This is Really Interesting!
Since the new design went live I've been under increasing pressure to add descriptions / abstracts to my RSS feed. Here's a quick and short reasoning as to why they aren't there. Well, I have added descriptions to article entries, but not blogs.
Everybody has their own way of reading blogs. Increasingly this is with a feed-reader (I use and highly recommend FeedDemon), which enable us to keep up-to-date with numerous sites on a daily basis. The problem is often that people want to keep up with so many blogs that they don't have the time to read all of the new entries in any given day.
This is where the abstracts come in. Your feed-reader shows you a snippet of the post and you can use it to decide whether you want spend your time reading the whole thing. It's a good idea but I don't like it for a couple of reasons:
- Whenever I read the abstract and then open the actual post this is what happens - read abstract, decide I want to read the rest, open the page and wait for it to load, scan first paragraph trying to find where I'd got up to, carry on reading.
- Although I've started to stick to one topic per post this isn't always the case. The first few lines of a blog entry can't always convey the whole content.
- RSS Feeds can break easily if you don't sanitise the data in them. There's no easy way of saying (to Domino at least) "Show the first two lines and remove all HTML and special characters" without it making a complete mess of the HTML. Creating an abstract is an extra step in the blogging process I can do without.
- Extra bandwidth.
Because everybody has a different way of using feeds it's hard to cater for all. Instead I've decided to enforce my own way on you all ;o) For me, an RSS feed is simply a What's New alert and tells me there's something new to go and look at. Occasionally I use the title to tell me whether I should bother, but, assuming it's a site I like, I'll probably go and read anything. My feed-reader is set to go straight to the actual web page whenever I select an item.
I know lots of you want to use the title in combination with a description to save you the time of reading a post of no interest. To me, as a content provider, I find this a little disheartening. It worries me that you're willing to use a one-line summary to judge a whole page by. It's a risky business. You never know what you might miss out on.
For now you'll have to make do with just the title. I'll try and keep them informative and indicative of content, but even that's hard sometimes.
Skip to the 
You can subscribe to an individual
Hi Jake,
As I told you before, I prefer rss with small summary included, but whatever you're going to post here, I'm going to read ;)
I was wondering if you could provide an rss feed for the "Elsewhere" section ?
Thanks,
Gaston
No probs: {Link}
I'm one of those people who would prefer your RSS feed has the WHOLE post. I tend to load everything into FeedDemon to read on the train ride home.
I would always prefer sites have an option for the whole post download in RSS. Bandwidth to me isn't an issue since I use Bloglines to sync with FeedDemon, so it's not that bad...
Anyway, here's a vote to at least have SOMETHING in the post...
-Grey
Grey. It's not *your* bandwidth I'm worried about ;-)
The more I think about this issue the more I think I'll stick to the way I do it. The content is here. If you want it come and get it.
I agree, Jake. People are far too lazy for their own good these days.
They want the Internet on a stick! Next they'll be wanting it read to them! In a sultry female voice, no doubt.
Ooh yes, I would definitely vote for the sultry, when is that coming? ;-)
@Scott - um, like a Podcast? ;)
See, this is why titles are not enough. I was fooled into reading this article because of the title. It's not very interesting at all. Now All I'm left with is a mistrust of your titles and will be slightly more hesitant in the future in reading your articles...
Jake,
I'm doing RSS pretty much the way you do it. I completely agree with the "want content? come and get it" principle, maybe I'm even more extreme in it than you.
It is obvious that site owners like you go to great lenghts to create a sophisticated site that feels good to read. But, if you'd embed your full blogs in RSS so nobody gets to see the actual site, you might as well start an email newsletter, me thinks.
Andrew. The title was a joke that you obviously didn't get. "hesitant in the future in reading your articles...". So? Your problem, not mine. If you don't want to read, don't read. What do I lose if you don't read it? Nothing. What do you lose? Well, I guesss you'll never know. If you can't spare the couple of seconds it takes to visit a site and work out its value then...
Ferdy. I agree. RSS is taking away from the "web experience".
Hello Jake,
Why not provide 2 RSS feeds : one with a description and one feed with only the titles ?
:-)
Greetings,
Jeroen
Really Jake do you think you are the only one with a sense of humour? How about allowing Andrew to put his tongue in his cheek too.
Me, I'm just grateful that you've tidied up the RSS feed so that the title is not preceded by a couple of qualifiers. So thanks
Cheers.
Colin, don't even get me started on "PodCasts".
Like it's some fantastic new technology or something. Tsk!
I've been listening to Internet Radio for as long as I can remember (probably 1999 or so). And since about 2002 I've been copying radio streams (including the BBC radio on demand stuff) to my MP3/CD player.
Sticking a capital letter in the middle of two buzz words does not make a new technolgoy.
End rant.
Jeroen. Not sure that would solve anything. More than likely people would want the one with descriptions. I don't doubt that. But, for the reasons listed it ain't gonna happen.
Paul. If Andrew was trying to be funny he needs to make it a little more obvious. I've re-read it again (first time was after I'd just got up this morning and hence the grumpy response) and I still don't see the humour.
Thanks for your original mail Paul as it was this that made me tidy the feeds up in the first place. See, I do listen to you guys but, at the end of the day, if you don't like something *I* decide on you'll just have to like it or lump it.
Understandable reasoning Jake. It's your site, so it essentially boils down to your choice.
That said, I'll offer one reason why I like full articles in the feed: searching. "I know I read something on that a couple weeks ago..." sort of thing. Without the article in the feed, or at least an abstract, the chances of locating that post again are really reduced.
As for GreyHawk's comment way up top, he was referring to your bandwidth. Going through bloglines rather than pulling your RSS feed directly does have the potential of reducing your bandwidth. The more people that use bloglines, the bigger the difference it can make. At least I think that's what he was referring to... ;-)
I'll close by saying "Thanks." You got the ball rolling in the Domino blog-o-sphere waaaay back when. Thanks for that, and for all the knowledge you've been sharing ever since.
-Rod
Good points Rod. Re-reading Grey's comments I think you might be right. Damn, I hate myself sometimes. I read the things I write and think to myself "If I didn't know me, I'd think I was a tit". Sometimes I think I'd be better off not even opening any cans of worms. You just can't win.
But, what I will say is that it's not as much "my choice" as it is Domino preventing me doing much about it.
I still like to think this site is NOT a blog. Adding the whole text to a feed just servers to make it act more like a blog than the resource I like to think it is.
RSS feeds can never replace the web browser. When I write lots of content it's with the notion that the reader will be using a browser and so a "click here to see what I mean" kind of button will actually work.
That said, I see sense in your searching suggestion and will consider this while thinking about whether to give in on it. Again.
Jake,
Umm my response was very tounge in cheek and I find your site both interesting and worthy of a daily visit (and do have a sense of humour).
But I was trying to make a serious point.
The web is more about the power of the reader than the publisher. Successful Entities like Google show that the power of Aggregation is what people want from the web. And why not it's the perfect platform for it.
The whole notion of 'click here to visit my site and find out' is getting antequated these days. Whether good or bad, people seem to want to consume only relevant chunks of information; just want to find an answer, while not having to navigate a whole website. It's all about relevance and relevance is, of course, relative.
Personally I like having a lot of info in the RSS feed, I can make a better informed descision about whether to visit the site or not. Your feed and Ferdy's are the least helpful in that regard. Ferdy's is no better than an email notification list - which is the complete antithesis to RSS.
The notion of RSS feeds can never replace the web browser is simply irrelevant (I use a web browser to view Bloglines, my RSS aggregator of choice). You write a lot of useful content but don't mind it being aggregated by search engines? I don't see the difference between aggregation via search engine to aggregation via RSS - they are just different ways to consume information and find relevance.
In the end it's your site and you can do what you will. However making your stuff as consumable as possible to as many people as possible is something to think seriously about.
Andrew. If you're being funny on the web, you need to make it more obvious. My humour radar isn't on first thing in the morning. A smiley normally helps convey that it's tongue in cheek. Otherwise it's almost impossible to tell.
Damn, you lot are a tough crowd!
Ok, I'll look in to adding at least something to the description in the feed. Might take me a while though... I can't even decide how it would work. Can't just have the first two lines, as this often has nothing to do with the entry as a whole. I don't want to just shove the whole post in either.
It disturbs me that you're willing to dismiss a post I've lovingly created merely by scanning a small excerpt.
I guess I am missing something here, as I don't use a feedreader as such, I tried RSS in Thunderbird though I much prefer the 'Live Bookmarks' feature in Firefox.
My question is regarding the comments we post. Due to the nature of a lot of Jake's posts, I find them and the issues we discuss often as interesting and useful as the articles and posts themselves. How would that work with the full article in the feed?
Up until now Jake's argument (reasons!) have made sense and me thinks I understand his point of view....
Just my 2-pence!
Rod was spot on, and don't worry Jake, I don't think you're a tit :-)
I really think if more people used something like Bloglines, it would really fix your bandwidth issue.
It's not that I don't think your site is worth the visit, it's just that there is so much content out there (I subscribe to over 100 feeds) that it's much easier to sort it all out in a feed reader. For example FeedDemon will allow me to set up watches for keywords to auto flag them as something I may want to read.
As much as I like your site, I don't thoroughly read every article, only the ones that really pertain to me. As such, you are the ONLY feed still in my feedreader that doesn't have at least a description. That shows you how much I like your content!
Anyway, hopefully you would at least do some descriptions. I would be helpful for those of us that are "far too lazy for our own good." :-)
-Grey