Truncated posts, or not?

Roy wrote to me after he took a look at one of my new blogs, Dharma Reiki, and suggested that I not truncate my posts.  It didn’t occur to me that some people prefer not to read blogs that have truncated posts and prefer to read blogs where the full post is presented on the page at first glance.

You all have been doing this longer than I have.  What are your views on truncated posts?  My thinking is that if I truncate my longer posts (and some of them are pretty long), a visitor to the site will see more posts on a page to choose from than if I have half a dozen long posts.  In addition, there are days I can publish quite a few posts and if a visitor doesn’t subscribe to my feeds, he/she is likely to miss some of my posts.

What do you recommend?

Paul

Enthusiast, marketing strategist, writer, and photographer. Passionate about my wife, Gina and #proudDad. Allergic to stupid

  1. I cant begin to tell you how much I hate truncated posts, why force a reader to click through?

  2. Don’t I know it. Rich…! nagged until I eventually gave in…

    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!

  3. Don’t I know it. Rich…! nagged until I eventually gave in…

    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!

  4. Don't I know it. Rich…! nagged until I eventually gave in…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!

  5. Don’t I know it. Rich…! nagged until I eventually gave in…

    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!

  6. Don't I know it. Rich…! nagged until I eventually gave in…

    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!

  7. Hey Paul…

    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

  8. Hey Paul…

    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

  9. Hey Paul…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 skiesloveRoy

  10. Hey Paul…

    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

  11. Hey Paul…

    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

What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: