Why did I do this?
Very simply, because I want my readers to visit the site. Without visiting the site the SFDB Weekend Widget doesn't get any exposure, the blogroll doesn't get any play and the comments section doesn't receive any attention. In short, the interactivity aspect of the site disappears.
I've always wanted SFDB to be a place where the South Florida blogosphere comes to connect with each other. Using a full feed in the reader lessens the chance of that happening. Hopefully, shortening the feed and bringing people to the blog to read the posts will create a more dynamic site that includes a higher reader participation.
As always, thoughts, comments and/or criticisms are welcomed.
******
Okay, so there's been mixed reaction to this change, mostly negative. Only one respondent has articulated why clicking on a link to read a post is such a bother. This commenter stated that they don't want their employer to see their tracks around the 'net and they don't have the time. The employer thing is cool and something I understand, however the time issue befuddles me. Last time I checked, SFDB takes 4-8 seconds to load, unless you have dial up. If you don't have 4-8 seconds to spare in your life then there's nothing much I can do about that.
I'm getting the feeling it's just the principle of the thing. The fact that a change has occurred and you'll actually have to visit SFDB to read the entire post appears to really be offensive to some people because....well, because.
I'd like to hear from more people and get their input and I'm also going to be watching my RSS subscriber numbers and my stats to verify any changes in them.
******
From MomCrunch...
I prefer full feed myself; it makes reading posts in a reader much easier. I can fly through posts that way, without having to do a lot of clicking over to the actual website. But… I have to confess that I have been incredibly impressed with how many people DO click over to my blog now that I have a partial feed published. My stats are through the roof, of course (I do not currently have any advertising that depends on website views, so this increase in readership on site has been personally gratifying rather than financially rewarding).
I was chatting with a friend about this, and she said something that resonated with me. She said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I work hard on my site. I work hard to make it look nice, to write the posts, to keep the topics interesting. Is it so awful, then, to just ask for the simple act of clicking on my actual site?”
I have to admit, that does give me pause. I read blogs that I love, bloggers whose lives I am deeply invested in, and is it a disservice to not give them the click? Of course commenting requires clicking over, and we all know why it’s important to leave comments, but not every post inspires a comment – but I can always give the gift of a simple click.
.
36 comments:
That's why I did it Rick. Also, people were stealing our blogs...loading a site with advertising and just posting our stuff. BTW, I am having problems posting comments to your site from the I phone. If I go back to make corrections, I can't type. Don't know if it is because you have the cell phone version.
Most sites don't serve a full RSS, just an excerpt. Well done!
I read the Sun-Sentinel blogs, but can't click through for the whole stories when I'm intrigued by that with which I'm teased. Your truncated feed fails to provide me with anything which I felt was interesting enough to click through to.
If you choose not to aggregate and disseminate your Sifts and Coolers, I'll do without your blog. You can't build your blog on a premise, and then change it after a hissy fit that no one sees your Weekend Widget. I make my own weekend plans, based on an extensive connection with the Broward and South Florida local music scene.
SFDB is my interest. Not the Weekend Advisory, not the blogroll, and I gather comments on a weekly basis when I get a chance, as I do with Clean-plate Charlie, The Pulp, and others.
That's an interesting and slightly offensive, response, whack-a-mole. But the point about not knowing enough about what is in the SFDB blog post is a legit one.
But let me point out that the blog is still here and still available to you. If it is the fact that the simple act of clicking through to the blog post is so offensive to you, then I'm not sure that you can make an argument that the content is that valuable [to you] anyway.
Although I would hate to lose a reader because of this, what I hope to gain is a readership who is more aware and interested in what the entire blog offers instead of just the posts that I write.
BTW, this isn't about any "hissy fit" involving the Weekend Widget. I'm not sure where you got that other than it being one of the many reasons why I shortened the feed.
.
My 'hissy fit' comment is based on the fact that you promote the Weekend Widget, and it's apparent lack of readership, at least three times a week. And the fact that it is one of your stated reasons to truncate your RSS experience.
The last couple Sifts cut off mid-item A. Why, based on that miniscule sample of what's to come, would I click through? The act of clicking through isn't offensive. But why would I click through unless I know what's available? Does the phrase 'pig in a poke' mean anything to you?
And, so far, it's fellow bloggers who agree with you, not readers. "Most sites don't serve a full RSS," says one. Is SFDB aspiring to become 'most sites?'
Ok, then I guess this means goodbye. As a reader who works for a living and has a family, I have limited time to read. My rss aggregator (Google reader) is an integral part of my life, saving me time. Also at work, I don't want the logs showing me browsing all over the web, another reason I use google reader.
Your explanation and response to whackamole are, no offense, a sell-out-ish. If other stuff on your blog is worthwhile, people will come. But like whack, i am only interested in the posts. So, goodbye.
Okay, let's go through these one at a time.
The Weekend Widget gets a large number of hits now. I know this because I monitor my Statcounter stats very closely. I promote it because it is shoved off into the right sidebar and may go unnoticed by folks who haven't visited SFDB before or who have not noticed or forgotten that it's up.
Actually, if you're a regular reader, which most RSS readers are, you know exactly what awaits you with the Sifts and Coolers. Sure, the links and references are different each time, but you know that the Cooler has the news and the Sifts have the blog links. Again, if the act of clicking through to the website to find further info takes too much time or something you oppose if for no other reason than the principle of having to click, then, again, I suggest that the content just isn't that valuable to you anyway.
BTW, do only buy books that you have read in their entirety at the book store?
.
Anon @ 2:01....by shortening the feed I'm "selling out?" To whom?
.
You are right, it is simply not valuable enough, hence the parting words.
Also, being politically centrist, rss allows me to avoid your political posts which, respectfully, I could get the same viewpoint from moveon.org or mediamatters.
I do click through and read comments on some posts, obviously. So have you considered that loss of traffic?
Selling out to traffic stats. Otherwise your move is simply antithetical to the spirit of free information. Let your ideas and words have wings, dont clip them. Let people have choice and freedom.
Bye now.
Anon @ 2:25...LOL....you can still avoid my political posts with the new feed. In fact, you won't be exposed to the entire text that upsets you so much. And you can still click through and read the comments if you want.
Sooooooooo....what's your point?
.
Anon @ 2:29....Oh, Lord....one of those kinds...who knew the Tea Party was interested in what I have to say...cya.
.
Don't sweat it, Rick. These are the same people who don't use turn signals and cut us off on 95.
"BTW, do only buy books that you have read in their entirety at the book store?"
No, I am a discriminating reader that forms his opinion on what to read based on past readings and reviews and excerpts from people whose commentary I respect. I don't need to read the whole book to buy it, but if a respected reviewer or commentator says the book is good, I will take the plunge.
And, 13 comments in (an SFDB record?) you're still only supported by fellow bloggers
Anon @ 2:25...do I anticipate a loss in traffic? Maybe in the number of RSS readers as people who aren't getting what they want and refuse to click over unsubscribe. However, they aren't really the ones who physically visit SFDB.
For that reason, I really don't think the page views will go down as loyal readers and folks who don't mind visiting the blog continue on as normal. It might even boost the page views as RSS readers decide to read a post in its entirety after reading the synopsis.
As I explained in the post, however, this isn't being done for stats but to grow the interactivity of the blog and increase reader participation.
.
13 comments, indeed, whack-a-mole...look how the interactivity has increased already. Especially from you, an "only RSS" reader. Can I claim "mission accomplished" yet?
Not an SFDB record, however, as any non-RSS only reader would rightly know.
I'm not sure of the significance of being supported only by fellow bloggers. Who knows who the anonymous commenters and pseudonyms are anyway? Know what I mean, "Whack-a-mole?"
.
I give you a full feed. I'd like one in return please.
As a fellow blogger I empathize with your decision to go with a truncated RSS feed. I did so for a different reason - I kept on finding my content pirated on to other sites around the web off the RSS feed, so had to limit the RSS feed.
I understand it's a bit more of a burden for people to click through (amazing how literally lifting a finger and waiting a few seconds has become something to be considered a burden), but if they're interested enough in reading it they'll do so.
I've been dying to leave a comment, but I haven't had the energy to lift my fingers to the keyboard.
All I can say is, the blogosphere has changed from when you were running SOTP. There are many more options out there.
As bloggers, we should be grateful that we are getting any kind of readership.
I've developed three communities. The one that is on my blog itself. And the ones that emerged on Facebook and Google +.
It would be nice if everybody would just comment on the blog, but that's not the case.
I think you do yourself a disservice by refusing to get on FB.
You either change with the times or you get left behind.
And as far as the people who vow to never read you again because you decide to make adjustments, well, you'll always have those.
I get that once a week and life goes on.
i'll articulate.. i've been a regular reader since we were stuck on the palmetto. i spend a fair amount of time on the actual SFDB site, and i participate in comments. but here is the crux: i build my reading list using an RSS reader on my iPhone (linked to google reader). from all of the RSS fedds, i take a quick scan of the whole article, and if it piques my interest, i put a star on it and when i am sitting at a computer i burn through my reading list, visiting the actual blog site to get the full experience.
I can say from experience that partial feeds don't typically make it onto my reading list via that process, and so i will rarely pick up a new blog that isn't full feed, because it breaks my process.
All of that being said, I'll probably keep reading since i like the content and i like the spin. But if I were new in town.. i dunno.
Get a Day Job?
Thanks for taking the time for the comments, folks, and Anon @ 7:27, the explanation.
All of my readers are important to me but I have found over the years that I can't be all things to everyone. I'm going to try this out, see how it impacts the blog and go from there.
.
Now I can't read your blog at work. This change is supposed to enhance readership? I for one, will not be able to enjoy the blog as much as I used to. Poopy change dude.
Well, technically speaking, you're really not reading the blog, you're reading the RSS reader. And you're not commenting. And you're not seeing the comments. And you're not using the blogroll. But, yes, you're reading the full content.
See, as a blogger who wants to engage his audience, I'm losing the opportunity to do that to the "drive-by visitor" who reviews the post in an RSS reader and then moves on without any interaction. I realize that you may prefer it that way and this change may not affect that behavior one iota, but there's a greater chance of you interacting with the SFDB community if you stop by.
That's where I'm coming from with this. I've watched my RSS readership grow to over 520 readers and comments decline to sometimes 1 or 2 a day. I'm not going to blame it solely on the nature of RSS reader but I definitely think it's worth trying something different and see how it works out.
.
I'll try again, using your own argument.
You're a "blogger who wants to engage his audience" "who reviews the post in an RSS reader and then moves on without any interaction" by limiting the information that 'drive-by visitor' gets from your blog.
You want me to click through to your blog based on even less information that you currently give me. If your current information isn't sufficient to get me to click through, what makes you think less information will whet my appetite? To take it to the extreme, if you never published a blog, everyone would read it!
Whack-a-mole...I understand what you're saying and I've even acknowledged in a previous comment that you have a legit point [above, @ 1:29].
There's different schools of thought on the full vs. partial feeds and there are numerous discussions about it on the internet.
Partial feeds can be frustrating to readers for a number of reasons, but it is pointed out that they do inhibit greater reader participation in the blog. There seems to be a consensus that it is really an individual preference and a choice that is unique to each blog.
Addressing your question, I would point out that when you have the entire post in the feed, what reason is there for you to click through to the post? To check out the comments or to comment on the post yourself? And how would that effort differ from clicking over from a partial feed?
I've tossed this over in my mind a lot, believe me, and I really just want to try it out and see what happens and how readers respond...or don't. Your input has been useful to me as far as how readers feel about the partial feeds. I'm hoping that you continue to be an active commenter here at SFDB.
.
The reason i dont like the shortning of the RSS is that i mainly read this blog through my cell phone feeds app. This allows me to read the blog quite easily. The problem with reading the site is, it might take only 1-4 seconds to load your site on a regular web browser, but on a phone browser, depending on coverage, it takes 10-30 seconds to load the page, then you have to zoom in and mess around to read it.
I never use feeds. I'm a blogger myself and love for people to visit the site and I like to pay the same respect to other bloggers.
I kinda agree with Carlos on the Facebook thing. It has become a compliment to my blog. My largest community of commenters is on Facebook.
Also, I'm on Twitter, which sort of functions as my feed - talk about truncated. If someone I follow writes something and I care to read it, it forces me to the blog, which I'm happy to do, for the reasons stated above.
This is a tough call, Rick. Our reading habits in this age of technology varies wildly.
Sorry, I meant complement. Damn auto-correct!
Oh I forgot to point out the obvious, South Florida Daily Blog also functions as my reader's digest/feed!
I'll chime in although I'm a little late to the party since I'm one of those people you've mentioned in the past you don't understand who only do blogs on weekdays.
Simply put, I don't like the change. 1) I use reader like some others to aggregate my news and decide what I'm going to read in full. 2) Yes, I am well aware what the sifts/coolers contain in general, but right now as it is cutting off with no real information, you may as well publish just the title. The way you are truncating it offers absolutely no indication of what is included. 3) If we are to take you at your word (more on that in #4), then wouldn't it make sense for me, or any other reader, to instead add the various blogs to our readers and read those instead? Why should I read your blog if it doesn't offer me ease of access? Oh, I know your blog offers it but if your feed doesn't, then I may not get to your blog. Since it's the first day I'm not sure yet if I'll continue reading. And now that brings me to #4) you have to admit that given the conversations you had with George on Searching For Signs, the timing of this change is, at the very least, a bit suspect in regards to your motives. You have a discussion with him where he reveals all the info he gets from your feed, and then you cut the feed? Maybe it was just a coincidence, maybe it was the drop that filled the bucket in convincing you to make the change, I don't know the answer to that, but it does seem like it was at least a factor.
As I said before, I'm not about to threaten to leave after one day (considering I've been following along here for years), but I am going to see how things progress and reevaluate as I go along.
I feel like a dinosaur. I don't even know what this RSS stuff is all about. I sit at my computer for a few minutes each day to read fun stuff. SFDB is in my drop downs on my address bar. I click on it, 4 whole seconds later I see the site, scroll down and start reading.
How hard is that?
Allen....let me address your comment one item at a time.
1) That doesn't change.
2) Actually, it offers a few lines of text so that you get a good idea of what follows. In the case of Sifts and Coolers, you already know. One commenter described how they hated my political posts. This partial feed should work great for them. They don't have to see the post at all if they don't care to.
3) The intent of Sift has always been to grab the best of blogging around South Florida and note those posts in the Sift, thus saving the time of the reader who doesn't want to wade through each blog for themselves. Sure, you could add those blogs to your reader. But you can do that with or without a partial SFDB feed. The "ease of access" doesn't change with a partial feed: it's still 5-10 seconds away if you want to read the post.
4) My exchange with George did get me to thinking about the full and partial feeds and the fact that one can follow SFDB daily and not set foot on the website at all. It bothered me after thinking about it because, as I explained earlier, the purpose of SFDB was and is to be a place where the SoFla blogging community passes through at some point during the day and makes use of the different widgets and participates in the conversation. You can't do that if you read solely by rss feed. It's the difference between being in a house and looking through the windows from outside. I want my readers to come into the house and engage to some degree. So, yeah, Moneo got me thinking about that. As far as Moneo is concerned, however, he can remain outside.
I'm also going to be evaluating things as I go along. There are over 520 subscribers to SFDB. So far I've heard from 5 or so who are disappointed enough with the change to say something.
.
Your logic behind this is really flimsy:
a) Regarding the poll results. Twice you've made disparaging remarks regarding turnout, yet blatantly ignored the results of the turnout. My question is what percentage did you expect to respond? The ratio of readers that responded to the poll is far larger than the ratio of readers that comment on any given post, which is a fair metric. If you can mock the turnout against the truncated feeds, then the turnout FOR truncated feeds is even more pathetic.
b) You can only lose readership through this decision. Nobody decides to read a blog BECAUSE it has truncated feeds, but people will stop reading because it has truncated feeds.
c) Related to 2, the question is how many people will you lose as readers. Let's just say for the sake of discussion it's 1 sole reader that you lose and that's it. Now that number might be inconsequential to you, but the question is why purposefully lose a reader? At the gain of what? You will not gain any readers by the decision and there's absolutely no reason to believe a person will be more likely to "participate" in the blog because of how they access the material. Participation is not a function of how one accesses the material, but rather the individuals themselves. My guess is you will gain nothing in whatever "participation" you desire and lose readers.
d) At the end of the day, it seems arrogant and pretentious to tell someone how they must enjoy the product at the expense of hurting your own exposure. It's like a filmmaker saying you must enjoy my film this way or don't watch it. Or a chef saying food must be eaten only in the way prepared or don't eat it. Whereas, an artist might enjoy having a niche, smaller crowd to support their eccentric arrogance, most blogs aim for the greatest exposure possible and do not seek to limit it purposefully. Even if you're goal is not necessarily to have the greatest exposure, well I still don't see how truncated posts serve any benefit. There seems to be a big leap of faith that it's just "better" no matter how vague, flimsy, or irrational the reasoning behind it is.
Since you've moved to truncated feeds the only time I've accessed the site is to comment on the decision to truncate the feeds. After that's played out, I will likely keep you in my reader but only click over if something is especially eye catching. So far, I've only cleared your posts after a glance at the truncated feed. I suspect that a much larger number of reader subscribers will do the same and only 1 or 2 of the 500 will take the time to be vocal as I have.
Hey Doc....the matter is still under review. Thanks for your thoughts but I'm going to give this a couple weeks and see how things go.
BTW, the anonymous proxy is like a siren.
Toodles.
.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.