I am an RSS junkie. There is no possible way I could ever keep up with all the reading I want to do online without RSS. My preferred reader of choice is Google Reader. It’s fast, clean, easy to use and it’s connected to my gmail account which I’m already logged into 95% of the time anyway so, for me, it’s efficient as well.

I’m currently subscribed to 84 feeds (that’s trimmed down from about 200 a few months ago) and I read pretty much all of them avidly. I’m starting to get annoyed however at sites that choose only to display partial excerpts of their posts rather than the full post. The entire point of RSS is exactly what it says, Really Simple Syndication. It is supposed to give your reader the ability to absorb content anyway they want to.

The two most notable examples in my feeds are all New York Times feeds and CNET feeds. I understand that you’re trying to drive traffic back to your site but there are other ways to monetize RSS now and for a news source like the New York Times to not provide full feeds seems almost rude to me.

If old media has learned anything over the past few years it’s that the old, tired method of controlling how people get their information isn’t working. It’s why so many newspapers are watching their revenue streams dry out. Now, at least with the New York Times, they seem to have a hard time letting go of the old way of doing things.

What do you think? Do you publish your entire post in your RSS? Do you have a preference for sites that do or don’t?

• Google Boosts Their Paid Storage Quotas