<?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: Titles Only or Summaries?</title> <atom:link href="http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/</link> <description>Crossing Borders Crossing Cultures</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:20:00 -0500</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Patrix</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17947</link> <dc:creator>Patrix</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:08:29 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17947</guid> <description>SEO was not one of my reasons but minimalism was. As you mention, if your readers are using feed readers, then this question is irrelevant. The question is where do readers come to from your Twitter feed - your home page or post page? I assume the latter since you would share a post permalink instead of the homepage link. If so, it hardly matters what your front page displays. No additional clicks involved.
And I&#039;m working on my verbosity :)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SEO was not one of my reasons but minimalism was. As you mention, if your readers are using feed readers, then this question is irrelevant. The question is where do readers come to from your Twitter feed &#8211; your home page or post page? I assume the latter since you would share a post permalink instead of the homepage link. If so, it hardly matters what your front page displays. No additional clicks involved.</p><p>And I&#8217;m working on my verbosity :)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: vimoh</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17946</link> <dc:creator>vimoh</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:18:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17946</guid> <description>I answered the question you asked in this post&#039;s title with &quot;full post&quot;. :)
I have come to realise that all my nudging and pushing the reader isn&#039;t going to do my blog much good. I do not much care for SEO any more. So my primary concern is to get the content to the reader.
If they subscribe via feed readers, they get the full text. If they come to the post page, they get the full text. If they come to the main page, they get the full text. Most of my traffic comes from my Twitter feed, so I do not consider it wise to make them click more links to get to the content.
Also, I am not a verbose writer like you. My posts hardly ever exceed 500 words. That much, to be sure, is an easy enough read on the main page.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I answered the question you asked in this post&#8217;s title with &#8220;full post&#8221;. :)</p><p>I have come to realise that all my nudging and pushing the reader isn&#8217;t going to do my blog much good. I do not much care for SEO any more. So my primary concern is to get the content to the reader.</p><p>If they subscribe via feed readers, they get the full text. If they come to the post page, they get the full text. If they come to the main page, they get the full text. Most of my traffic comes from my Twitter feed, so I do not consider it wise to make them click more links to get to the content.</p><p>Also, I am not a verbose writer like you. My posts hardly ever exceed 500 words. That much, to be sure, is an easy enough read on the main page.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Patrix</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17889</link> <dc:creator>Patrix</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:59:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17889</guid> <description>I don&#039;t know why people would land on your homepage even if they come through an image search. I searched for a few images and it took me to the blog&#039;s single post page where the photo existed. Unless users are cut-pasting the URL (in green) in the search results which I highly doubt. It doesn&#039;t happen for me. For e.g. &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q=solar+system&amp;sa=N&amp;start=21&amp;ndsp=21&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;searching for &quot;solar system&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, people land on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ipatrix.com/the-new-solar-system/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this page&lt;/a&gt; on my blog and not on the homepage. I wonder if it is a Blogger issue.
Also, what latest feature are you talking about in the fourth paragraph? Is it in Firefox or WordPress?
I&#039;ll definitely share what I learn about traffic data after this new design was implemented. As of now, the traffic hasn&#039;t decline; in fact for obvious reasons has inched up a little.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know why people would land on your homepage even if they come through an image search. I searched for a few images and it took me to the blog&#8217;s single post page where the photo existed. Unless users are cut-pasting the URL (in green) in the search results which I highly doubt. It doesn&#8217;t happen for me. For e.g. <a
href="http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;q=solar+system&amp;sa=N&amp;start=21&amp;ndsp=21" rel="nofollow">searching for &#8220;solar system&#8221;</a>, people land on <a
href="http://www.ipatrix.com/the-new-solar-system/" rel="nofollow">this page</a> on my blog and not on the homepage. I wonder if it is a Blogger issue.</p><p>Also, what latest feature are you talking about in the fourth paragraph? Is it in Firefox or WordPress?</p><p>I&#8217;ll definitely share what I learn about traffic data after this new design was implemented. As of now, the traffic hasn&#8217;t decline; in fact for obvious reasons has inched up a little.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Anil</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17888</link> <dc:creator>Anil</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:44:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17888</guid> <description>Very true. With blogs more than &#039;conventional&#039; sites folks will likely land via search keyword(s), on an inner page that is. No two questions about that.
Surprisingly I find all visitors landing on my blog through image search actually landing on the main blog url instead of landing on the post whose image they clicked through as one might&#039;ve expected. And this is amounting to a substantial portion of the traffic. However, with text searches they land on the relevant page like you said.
Yup, the related posts and the &#039;prev&#039; and &#039;next&#039; do show up. You are correct about side-bar links being rarely clicked, typically less than 1%.
With the latest feature to become available which will allow the user to check any one single page for past instances of data on it by using a drop-down in a browser to specify date and time might actually do away with archives to an extent too.
It would be interesting to learn of what the traffic data from your new design throws up in terms of user reading patterns.
It&#039;s fascinating really, this user experience business.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very true. With blogs more than &#8216;conventional&#8217; sites folks will likely land via search keyword(s), on an inner page that is. No two questions about that.</p><p>Surprisingly I find all visitors landing on my blog through image search actually landing on the main blog url instead of landing on the post whose image they clicked through as one might&#8217;ve expected. And this is amounting to a substantial portion of the traffic. However, with text searches they land on the relevant page like you said.</p><p>Yup, the related posts and the &#8216;prev&#8217; and &#8216;next&#8217; do show up. You are correct about side-bar links being rarely clicked, typically less than 1%.</p><p>With the latest feature to become available which will allow the user to check any one single page for past instances of data on it by using a drop-down in a browser to specify date and time might actually do away with archives to an extent too.</p><p>It would be interesting to learn of what the traffic data from your new design throws up in terms of user reading patterns.</p><p>It&#8217;s fascinating really, this user experience business.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Patrix</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17887</link> <dc:creator>Patrix</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:18:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17887</guid> <description>Thanks for your detailed comment. I still remain unconvinced to display summaries. As you say, people who write something fancy in their titles just to catch attention are just as likely not to reveal much in the summaries either.
Also, I think new readers rarely arrive at the home page unless it is from someone&#039;s blogroll (a rarity these days). They come to a single post from either a search engine or referral from another blog. In that case, the bounce rate would be measured TO the homepage. But I rather have them browse through my archives or the colophon. I even use a WWSGD plugin and if you want to see it in action, clear your cookies and see any single post. The Related Posts in addition to the Previous and Next post links provide ample chances for discovery and keep them hooked.
The extensive links provided in the sidebar in terms of category archives, recent comments, recent posts, and other link widgets are rarely clicked in my experience so why add to the clutter.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your detailed comment. I still remain unconvinced to display summaries. As you say, people who write something fancy in their titles just to catch attention are just as likely not to reveal much in the summaries either.</p><p>Also, I think new readers rarely arrive at the home page unless it is from someone&#8217;s blogroll (a rarity these days). They come to a single post from either a search engine or referral from another blog. In that case, the bounce rate would be measured TO the homepage. But I rather have them browse through my archives or the colophon. I even use a WWSGD plugin and if you want to see it in action, clear your cookies and see any single post. The Related Posts in addition to the Previous and Next post links provide ample chances for discovery and keep them hooked.</p><p>The extensive links provided in the sidebar in terms of category archives, recent comments, recent posts, and other link widgets are rarely clicked in my experience so why add to the clutter.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Anil</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17886</link> <dc:creator>Anil</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:54:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17886</guid> <description>For what they are worth, my two cents below.
Summaries for me. It&#039;s like turning the book and reading the blurb, then continuing to read the opening paragraph before thumbing through its pages.
Personally I do not base my decision to read further on opening lines alone for, far too many times it can lead to someone deliberately writing something fancy to catch one&#039;s attention while offering nothing interesting beyond it, and at other times when one can risk missing out on interesting pieces just because one relied on the opening lines alone to avoid reading further.
I feel minimalism is fine but upto a point. It might work for those who read your blog regularly, but am not so sure about new readers coming upon headlines. Moreover there&#039;s no way of knowing which headline will serve appropriately for what kind of reader. A grey area.
Laying out posts one below the other allows a reader to scan through several before either reading one of them or reading all, or none at all. But a reader who will click on a title to read a post may not return to the menu because it might be lost to him unless of course the links are provided alongside as a sub-menu of sorts. If not the reader will need to find a way to return to the home page or click on archives. The &#039;Previous&#039;, &#039;Next&#039; links do not help much, more for the reason that a reader might prefer to be able to make a choice on what to read by what is laid out to them as in &#039;several at once&#039; rather than &#039;discover&#039; with a &#039;Previous&#039;, &#039;Next&#039; button.
Typically sites register a bounce rate (from the home page) between 55-75 %, one reason why it might help to have summaries.
Actually no harm in trying out the minimalist theme for, it might be a learning in reader behaviour as well. Would be interesting to see what you blog analyticfs tells you. Maybe it could be a post by itself :-)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For what they are worth, my two cents below.</p><p>Summaries for me. It&#8217;s like turning the book and reading the blurb, then continuing to read the opening paragraph before thumbing through its pages.</p><p>Personally I do not base my decision to read further on opening lines alone for, far too many times it can lead to someone deliberately writing something fancy to catch one&#8217;s attention while offering nothing interesting beyond it, and at other times when one can risk missing out on interesting pieces just because one relied on the opening lines alone to avoid reading further.</p><p>I feel minimalism is fine but upto a point. It might work for those who read your blog regularly, but am not so sure about new readers coming upon headlines. Moreover there&#8217;s no way of knowing which headline will serve appropriately for what kind of reader. A grey area.</p><p>Laying out posts one below the other allows a reader to scan through several before either reading one of them or reading all, or none at all. But a reader who will click on a title to read a post may not return to the menu because it might be lost to him unless of course the links are provided alongside as a sub-menu of sorts. If not the reader will need to find a way to return to the home page or click on archives. The &#8216;Previous&#8217;, &#8216;Next&#8217; links do not help much, more for the reason that a reader might prefer to be able to make a choice on what to read by what is laid out to them as in &#8216;several at once&#8217; rather than &#8216;discover&#8217; with a &#8216;Previous&#8217;, &#8216;Next&#8217; button.</p><p>Typically sites register a bounce rate (from the home page) between 55-75 %, one reason why it might help to have summaries.</p><p>Actually no harm in trying out the minimalist theme for, it might be a learning in reader behaviour as well. Would be interesting to see what you blog analyticfs tells you. Maybe it could be a post by itself :-)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Patrix</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17878</link> <dc:creator>Patrix</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:05:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17878</guid> <description>Well, I&#039;m trying to reach out to some people and will post the query on WP Forums so lets see.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I&#8217;m trying to reach out to some people and will post the query on WP Forums so lets see.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Patrix</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17877</link> <dc:creator>Patrix</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:05:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17877</guid> <description>I would prefer if my reader hopped over to my blog to read but I think feed readers are convenient and efficient. But of course, I like to hop over once in a while to check out a new design or a sidebar feature if necessary.
Anyway, thanks for the &quot;only&quot; titles vote :)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would prefer if my reader hopped over to my blog to read but I think feed readers are convenient and efficient. But of course, I like to hop over once in a while to check out a new design or a sidebar feature if necessary.</p><p>Anyway, thanks for the &#8220;only&#8221; titles vote :)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Sherene</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17875</link> <dc:creator>Sherene</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:29:02 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17875</guid> <description>I like reading blogs through Google Reader and coming over to comment or read through comments, as you suggest..Hope you find a kind soul who can help you with the + idea!</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like reading blogs through Google Reader and coming over to comment or read through comments, as you suggest..Hope you find a kind soul who can help you with the + idea!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Supremus</title><link>http://www.ipatrix.com/3100/titles-only-or-summaries/#comment-17874</link> <dc:creator>Supremus</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:46:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=3100#comment-17874</guid> <description>I find reading through feedreader pretty boring; I the blog and its design are often an extension of the blogger&#039;s personality - and I&#039;d like to have the feeling while reading their blogs.
That said, lesser the better for me! Heck I want the &quot;only&quot; titles look on my blog (though I dont even blog anymore hehe!)
S</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find reading through feedreader pretty boring; I the blog and its design are often an extension of the blogger&#8217;s personality &#8211; and I&#8217;d like to have the feeling while reading their blogs.</p><p>That said, lesser the better for me! Heck I want the &#8220;only&#8221; titles look on my blog (though I dont even blog anymore hehe!)</p><p>S</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
