<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: My Google Reader Feeds</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chrissandberg.com/my-google-reader-feeds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chrissandberg.com/my-google-reader-feeds/</link>
	<description>Internet Marketer - SEO, PPC, Analytics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 18:10:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Internet Business Blog &#187; Should You Use Partial Feeds To Increase Website Visitors?</title>
		<link>http://chrissandberg.com/my-google-reader-feeds/comment-page-1/#comment-220</link>
		<dc:creator>Internet Business Blog &#187; Should You Use Partial Feeds To Increase Website Visitors?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrissandberg.com/blog/2007/04/21/my-google-reader-feeds/#comment-220</guid>
		<description>[...] One popular reasons given for using partial feeds as opposed to full feeds is that it increases website visitors. If you let people have your full feed they will just consume your content through a feed reader and never visit your site, so you have to offer just a partial feed so they will have to click through to your website and read your full post, right? &#8230; Wrong! Several recent posts say otherwise. Whenever I subscribe to a feed and find out it only offers a partial feed I unsubscribe immediately in almost all cases. On the rare occasion that I do stay subscribed I end up reading less of the content than I would have had they offered a full feed, simply because clicking through to a website is just an extra step that I am reluctant to take, because it takes me away from all the other good content in my feed reader provided by all the other blogs who let me subscribe to a full feed. There is a lot of good content out there and I am always looking for ways to sift through it all. By offering only a partial feed you are pretty much guaranteeing that I will place your content in the never return category. One exception to this is Aaron Wall&#8217;s SEOBook. He offers great content that I wouldn&#8217;t want to miss it, but his blog is the only exception. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] One popular reasons given for using partial feeds as opposed to full feeds is that it increases website visitors. If you let people have your full feed they will just consume your content through a feed reader and never visit your site, so you have to offer just a partial feed so they will have to click through to your website and read your full post, right? &#8230; Wrong! Several recent posts say otherwise. Whenever I subscribe to a feed and find out it only offers a partial feed I unsubscribe immediately in almost all cases. On the rare occasion that I do stay subscribed I end up reading less of the content than I would have had they offered a full feed, simply because clicking through to a website is just an extra step that I am reluctant to take, because it takes me away from all the other good content in my feed reader provided by all the other blogs who let me subscribe to a full feed. There is a lot of good content out there and I am always looking for ways to sift through it all. By offering only a partial feed you are pretty much guaranteeing that I will place your content in the never return category. One exception to this is Aaron Wall&#8217;s SEOBook. He offers great content that I wouldn&#8217;t want to miss it, but his blog is the only exception. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
