Music + Technology + Random Nonsense from the Music Industry, by Ethan Kaplan

done and done.

i completely agree

I agree but i noticed since i upgraged to wordpress 2.1 when i use the tag it will cut off posts in RSS feeds

*the tag

oppss the !more tag

The movement’s already started:
http://www.fullfeeds.com

Ironically enough, I just unsubscribed from two partial feeds yesterday, because I was fed-up. I hope the people take note of this, because I do want to read what they have to say, but not by having to click through to each article.

Your movement is baseless.

To get a full feed, just use an appropriate scraping service that turns it into a regular RSS feed.

You have obviously a lot of free time to waste.

Here! Here! Totally agree with this.

Totally agree! I would also like to start a movement to get marketing people to actually learn what an rss feed is. Until they understand it they won’t treat it properly.

I agree with you!.

Here here! I’m with you on this!

Don’t think I will be joining the movement, though I agree about some publishers not yet realising they can monetize RSS.

In general, though, RSS has huuuuuge strides to make before it is widely adopted by anyone outside of our own demographic here.

My classes this week were introductions to the topic and even my students, the MySpace generation, had never heard of it.

Problem – it’s an acronym. Problem – not enough people do the FeedBurner trick of BrowserFriendly pages. Despite the rise of the orange radar icon, its use is the exception rather than the rule. And not all sites even use RSS. Some of the issues we encountered today.

So I frame RSS is the general space of personalization, customization and RSS as the best-yet realisation of The Daily Me.

Final point – one student this morning found that feed’s on Yahoo! properties including Launch would only let you add them to My Yahoo!, not any other readers. Making subscriptions proprietary? That’s not playing fair.

“Everyone should unsubscribe to any blog or RSS feed source which does not provide a full-text feed for free.”

Why are you telling me what I must do? I don’t have a problem with partial feeds, they fit better in my feed reader, I usually only go by the title, anyway, and I always prefer to see the web site of any story I’m writing about.

Of course, it’s easy to create partial feeds from full, and not vice versa, but I wish you wouldn’t dictate to “everyone” (even though most people who use the net don’t even USE RSS feeds) what they should do.

Are you just going for Diggs?

I think it’s necessary to offer a better feed however I would not necessarily believe that it should be indicative that it is a full text feed all the time because even then we run into problems.

I would look at the feed on this site. In one case you are providing full text versions of your original content. For borrowed content, you are supplying links without any text description of what we are linking to.

This is where the issue lies. If information is copywritten or protected by the publisher, you would be doing the correct thing in only publishing a link that would direct users back to the original site. However, with this ethical practice in mind many times it is just the link that is being posted and not the original text source which is prohibitive in the RSS Environment and your little “Manifesto”.

For me, I believe that RSS is still a learning experience and something that as it becomes more mainstream there are more concrete rules for developing a procedure whereby you are informing your readers of the subject material as well as “Enough” content for the reader to make a decision as to whether they want to go on. (i.e. if you want to turn to page 7 to read the rest of this article be my guest).

Admittedly, for me this is still something that I am working on and trying to perfect from my own sites content. You did bring up some good ideas, however.

And chances are if someone is posting no description links on RSS feeds they are probably losing readership anyhow.

I’m in.

Hear Hear.

Well said that man. Count me in.

I agree with you 100% I just wrote something on my blog http://www.frumhere.com/blog the other day about this. I started A Jewish news service that aggregates RSS feeds from various sources. About 95% of all feeds on Jewish news is partial feeds. I”m going to stop aggregated their content anymore as they are only providing the headlines. There is one site shmais.com whose RSS feed doesn’t even link to the article itself, but rather to the site itself where you have to find the article.

And thus started “Ethan’s Movement.” I’m on board.

Done and done!

Agreed for blogs, not for news site. Being a journalist, I need to scan the published entries, and believe me, having to scroll through fulltext – or even worse, in the case of InfoWorld, the fill page itself, ads and all – is quickly getting tiring when do this more than once a day, on even only a dozen of sources.

Preach it! I agree completely. The same could be said for feeds with large banner ads in them.

Hearty Agreement.

I’ve done it. I wrote about the same thing a few years back, I think that if a company wants to loose readers that actually care, they will public half-feeds.

I’ll post about your movement in a bit.

I agree – this is something I went through and did a little while ago. There’s enough of a content overload these days without getting nothing for your time.

Just noticed that my home page needed correcting. Cheers, Dan.

Count me out. For several reasons. But a few of the easy ones:

– In some contexts, monetizing feeds is much more difficult than monetizing the originating site (particularly when dealing with local, technologically-timid advertisers, as newspaper/traditional media advertisers often are).

– I’ll leave it to the RSS spec (http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss) to tell me about “the spirit of RSS”. And what does it have to say? I quote, “An item may represent a ’story’ — much like a story in a newspaper or magazine; if so its description is a synopsis of the story, and the link points to the full story. An item may also be complete in itself, if so, the description contains the text (entity-encoded HTML is allowed; see examples), and the link and title may be omitted. All elements of an item are optional, however at least one of title or description must be present.” So it’s either/or. And technically, if you want to talk about the “spirit” of it, “description” sounds a lot more like a summary than the full text.

– I think the producer of the content should be able to dictate the context in which his/her content is ingested.

– Smart words from smart people are more important to me than holding to a silly, unfounded “movement”.

But I do agree with you in that it’s nice to have the option of a full feed for my aggregator.

hochu vodki!j

Hi our little brothers.

This is very interesting site…k