reading original article

• 

  licious · Member · May 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

  • Copy link
  • Add topic to favorites

  Hello. I have a question. If a reader views my summary post via a feed reader and click on the “view original article,” the entire post shows within the feed reader’s window (at least in mine, not sure if it’s the same for all feedreaders or it opens the original post in a new browser). My question is:

  If the full original post shows using their reader, am I correct to assume it won’t reflect on blog visit stats (tho it reflects on the feed stats)?

  I’m just trying to figure out if they actually read the entire post or just the summary, because the visit and feed stats are total opposites in number.

  Thanks.

• 

  raincoaster · Member · May 30, 2007 at 7:18 am

  • Copy link

  Feed stats tend to be less than 10% of total stats, unless your blog is primarily techie. And from what I understand, unless the feed reader people go to your blog in their browser, they’re counted as a feed reader, NOT a blog reader at all.

  But if you send out only partial feeds, you’ll lose a lot of readers. A lot.

• 

  drmike · Member · May 30, 2007 at 12:33 pm

  • Copy link

  Actually if they’re clicking through to the article, I would think it would count as a regular read.

  Does the reader give you some sort of URL when you hover over the Read More… link or when the article comes up?

• 

  licious · Member · May 30, 2007 at 5:54 pm

  • Copy link

  You’re right, drmike. I subscribed to my own feed and clicked on the “view orginal article” link, and yes, it counted as blog views even if I viewed it via the reader. sorry, i should thought of doing the experiment earlier, rather than bother the forum with this post.

  rain, yea, thanks for the tip. I switched to full feeds. Apparently, search engines can use more tags other than the post category/title that way.

  Thanks for the help, guys:)

• 

  drmike · Member · May 30, 2007 at 5:57 pm

  • Copy link

  Not a problem. Yours is just a perfect example of us bouncing ideasw off of one another. :)