It’s just occurred to me that the thing you’re doing is being generous to NON-followers of your blog, at the expense of those who are loyal to it.

Your argument is that people who view the blog irregularly may miss out on a post if it gets punted into archives due to the frequency of your posts.

So? If they don’t wanna read your blog all that frequently, they’re probably missing out anyway.

I, on the other hand, read your blog pretty much whenever you update, so I’m not missing out on anything. But when you force me to click through, you’re almost guaranteeing that I WON’T click through. Some blog entries I skim read, simply to see if a keyword catches my eye. When you’re truncating, I don’t see those keywords. I only see your opening words. Not enough for me to form an overall impression.

I vote for non-truncation.

Blue skies
love
Roy

It's just occurred to me that the thing you're doing is being generous to NON-followers of your blog, at the expense of those who are loyal to it.

Your argument is that people who view the blog irregularly may miss out on a post if it gets punted into archives due to the frequency of your posts.

So? If they don't wanna read your blog all that frequently, they're probably missing out anyway.

I, on the other hand, read your blog pretty much whenever you update, so I'm not missing out on anything. But when you force me to click through, you're almost guaranteeing that I WON'T click through. Some blog entries I skim read, simply to see if a keyword catches my eye. When you're truncating, I don't see those keywords. I only see your opening words. Not enough for me to form an overall impression.

I vote for non-truncation.

Blue skies
love
Roy

But seriously, if your readers are tech-savvy, they’ll really appreciate full feeds. It saves a lot of time and effort on the reader side, even though (in principle in my mind at least) truncated feeds evoke a sense of sleek efficiency, because you’re “notifying” someone of an update with minimal bandwidth usage.

In practice though, the bandwidth usage ends up being pretty equal, because with full feeds, people aren’t downloading all your site’s headers, backgrounds, etc etc nearly as much.

Full feeds are definitely the way to go!

But seriously, if your readers are tech-savvy, they'll really appreciate full feeds. It saves a lot of time and effort on the reader side, even though (in principle in my mind at least) truncated feeds evoke a sense of sleek efficiency, because you're “notifying” someone of an update with minimal bandwidth usage.

In practice though, the bandwidth usage ends up being pretty equal, because with full feeds, people aren't downloading all your site's headers, backgrounds, etc etc nearly as much.

Full feeds are definitely the way to go!