it themselves, or post it to Digg or Reddit or Slashdot or Fark or any other such thing -- and that generates more traffic and interest and page views from new readers, who we hope subscribe to the RSS feed and become regular readers as well. The whole idea is that by making it easier and easier for anyone to read and fully grasp our content, the more likely they are to spread it via word of mouth, and that tends to lead to much greater adoption than by limiting what we give to our readers and begging them to come to our site if they want to read more than a sentence or two.
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.