RSS feeds - full vs partial

Yes, the full feeds vs partial feeds debate rages on. And on. And it gets boring and it gets heated. But it is quite an important debate to be having.

I personally think there is no 'one solution fits all' here.

Robert Scoble brought it up just recently, and for those who don't follow his blog religously here is the text of the comment I left on that particular full vs partial post:

So full vs partial rages on...

I publish full feeds, but only because I have nothing to lose. RSS is taking off, but it's still not largely understood by the average user. To be charging into 'full feeds are right all the time' at this point seems a bit strange to me.

Yes, I want to syndicate my content. But I respect the wishes of those that don't. Whether I subscribe to a partial feed will depend on the quality of the content.

If 'A List Apart' offered partial feeds, I would take them - gratefully (And not want to shoot them...).

Of course, I don't know who *this* post refers to and perhaps there is no reason for them not to have full feeds; but they obviously believe there is.

Are we talking Blogs only here or all RSS content...?

Most blogs at his point are either fluff or self promotional (at some level) - both these purposes have no reason not to publish full feeds...

The issue here, I guess is mostly monetisation.

I think an earlier commenter was fair to point out we need research and stats on full vs partial. I think it might show full feeds result in more subscribers and still get click throughs. I think it might also show that partial feeds, though resulting in less subscribers *might* have more targetted audiences and therefore yield greater results.

If users subscribe to partial feeds it may be because they know it's worth it. If they know it's worth it it may be because they trust the source. If they trust the source they may be more likely potential customers/consumers/whatever.

Maybe. We'll see.