Comments on: Why did Nick Denton truncate Gawker’s RSS feeds? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: thompson44 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-17936 Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:09:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-17936 There might be a reason for that fact, although if there is I don’t really understand it. But I do see this move as a signal that Denton is exiting the blogosphere and that he has his sights set on higher ambitions. Expect his next move to be to rejigger the home pages of Gawker and his other blogs so that the big featured stories at the top get bigger, and the amount of real estate devoted to a simple reverse-chronological listing of all blog entries gets ever smaller. The NYT has Times Wire, if you want a reverse-chronological bloggish content stream, but it’s buried within the site and is something of an afterthought. Gawker is likely to be moving in a similar direction: towards an edited home page and away from an automatically-generated blog page. It’s the beginning of the end of an era.
thompson44

Colorado Business Immigration

]]>
By: ChaseW http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-13635 Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:12:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-13635 While there are many websites shying away from the use of full RSS feeds, that is definitely not stopping people from still accessing the full feeds. Since the release of WizardRSS.com I have seen over a quarter million pages that have been created on Google that are powered by WizardRSS and their autoposters. Just Google “Powered by WizardRSS”.

They currently have autoposters for WordPress and Joomla. They will be releasing posters for phpBB, MyBB, and SMF by the end of the week as well.

]]>
By: wehojoel http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-12646 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:48:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-12646 I noticed that the ads are now bigger then the truncated RSS feeds. I use my RSS Feed’s to get the gist and move on. If I like the story I click to read the full article and some of the comments. For sites the truncated RSS feed too much they over time go from barely being read to being removed and that blog/news site is never heard or visited again. In my case they become not important since for every Gizmodo I can go to Engadget and many more others.

]]>
By: dannysullivan http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-12641 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:45:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-12641 Putting out a full feed is a huge pain considering it is taken as an open invitation by some to simply reprint your content without permission.

I’ve grappled with the issue myself over the years. I’ve yet to see one solid case study that shows going to full feed dramatically increased someone’s traffic AND bottom line. The Guardian example above isn’t proof of anything. Any number of things could have sparked their rise, and they say as much.

I’ve read any number of people who will tell you this is the case but never backing anything up. And yes, I’ve read any number of people who are vocal that because such-and-such site doesn’t have full feeds, or moved away from them, they are no longer reading.

I suspect these people are well in the minority.

What I think is most notable is the growth of Twitter as a feed reading alternative. You rarely hear someone say that Twitter isn’t useful because you can only “feed” 140 characters of your stories. No, Twitter actually seems to have shown that you can get substantial amounts of traffic with just a summary. THAT I can document. I have seen Twitter first hand rise as a referring source over time. Plenty of other sites have reported the same.

So how is it that summaries in RSS are evil that are costing you traffic but summaries in Twitter are not. They don’t add up.

Similarly, with Facebook, often it is only a link that is shared. But just sharing those links more and more is being reported as a big traffic driver.

To me, if you want your content read as widely as possible, full feeds make that happen, because you ensure more people are likely to read in case they don’t click. But I really don’t see summaries as having some type of crippling impact on a site.

Side note: it’s really confusing to be told you can login and comment using your Twitter or some other account here and then still have to make a username and password. That doesn’t same any time. It just makes registration an even worse hassle.

]]>
By: tbotcotw http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-12640 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:28:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-12640 Yahoo Pipes can be used to turn any truncated feed into a full one. Here’s one I built when Deadspin went truncated:

http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.run?_i d=4e78ba4f8744c93f029d156cbbd1820d&_rend er=rss

]]>
By: ToddG http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-12635 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:07:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-12635 I’ve heard people (mostly, actually, it’s been you Felix) say that untruncating feeds tends to increase traffic. But my experience has been quite the opposite.

We stopped truncating feeds on the blog of one site that I run last November. (The blog is one of the most popular sections of the site.) Since then we’ve seen overall site visits and pageviews drop by about 20%. For us and the brand, it was the right decision to make. But if our business model relied on advertising revenue, I would definitely go back to truncated feeds–as much as I hate, hate, hate them when other people use them.

]]>
By: Uncle_Billy http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-12633 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:54:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-12633 Oh I see the logic now: The VIP feed is for the influencers who will actually spread the word and increase pageviews. When the atomized read the full feed, the site gains little to nothing.

]]>
By: Uncle_Billy http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-12631 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:32:40 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-12631 What does Engadget gain from you having them in your reader?

]]>
By: mwittenstein http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-12626 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:18:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-12626 As soon as I realized feeds from the various Gawker sites I followed had been truncated, I unsubscribed. What Gawker doesn’t seem to understand here is that they don’t have a monopoly on content. Gizmodo is no longer in my reader, but Engadget remains. Who won here? I think that’s obvious.

]]>
By: RapidFire http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/11/why-did-nick-denton-truncate-gawkers-rss-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-12625 Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:30:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=2920#comment-12625 I hate truncated RSS feed, only one i have is I guess FT AlphaVille. And I totally hate it.

]]>