Scoble illustrates the quandary that dite owners are faced with in the syndication space. People like Chris Pirillo need visitors to their site (it's how they get paid - advertising). That means that they are driven to provide partial content feeds in order to "force" aggregator readers to the site. Sadly for him, this runs smack into this:

I'm tired of reading feeds that treat me badly. I have more than 1,300 full text feeds. There's one or two exceptions. The New York Times. CNET. Slashdot.

The ironic thing is, Pirillo's site illustrates what I wrote about over here almost perfectly. No, Chris isn't providing brochure-ware. But his site requires effort to read, and that extra effort - when combined with a partial content feed - makes it less likely that I'll bother. What am I talking about, you ask? Well, follow that link I provided to his site. Not only does he provide partial content in his feed - he only provides partial content on his site. If one of the extracts looks interesting, I need to follow a [more] link to read the whole thing. Uhh, Chris - that's not going to happen IMHO - not for most people. I understand the quandary on the feed side (although, IMHO, the answer is to provide full content feeds that point back to "premium" site only content - not to provide an extract that I'll blip by).

I don't think this post helps either:

I love how everybody whines when they don't get their way - it's human nature. So, for all of you who unsubscribed from my RSS feed because it wasn't the way you wanted it (even though you're not the one providing it or paying for it), then you won't ever know that I considered going back to full feeds.

Vinegar, honey, all that. If you want to drive people to your site, I don't think that useless extracts are the way to go - it's far easier for me (even with only 281 feeds, as opposed to Scoble's astounding 1300+) to filter it right out than to follow the link. While I get the problem, I don't think he's found the answer.