OJ’s rants What would OJ do?

7Aug/0811

Stop Cutting your Feeds Short

Despite the fact the Internet is accessible from nearly everywhere, there are still times when you are forced to work in a disconnected environment. There are also times where you want to work in a disconnected environment (probably to avoid distractions from IM, Twitter, etc).

So why is it that we still don't seem to do a good job of catering for these cases? Offline capabilities are currently few and far between. Sure, it can be hard to add offline functionality to an application, depending on what the application does, but sometimes there's really no excuse.

One example where there is no excuse: blog feeds!

These days everyone seems to have a chunk of Google Ads on their blog pages in the hope they'll be Slashdotted, Reddited or Digged enough to bring in a small fortune in advertising revenue. While I can understand the desire to earn some cash from writing, I don't think it's a good enough excuse to cut the content of the RSS/Atom feeds short.

To read an article offline, those of us who use a reader which supports offline reading capabilities (which include the likes of Google Reader via Google Gears) end up missing out on the content of each article which doesn't make it to the feed in its entirity.

While this is frustrating for the reader, it can be damaging for the writer as well. I personally have removed fistfuls of feeds from my reading list because they expect me to browse to their sites. I don't plan on returning to those sites in the future either. I'd be very surprised if I was the only person who has done this or who will do it in the future.

Thankfully I am yet to come across an semi-fed article while offline that I do want to read. But I reckon I'll be pretty pissed the day it does happen.

In short, stop cutting your f**cking feeds short. Please :)

  • Wost case of this I'm finding lately is some webcomics that don't put the comic in the feed at all, just presenting a link (or even worse a link with an advert).  Grrrr!!!


    Cyanide and Happiness - I'm talking to you (amongst others).
  • OJ
    Good move Johan :)
  • I agree. I removed that extension in my blog so it was accidently was running.

    /Johan
  • OJ
    @IainB: Yeah I knew that was going to get linked either by you or by Rob ;) It's true, I played with the idea. I am glad that I didn't keep it! It would have annoyed my readers as much as it annoys me.

    @H: The thing is that if presentation is that important then you simply state in your blog post "This post is inteded to be viewed on the site for best viewing experience" or something similar. Though that might become an issue when EVERY post has that title in it :)
  • Paul H (The legs of MEGA-PAUL)
    Yeah the old sticky content thing is pretty annoying. The only viable explanation where this would be acceptable is if somebody spent a lot of time on their blog site and wanted to give you the whole presentation experience to accompany their prose by making sure you visited their site I guess.

    But as you say the majority of cases are just ads etc.
  • IainB
    http://buffered.io/2007/06/22/becoming-a-geek-p...

    :)

    But yes, I've unsubscribed from a load of feeds that don't give full content. Feedburner lets you advertise in feeds, so you can still make money that way. I think the only real drawback is the scraper sites that just take other peoples content and claim it as their own.
  • OJ
    That's exactly how I feel. Most of the time it's hard to determine whether or not it is worth following the link to the full article, because the snippet you're given doesn't give enough context.

    Most of the time, in my case, there are so many other posts that I am trying to get through in my RSS reader that I just don't bother unless that first paragraph really strikes a chord.
  • Amy
    I've gotta say that it drives me mad when that happens. I will follow the link to the full article... but only if I REALLY think it will be worthwhile. It stops me from reading posts that fit into the "maybe worth a read" category.
  • Ah right.  When you said "cutting the content short" I thought you meant only having a few posts in the feed, not having truncated posts.

    In that case I agree totally - annoying as hell.
  • OJ
    That's not what I'm getting at :) I'm not fussed about how far a blog's archive goes back, I just care that the articles that do make it through are not truncated.
  • Still have to browse your site to comment though eh?

    I think a lot of the time people don't necessarily know their feed is being truncated - the truncation is being done by default by the blog software rather than deliberately by the blog owner.  Mine only seems to go back as far as June 2007 which includes plenty of posts.  The earliest post I can see on your feed (in Google Reader) is from April 2007, which certainly isn't the first post either...
blog comments powered by Disqus