Now Is the Perfect Time for an RSS Renaissance
neflabs.com
neflabs.com
(Full disclosure, I don't work for Feedly nor do I own any of the company. I just like the service!)
Maybe someone knows a service that lets you mark posts from your feed to be shared as a public collection?
You can also tag stories and each tag can have a RSS feed that others to subscribe to, but I don't think there is a web page to send people to for your taggged stories.
However, I both enjoy and dislike Feedly. Here’s the rundown:
Pros)
- advanced features like highlighting, team management
- pure free offering that just works
- integration with pretty much every feed reader app out there
Cons:
- no ability/willingness to pull full text
- iOS app is honestly kind of clunky
I emailed them that I’d willingly migrate from a different app that I pay a subscription for if only they’d pull the full text, but they told me that is an intentional non-feature. Big bummer.
What you are asking them to do is have a crawler go to the site and pull the full text whenever they feel they are being served truncated.
Not only does that go against the nature of RSS, but would be costly for them.
What app do you pay for that does this? Is it even using RSS?
I don’t know that it goes against the nature of RSS. I kind of feel that providing only a title of the article and a link goes against the spirit. But nature and spirit are different.
Other sites, like Slate, are more annoying. They write headlines and opening paragraphs that are "Slate-pitches" that are trying to goad you into clicking. These I have no patience for and eventually unsubscribe from after my fourth or fifth click-through to a thoroughly boring article.
I'm just a (non-paying) customer.
Created an account first and checked whether you can export your OPML, and indeed you can in the feed settings: https://i.imgur.com/ttPNrd1.png
The mobile app is great too, it has become my main RSS reading platform.
Didn't even know what I was missing!
Feels like it that's just tip of the iceberg re. things they could improve - for example they finally, finally!, added ability to create categories/tags for free (was paid feature).
I understand it's tough to run a business like this (and why google killed this, at least officially) - but i wouldn't actually mind an occasional ad.
I learned from Google that if I want a nice centralized feed reader I need one that I can support. That's why I pay for Feedly.
How so? I'm sure there are plenty of RSS readers on GitHub you could fork and then be safe from the developer abandoning it.
So Feedly is actually better about centralization than using a local reader. As a bonus, everything is synced across all my devices and I can quickly read a few articles on my phone while waiting for my name to be called at the pizza place.
Care to justify that statement?
I learned a bigger lesson about not trusting Google services in general, but I don't see how that means I shouldn't use Feedly.
Feedbro is a Firefox extension that lets me subscribe to and read feeds. Multiple layouts/formats.
I use it to subscribe to blogs, github repos etc.
I still miss a feature from the Googlr Desktop Search sidebar where it would autosubscribe/unsubscribe to rss feeds as you browsed around the web. I think it looked at what sites I visited, tried a few entries in the feed and continued/canceled based on if I read them or not.
Content providers centralized because centralized attention is more valuable than aggregation of decentralized attention in an ad driven economy.
Just because you want RSS to make a come back doesn't mean it has any chance of coming back unless it makes sense economically. And I don't see any of that mentioned in this article, nor am I aware of one that's guaranteed to work as good as ad driven model.
You might as well say it's a perfect time for the renaissance of steam engines.
When people talk about RSS being dead, they mean the consumer usage, and not about how it powers other things behind the scenes.
And most people use "RSS" through an app(lication). My point is that the economic model that powers podcasts can power articles through RSS as well.
This type of advertising has a name of its own: "native advertising". Companies like Buzzfeed, etc. made a lot of money in the beginning by taking advantage of this new format, essentially tricking readers into thinking that these are actual real content.
However it doesn't work as well as it used to because people have pretty much figured out what a native ad looks like.
However podcasts are single threaded, meaning if you're listening to a podcast and an ad starts playing, you could skip it but most people just keep it on as long as it's not too long. Basically it's a pushed advertising. But this is completely different when it comes to textual content because visual content is easily ignorable AND blockable.
Plus, even if you don't block or ignore it, you still only glance at the banner ad, which is completely different from the level of advertising done by podcasters.
There are tons more reasons why podcasts and textual media are completely different beasts, but the gist is, content industry is not as simple as it looks. Every ad format has a different value from one another, and also it depends on how focused the audience is, etc.
I'm not saying it should be a flashing banner on top, but it be somewhat incorporated in a format and length such that people aren't too annoyed - probably in corporation with the "sponsor". We know this works from the web because advertisers keep paying money for the ad space through articles.
However, the "sponsorship" model (a very few advertisers paying content creators to--usually manually--include mention of them in their content) is much more concerning to me than the "black box ad auction" model (content creators get money from an advertising aggregator like Google for putting a box on their page).
There's a spectrum there, to be sure, but with sponsorship it's much easier for advertisers to explicitly or implicitly influence the content creators outside of the "this podcast funded by FooBarCorp!" segments. Even without strong-arming creators, the knowledge of sponsorship can have a chilling effect on some content (i.e. it's just tawdry to start a segment about military drones being bad and then have to state that Lockheed Martin is your sponsor).
This can have two outcomes, neither of them good. Option one is that content creators can spend a lot of time trying to select/vet/court sponsors that align with their interests. This is the NPR model, and even they have trouble getting it right. Smaller creators may not have the time or ability to emulate it.
Option two is content that drifts into the realm of affiliate marketing as sponsors exert more influence over creators.
Neither of those have happened yet because the market is not yet saturated, I suspect.
I'd prefer black-box auctioned ads over that any day, even with the drawbacks of that system (ad aggregator influence, pervasive tracking, content delivery engineered for metrics collection, potential for sketchy ads to run on your site).
It's a win-win: they probably earn more on each paying customer than on 10 or 20 adblocking users like us. Paying customers get full uncrippled RSS, no ads and no tracking (I think it's tiered though so you might have to pay slightly more to get all these three).
It's like NYTimes providing crossword puzzle for free to subscribed users. You wouldn't call that "It's the perfect time for a crossword puzzle renaissance", would you?
But it shows there might be a sustainable solution that includes uncrippled RSS and no ads or tracking.
Personally I think this is fine. If paying for their content encouages them to maintain a quality RSS feed and not track you that seems like a reasonable exchange.
The fundamental problem is that people are used to not paying for content. But one of the things that has changed over the twenty years that the article talks about is that people are more willing to pay for things on the internet.
Let's start from examples: youtube, facebook, twitter. The platforms' ad businesses definitely benefited from being centralised and proprietary. But, all three "won" their respective platform wars before those lucrative ad businesses existed. They won because that is where people put their content and where people looked at that content.
So, who does this economy work for? It just doesn't apply to regular, "personal" users. They don't get paid for content. The profitability of youtube or FB doesn't impact their decisions to post videos there. These decisions collectively determined FB, twitter or youtube becoming major platforms... people's choosing to post. If these users had chosen different platforms, these would have won regardless of how well these platforms lend to advertising^.
Centralizing news on FB (for example) isn't working (money-wise) for most news organisations or other established, professional content producers. Youtube doesn't work well (money-wise) for independent producers. Even if you have enough viewers to make a TV show successful, you probably can't afford 3 full time makers on youtube revenue.
So... the economics are very profitable for the platforms, but not anyone else. All the decisions that made these platforms successful are/were not directly related to ad-money.
Podcasts are the best example. They were the way to distribute certain content. Users adopted podcasts because the content was there, even though the UX was/is clunky. It happened to be decentralized and rss-based. The fact that podcasts work better economically for content makers than youtube... that was incidental.
^Of course, there are bounds of viability/sutainability. FB is at least an order of magnitude above that boundary. It would be possible to make FB with much less than the $25bn in ad revenue it generates.
I would argue that podcasts are as decentralized as emails are "decentralized". When was the last time you downloaded a Podcast from a self-hosted server? Most people download podcasts through iTunes, SoundCloud, etc. because...centralizing makes sense economically. In this environment, RSS is virtually meaningless because the whole point of RSS was to have an open standard in a world where everyone ran their own RSS servers. Once it becomes centralized you're better off just distributing content as a centralized feed like Twitter.
> The fact that podcasts work better economically for content makers than youtube... that was incidental.
Nothing's "incidental". There are always reasons behind everything. Let's dig in further to see what's going on. When was the last time you've sat through a shitty Podcast that's 1 hour long? You probably haven't. Now think of how long most Podcasts are. Yes, they are mostly "long-form" content that are 30 minutes to 1 hour long.
Now think about the last YouTube video you watched. How long was it? Probably like 3 minutes to 5, or maybe you watch a conference livestream or tutorial that's 1 hour long, but those are exceptions. Most people go to YouTube to watch bite sized videos. This is why ads don't work as well on Youtube compared to Podcasts. Why would you watch a 30 second ad just to watch a 2 minute video? Naturally, if you have the same content, people will watch the videos WITHOUT ads. And this is where the "race to the bottom" begins.
So are Podcasts absolutely superior to videos? No. Podcasts have their own drawbacks. Because Podcasts are long form content, listeners don't want to end up wasting their precious 1 hour. Therefore it's really hard as a podcast publisher to get people to listen to their podcast. Which means initial "acquisition" is much harder for Podcasts compared to YouTube. But once you "acquire" the listeners it's worth it because they have "chosen" to listen to you on an on-going basis. Which is why I asked earlier when was the last time you sat through a shitty podcast. It is much harder to build an audience for a Podcast compared to Youtube, you really need to be able to produce super high quality content.
My point is, these different types of medium each have pros and cons. But there are always very good reasons if you look behind the scenes. Nothing is "incidental". And again, this all comes down to money.
I certainly don't see a straight line from FB being an excellent way to sell ads and facebook being the most popular platform. FB won because FB was where people posted and read posts. No one even knew that facebook would be such a great ad platform at that point. I don't think users cared much. This is what I mean by incidental. Not coincidental and not without consequence, just not having a determining cause and effect relationship.
...incidentally (yep, again), twitter and youtube are not great ad platforms, by comparison. That's in large part why podcasts are comparatively better, economically, in some cases, for content makers. Youtube sets a low bar.
Control for content quality, length, viewer loyalty or whatever you think is relevant and you'll still rarely find direct youtube ad revenue good relative to television, radio or most comparable mediums. low bar.
Anyway, my larger point is that the same rules apply for open, decentralised, democratized or other characteristic you/me/we would like our FB-killer to have. It must win the platform game. The platform game is determined by users, chickens, eggs, internal economics, external economics, UX paradigms, early adopters, people, stuff.... That will determine the success of rss-based ideas just like it determined FBs success.
I don't think this is reducible to "it's all about the money," or at least not reducible to a way that preserves much meaning..
> FB won because FB was where people posted and read posts. No one even knew that facebook would be such a great ad platform at that point
FB got traction because it was free. If they charged for posting it would have lost to some other service.
And during the early days FB survived because they raised money from VCs, and the VCs thought that there WILL be ways to make money if they got tons of users somehow.
If FB was some drug dealing, child trafficking service, then VCs wouldn't have put money into it. Even if we don't go that far, we can just look at music tech industry to see how this applies. Investors really got burned by Napster and never wanted to invest in a music tech company anymore because they knew it was a difficult industry to make money in.
Imagine how many people will be building web services if it was guaranteed that nobody made any money from it. That's why I keep saying it's all about money.
But I get your point, and I will compromise with you and say it's not "all" about money but "mostly" about money. After all, people build these web services in hopes of making money. That's why they form corporations (corporation's main function is to make money)
The most revenue generating social network does not win. Whoever wins wins. The value of what wins to advertisers determines how much winners win, but it does not determine winners.
Also, advertising revenue does almost nothing to fund content creation on these networks. The "supply side" economics of FB, YouTube & twitter is completely non-existant. The bar is essentially @ 0, so no matter what competes with them this can only get better.
The relevant point for this topic is that RSS' value or lack thereof to advertisers has almost no impact on its chances of success.
Podcasts, OTOH. These are an existence proof for (1) RSS being useful in the context and (2) decentralised distribution networks works reasonably well for content/media producers.
^macroecobomics is about the money system: inflation, money supply...
edit: the reason being able to walk with your feed is so important is because it means you aren't tied to that content provider in any meaningful way (almost every podcatching application out there except for one just points at your RSS, or plays follow the leader with itunes). Forgot to mention that part.
TTRSS only gave me trouble. Threw all kinds of strange errors at unexpected times. I don't know how many times it died on me after an upgrade. I eventually gave up and found FreshRSS. Been running (and updating) it over a year, without a single problem.
One of the best things about it is escaping the algorithmically curated feeds.
Every and service that I use has an RSS feed, except for Twitter. I use https://twitrss.me/ to follow users. If you don't find a feed, sometimes you just have to dig a little. You learn at which URIs the most commons CMSes presents their Atom/RSS feeds (hello /feed/).
- Official website: https://freshrss.org
- Demo: https://demo.freshrss.org/
- Github: https://github.com/FreshRSS/FreshRSS --
Looks great, thanks!
edit: aaargh, formatting
Do these people live in some sort of alternative reality where:
- The guardian
- BBC
- Reuters
- Ars Technica
- LWN
- Hacker News
and a fuck ton others don't have an RSS feed?
Or some sort or reality where Flym (or the myriads of RSS apps) don't exist?
Because I sure as hell don't.
Apart from the migration to walled gardens, I also think it's a problem that 99% of web users haven't heard of RSS.
This doesn't remove the ability to promote and share your content elsewhere. Content creators really can have it both ways. Publish on your own site and link to, share or duplicate that content on Facebook, Instagram, Medium, Twitter, RSS, Soundcloud and any other service that may be relevant to your audience.
Ease of use. Plenty of folks don't have the skills to set things up and keep them humming along, nor do they have the funds to play someone else to do it for them. So they hand over a bit of control in exchange for a platform that's set up and kept up to date.
You may argue that they're giving up too much control, and I'd agree with you, but that's not how most (non-technical) users see things.
I know one of them personally, and I think in her case, she may have had a few hundred people following her art blog, while on Instagram, she quickly amassed over 100,000 followers, so when she stopped updating the blog, she lost less than 1% of her fans.
It comes down to people knowing how to follow Instagram/Facebook accounts, while they haven't even heard of RSS.
Again, I'm not recommending giving up those channels, but betting your content on a platform that will be gone/unpopular at some point (they all come and go) while abandoning the constant, central presence of your very own website, regardless of how small the following may be, seems short sighted. This has nothing to do with RSS.
Super annoying.
Have you tried an RSS Reader with an embedded web view for those types of sites?
(I use Newsblur and it has a really neat view where it shows the original blog/page and uses a bit of logic to track your cursor to mark as read articles you read directly on the originating site in a frame inside of Newsblur. It doesn't work for all sites but the ones it does work for can be pretty magic. That said, I'm an old school "river" user and simply have a habit workflow that heavily makes use of keyboard shortcuts to open new tabs and close them quickly.)
Beyond that, a full-featured client can implement either of those features. I use Newsblur.com which allows you to control whether you see the feed's description or the readability-filtered page, and you have a training system to up/down flag authors, tags, and arbitrary text.
Edit:
Every single of those webpages have an RSS feed.
Ars Technica: http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/index/
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/rss
LWN: https://lwn.net/headlines/newrss
BBC: http://feeds.bbci.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/news_front_page...
I agree with him, I consume most of my news using RSS and even in pages that do not have RSS (like soundcloud) there is a RSS server somewhere serving the feed.
... however, they do 'touch' a lot of the articles during the week so the order they appear in the feed keeps changing.
So does Myspace.
I've created my own RSS aggregator, and a large percentage of smaller sites have misconfigured or broken RSS feeds. Most site owners don't seem to care much about RSS anymore.
Before you point out how RSS powers all kinds of other invisible stuff that most people aren't aware of, that's not what this article is talking about, nor is it what people mean when they say RSS is dead.
If you truly believe that RSS has as much influence over consumers in 2018 as a decade or so ago, you probably do live in an alternate reality.
Currently it uses a sponsor system.
But I really like the Blendle model and would be happy to pay more through them if more relevant content (including blogs in my case) becomes available and easy to access:
It is pay-per-view but reasonably priced and with reasonable (last I checked) refunds if you happen to click on some clickbait.
I also like Spotify but I think Blendle has a better business model, at least for text.
What I like: Authors get paid for the stuff I read. The more I read the more I pay. It doesn't drain my account when I don't use it.
However the article makes the mistake of saying that RSS is about "obtaining content from a website without having to visit the site itself". That's definitely not true.
RSS is about being notified of new articles. Subscribing to an RSS feed is like subscribing to a mailing list.
But it won't deliver the content reliably — many RSS readers restrict the HTML being rendered, for good reasons I'm sure, but they mess it up, there's no standard for what kind of HTML is accepted of course, so it only works well for textual articles, but rich text (e.g. images, CSS) is very problematic.
On my own website (alexn.org) I had many problems with rendering articles, due to images and code syntax highlighting, enough so that I decided to no longer render the entire article in the RSS feed, I prefer to deliver just a summary.
Being notified of new content, with a good summary, is all you need. If a website's readability is shitty, you can always invoke the browser's Reader View (Firefox, Safari) or open it with Pocket or whatever.
As a happy https://theoldreader.com/ user, I can't recommend it enough. It is just basic reliable RSS, subscribe and you'll see new items from them, no intelligent feed recommendations.
It has a few light social features which I easily ignore.
My current combination that I'm happy with for a few years is:
https://miniflux.net + Reeder on iOS and Mac
However, I was surprised to see that there are no viable Android apps that can speak to the Fever API. None of the current feed reader apps in the Google or F-Droid app stores qualify, and the APKs of an unmaintained app called Press floating around aren't too confidence inspiring.
I use thunderbird, I love it, and I would love it more if I could use it on more than one device....
They pioneered "incremental reading" a technique where an article is split into pieces and ingested by the software and fed back to you in an asynchronous manner at the most appropriate time.
Then the main author apparently started to feed everything, including emails into this system, and so he would consume everything only through this channel. Replying to conversations sometimes month later depending on the algorithm. He describes a bit more the process at the bottom of [2] in the apology paragraph.
https://github.com/wking/rss2email
I've been using it for a few years and, while the command line interface is a bit awkward, it works fine. Since email clients have the same controls an RSS reader needs (read/unread, folders, etc.) it works fine.
Blogtrottr is a hosted service that does the same thing; I also used them for a few years and was happy with the service. Just moved off because self-hosting was in some ways simpler for me.
What I long for is something like Google Newsstand, with the power to scrape the whole web for my interests- except Google Newsstand incessantly shows me all the inane "hot", "trending", "popular" etc mainstream stuff no matter how many hundreds of times I mark, "show me less like this".
Using RSS is a little limiting because there's so little discovery for related subjects from new sources- but I can completely turn off the firehose of pop news.
For me, it is the only sane way to keep up with my scientific journal reading.
That it's also a fine way to read webcomics and tech blogs is a nice bonus.
Plain old 'everything you can eat' RSS suffered from lack of a decent curation system. You got to a site/article you liked, and subscribed to the feed. When the number of feeds you accumulated got to the point where it became too much, you then faced the 'chore' of deleting stuff you once actually liked, and still might do. Most never got round to this and so stuff piled on.
A good personalized priority/curated feed out of your subscriptions would have been nice, but at the time nobody succeeded.
This describes my social media feed / process, and I would imagine most others as well.
Maybe in the future, RSS readers could take another form altogether. But solutions out there aren't as easy to use.
An interesting thing is IE had similar RSS support for rendering RSS feeds, configurable subscription options for them, and RSS feed-driven favorites folders. (Of course, none of that has made it into Edge. Yet?)
Perhaps more interesting was that IE had a platform API for its RSS store. It supported using the same Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) that Windows Update and other systems use for background downloading things during "quiet" periods on the machine to update the feeds. That RSS store provided a lot of what you needed for a good RSS reader application, though few reader applications took advantage to my knowledge. (I recall having part of a hand-crafted one at one point.) Outlook used to use this RSS store for its RSS support (thus sharing its feeds with IE), and the shutdown of IE's RSS support may be part of why Outlook's RSS support hasn't really worked that well in the last several versions.
By "process" I mean: Read the headline and sometimes the summary, decide whether to read the story, open the story (if I'm reading it), delete the feed item. Repeat 1,000x.
Deduplication is necessary but will only cut items process by maybe 5%, I would guess.
'Grouping' is much more valuable - grouping feed items by topic. For example, after the big event last night, instead of skimming dozens of headlines interspersed among 1,000 others, group together the feed items for that event under a single headers. Then I can quickly pick out the item I want to read and discard the remainder en masse. I'd guess that it would reduce the feed items I need to process by well over 50%.
Other tricks are needed too: 1,000 in 20 minutes is just under 1 feed item per second.
I subscribed to way too many feeds in the past and going through them with shortcuts / opening them in the background and then going through the opened pages to read them afterwards works well. It's even quite fast but as soon as you skip a day it just piles up until you can't work off the queue any more.
I then just decided to really look at which feeds I really get most out of and unsubscribed from most of them. Way happier with that strategy and I don't feel like I'm getting overwhelmed by the unread count.
I am very selective! Otherwise there would be far more. There are many feeds I cut despite having some excellent, irreplaceable content, because they also add too many unread feed items (i.e., poor signal-to-noise).
* Ability to add feeds to your database. Some obscure feeds are important to me.
* Privacy: I don't want to share a list of everything I subscribe to and read. This is a deal-breaker for me; I'm happy to pay for the service.
* UI with no overhead in time and cognitive load. A learning curve is fine - I love Vim, for example - but when I'm reviewing feed items the UI shouldn't delay or distract me. In fact, a keyboard-based UI based on Vim would be awesome (though probably there's not a huge market for that).
If you can even change the font size, often there are only predefined options, only works on certain views (article but not list etc.). Forget about changing the font itself or the colors aside from light/dark themes. It is ridiculous!
Do any of you know of a reader app, that lets me really customize that stuff why also being somewhat minimalist? The best thing I found so far is Palabre, but it also clutters the screen with useless header images, buttons and "Similar content" sections.
3 theme options 2 article list options You can show/hide 4 interface elements (feedname, date, summary, image preview)
6 fonts options 9 type sizes
It's enough for my needs.
UI on the site is a bit clunkey IMO, but the app at least has some customization options (font-type, font-size, different layout sizes, open tabs inside the app or direct them to an external browser, etc)
No affiliations, other than that I'm a happy user!
* Shameless plug *: our service & API at https://feedity.com helps create custom feeds for any public webpage.
My only problem with this is the very positive trend towards design-heavy journalism... just like the NYTimes Wind Turbine article currently on the homepage: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/23/business/ener...
I love the Instapaper/RSS style consumption as much as anyone but that doesn't mean that multi-MB pages with plenty of JS/CSS/Images are always a bad thing.
Maybe the solution is to differentiate between our long-form high-quality content reading UX from the faster-paced blog/RSS style consumption?
If all you want is to say "Hey I got a hundred thousand views, put your ads here!", than that's useful. But if you really want to know if users are content or they care, those numbers are just mute. But knowing whether users really care or not can lead you to better, cheaper design decisions.
RSS content may or may not be free of ads, but that is based on what you subscribe to.
I used Google Reader heavily, now I use theoldreader.
I do understand why some companies/people would prefer not to use RSS. From a money-standpoint, if you need to bring people to your website to get $$ from ads or other stuff, RSS makes it difficult. Basically, all content is free. Its great, but perhaps many websites with good content would not survive (perhaps many blogs neither)
[Plug] I rely solely on RSS Feeds to power a tiny in-house project[1] which helps us get contract leads and jobs for other people.
Would love an RSS comeback.
1. Get Better Luck - https://app.getbetterluck.com/
That being said, I don't see what's "wrong" with XML in this context.
The entire JSON spec is only about 3 pages long. (I don't know exactly how long because ECMA's webpage is down today!) I'm pretty confident that any popular JSON parser I use will abort correctly on bad JSON. There's no expansion or entities or escaping, so the parser is a pretty boring 1-to-1 translation. Give it a 1KB JSON file, and I'm going to get back a data structure that takes roughly 1KB.
XML is incredibly complicated. My operating system's XML parser has had XXE-related security bugs in the recent past -- that's OWASP bug#4, and there's a Wikipedia article about it. There's other possible attacks, like the "billion laughs attack". I'm very nervous about running an XML parser on untrusted content.
And that follows for most XML stuff. If you are getting most bloggable with your tech stack, yes, there are certainly risks to XML (also to YAML, also to JSON--and there are definitely JSON parsers that have had some capital-I Issues out there, and a good number of the popular ones also parse not-JSON too). That said, if you're using anything remotely mainstream you can feel reasonably secure against the sorts of attacks you are likely to see because, TBH, your RSS reader is just not that valuable a target. (Or, in my case--the podcast service I'm writing.)
I know a lot of HN folks will say but you can just construct perfectly valid XML with library such-and-such or API this-and-that and, yes, I'm sure they're all absolutely, positively 100% correct. But in my real-world experience, Reece and Simmons seem to be correct in practice. Given that Simmons wrote NNW, worked at the now-defunct server-side RSS company NewsGator, and is now writing a new RSS (and JSON Feed) reader, I'm inclined to believe that when he says JSON Feed "reflects the lessons learned from our years of work reading and publishing feeds," he means it.
Back before I started using the db backend I was parsing the feed with an auto-generated (from the schema) "rss reader" in python then merging the items into a master rss feed sorted by channels. That worked for a while until I got motivated and made it searchable/modifiable but couldn't find a simple database that I could just dump xml into.
Anyhoo, my point is it's easy to work with rss in either native xml or json with some simple tools that do most of the work for you. Would be super easy to bang together a converter that goes both ways if someone was motivated enough.
Actually... now that I think about it, changing generateDS to use a dict to store xml attributes could easily go back and forth with all the error checking one would desire -- might have to hack that together.
Non web-dev guy here, but browsers have excellent XML parses out there that can turn XML into a document object with a fully fledged query language. Why does it need to be a JS object?
{
"head" : [...],
"body" : [ { "name" : "H1", "text" : "Hello JSON" },
... ]
}
So much easier on the eye. ; )1. Pull in RSS news streams
2. Automatically generate your own RSS streams from your posts (and re-shares)
3. Provides content curation over the RSS streams amongst your friends that are subscribed on the same streams
4. Presents previews with images and scraped data in a 3/4-column summary layout that is easy to skim
the trick is curation .. adding option for negative keywords per feed or something.. having other people you could follow or pull an opml into your own profile / page..
maybe it needs to become more like pin boards where people can sort in more general groups, and then make it more visual as well.
I personally enjoyed the taptu app for it's visual layouts options with rss.. until it shutdown. RssDemon (premium version - no ads) has been a similar replacement for me with mobile devices.
I do think this kind of thing could create network effects easy. I'd use it like a renaissance of netvibes / myyahoo feed pages that were cool back in the day.
Now that I think of it, I probably stopped using those because they lacked the visuals, which should be easy to add these days.
This kinda of `anti-active` pattern where you only take the output (no need to read the news online), could also be applied to SaaS products.
You don't need to use the product, you just take the tech output that matters to your business.
Recently wrote a thing on the topic: The Next Generation of SaaS Won’t Optimize for User Engagement
While reading these comments, it popped up in my mind.
[0] https://www.plainflow.com/blog/next-generation-saas-user-eng...
https://web.archive.org/web/20180423210101/https://neflabs.c...
Give it a test at https://mailtheblog.com
https://zapier.com/blog/best-rss-feed-reader-apps/ lists a few.
Not disagreeing with the premise, but I think I’ve seen at least a half-dozen articles saying the same thing in the last few weeks. Can’t help but wonder if it’s getting click-baity (or perhaps click-hungry) every time I see yet-another-RSS-is-back-baby.
browser "links" macro l set browser "open -a Safari %u"; open-in-browser ; set browser "links" define-filter "Starred" "flags = \"s\"" macro m "edit-flags" s; ENTER macro k "edit-flags" ''; ENTER
RSS is a wonderful technology with embodies the spirit of the Internet. Facebook and Twitter are, by comparison, cancer.
I often recommend WordPress to folks as an alternative for blogging, because it is free and has RSS functional out of the box.
At even a cursory glance, independent Wordpress installs vastly outnumber the number of domains hosted on wordpress.com
The WordPress software IS free. The WordPress.com service is not, as you pay for it by attaching their domain name to yours thereby providing them free advertising.
Also, there's nothing to stop you from hosting your personal blog on your personal internet connection. Even if you don't have a static IP there's ways to solve that.
Many ISPs are switching to carrier NAT though and then you can't host as you don't have a routable IP number.
This past week I've been researching ways to incorporate the blacklisting and such from a different rss aggregator plugin to give people custom weighting options within them.
Having some experience with BP, it's really easy to get running, and even easier for other people to create a profile and start using it. Is there options with nextcloud for family and friends to join in any of the modules and have their own slice within it?
I'd love an easy button for people to get hosting and spin up a well defaulted nextcould, or buddypress system, or anything similar. With a BP setup, only one person in a family would need to spin up a server and everyone else could use it.. backing up data is the current weakness for easy button with that system, but I see that changing soon.
How are FB and Twitter comparable to RSS? And how are they trying to kill it? Like they're not supporting it on their platform? If so, why should I care? Or do you mean "they're conspiring to kill it across the Internet", in which case please elaborate.
EDIT: I'm getting downvoted; I can only assume people are interpreting my comment as vouching for FB/Twitter, which couldn't be further from the truth. I can be (and am) confused by his wording without supporting big social media companies. :)
By becoming popular, they reduce content providers' incentive to support RSS. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Each corporation decided to eliminate RSS from their platform around 3 to 5 years ago, because they wanted complete control over the distribution of "their" content (OUR social lives).
It's difficult to discuss this subject without running into this gigantic elephant in the room which is that the behavior of corporate "social media" giants is exploitative, bordering on criminal, and absolutely contradicts the best interest of the public, our nation, the internet, and intelligent life. This has really served to spotlight some of the problems with free market capitalism.
Didn't blogging start on wordpress/blogger/livejournal?
Blogging predates all blogging services, platforms, and software. Blogging was invented by early web pioneers. The corporations followed in the Gold Rush of the 1990s dot-com bubble, and they've been trying to monetize our social lives ever since.
Nowadays, thanks to marketing machines and television talking heads, nobody has "websites" anymore, we have "blogs".
There's an archive of John Carmack's .plan files here:
1999 LiveJournal
1999 Blogger
2001 Movable Type
2003 WordPress
I dumped MT (due to my Perl-aversion) for B2 and then onto the WordPress fork when B@ founder Valdrighi stopped active development of it.
Nowadays, we also have more modern tools like Jekyll, Ghost or whatever for blogging.
Evan Williams (Blogger Founder, RSS -> Twitter co-founder, No-RSS -> Medium founder, RSS[1]) has explored many of these modalities. He probably decided Twitter didn't need RSS.
Maybe we're all learning about the health of certain forms of discourse?
https://help.medium.com/hc/en-us/articles/214874118-RSS-feed...
[0]: https://help.medium.com/hc/en-us/articles/214874118-RSS-feed... [1]: I lack faith in Facebook given Zuckerberg's historic lack of an ethical compass.
[0]: https://twittercommunity.com/t/can-you-get-your-twitter-feed...
I think what's needed is an intrusive format that delivers metrics and tracking. sure it'd be another tool for control and manipulation, but we'd at least have back the ability to read our news centralized.
Great! Another selling point.
"believe"
The current state of advertising is ethically and technically questionable in many ways. But the idea of advertising as a revenue model is not.
I don't think the big weakness is lack of tracking, really, I think the big weakness is consumer adoption. The average person (outside of the journalist/influencer-types that continue to bemoan the loss of Google Reader) doesn't care to use feeds. Podcasts (based on feeds) are still held back by the idea that you have to figure out how to subscribe to a show.
My website has full feed: https://jeena.net/all.atom and so have blogs like Kottke http://feeds.kottke.org/main Marco Arment https://marco.org/rss Scott Hanslemann http://feeds.hanselman.com/ScottHanselman and most of the personal blogs you can find out there.
But as I said, I most probably didn't quite get the question.
It might also just be less effective than in-page advertising. Google and its peers probably know the truth of that, but I don't know if there are any reliable comparative studies in that area that don't fall into the "we tried to cram exactly the same strategy/campaign/content we would put in a banner ad into an RSS feed and got no uptick in sales" trap, but I'd love to read up on that area.
Regardless, the bandwagon effect of "traditional" online advertising is such that RSS is at best an (at present) tiny new frontier that would require advertisers to re-learn or change a lot of their content strategy, and at worst an actively advertiser-hostile platform.
Those are just observations; not statements of should/should-not.
My usual policy for podcasts is, RSS subscription or else. Ain't got time to visit the damn website. Science Friday tried that for a while and soon went back.
Instead of Facebook/Twitter/G+/etc. subscribe to RSS feeds.
Instead of Medium, use WordPress/Hugo/Metalsmith/etc. on Netlify/Surge/Github etc.
Instead of Mac, use GNU/Linux.
Etc.
In Firefox, do Right Click->View Page Info. The "Feeds" tabs lists the links.
There are also extensions (e.g. "Awesome RSS") that will put a symbol in your URL bar.
Mozilla used to make that more prominent. Most users didn't care, because they still didn't know what that weird icon meant. That was ultimately the downfall of RSS - the web tech scene never managed to communicate to the average user what RSS was good for, what it did, and how to use it.
The issue isn't "not knowing about RSS/ATOM". You don't need to. The same way e.g. you don't need to know what the octane numbers for gasoline mean. What you do need to know is what it does for you, and that answer has always been "not enough to satisfy the hassle".
(A good chunk of the blame here goes to all the larger, traffic-hungry web sites that only published excerpts via RSS, with a click-through link. It transformed a useful feed into a rather useless list of self-updating bookmarks)
It needs a better name than RSS/Atom. It should sound like English: "Subscribe to this website with <better name>." (same icon)
"Really Simple Syndication" and acronyms cause non-technical people to shut down. It's a foreign language. (Edit: "Atom" would be a good name, because it's plain English, and probably a better format too.)
RSS/Atom didn't decline because of Mozilla -- it declined when Google killed Google reader.
The information overload could be solved with machine learning algorithms (run locally in the client) that sort posts into a "featured" folder.
There are solutions to all of the current issues with RSS/Atom.
That's the problem with RSS/Atom. "Feed reader" doesn't mean anything to most people. "Subscribe to this website" does.
Bought my first Macbook pro after being a linux/ThinkPad guy since 2008.
I'm probably never going back to Linux on a laptop. I actually have working suspend and resume, plus it's Unix-like under the hood. Trackpad actually works without a bunch of ugly hacks since they deprecated synaptics drivers. no systemd, etc.
I spend almost no time fiddling with my system nowadays. I want to use my lap top, not just configure it every time systemd breaks something and I have to switch distros or window managers to get away from it.
I still like Linux on the server but in my opinion quality ux requires someone to get paid to do the un glamorous work like fixing compatibility issues and corner cases.
This computer "just worked" out of the box, and there is full freedom to tinker with the system. I think the industry should get away from the idea that everything needs to work out of the box anyway.
What specs and model do you have? Are there any tips, or something you wish you knew? My config reaches >€2500 quite fast.
I always research the models online before buying: "<make> <model> <distro>". I'm running Ubuntu 16.04 on it at the moment.
The next-day at-home support has been great. They have come to my home and replaced motherboards on the kitchen table with no questions asked.
It has two batteries, which added a little weight, but I rarely think about power outlets any more.
I can't think of anything else, but if you have any specific questions let me know.
I’ve been eyeing the X1Carbon. What made you select T460? Do you feel that it’s portable enough to bike/walk around with and use in cafes etc?
I guess what I’m really wondering is, with all different models (7 different choices in the T series, and then X and P) how can you select one? I’m in analysis paralysis.
I walk a lot with this computer and work from cafes all the time. It could be lighter, but it's fine.
I want to try NixOs, but haven't had time yet.
- T4XX = 14", T5XX = 15", X2XX = 12"
- The middle number is the last number of the year (T460/X260: 2016, T470/X270: 2017 etc.).
- The T-series has had three models per year, the normal with no ending letters that has an external battery, allows you to replace parts and is mainly meant as a durable corporate workhorse. The s-version is more for consumers, with usually better choices for panels and building material, but more integrated parts and less amount of maximum available memory; no replaceable external battery. The p-version means performance, so the laptop is bulkier but holds a faster 35W CPU.
- P-series are workstations. The s-model holds a ULV CPU, but the normal P51 and P71 can have Xeon/Quadro level parts. They're either 15" or 17" and for some mysterious reason annoy everybody with an off-center keyboard and a numpad.
- X1 Carbon is a 14" ultralight laptop with usually the best screens and best building materials.
- From the consumer models, the only thing that matters is the Yoga series. Don't have any experience from those, but people seem to like them.
I wish laptop makers (and ALL other business) would make less cluttered, less designed websites. Danluu.com is the prime example of great design for me. I wish I could have found your great comment without having to bother people on HN. Thank you!
We're happy to help in /r/thinkpad and ##thinkpad @ freenode.
My setup cost ~1.5k€ (base setup plus larger NVRAM, better screen) although if you add touch screen, 3G and other bells and whistles you get to 3k€ pretty fast. I wouldn't add any hard requirement over the base machine.
I have a couple thoughts on how to debug it, but honestly... I haven't had the inclination to invest that much time in it, and the "unplug-then-close" habit has become so ingrained that I'm only burned by this about once every other month or so now.
systemd was very much inspired by macOS's launchd, they're very similar in many ways.
And this is perhaps the main difference. You stopped tinkering.
You can install a Linux distro aimed a people not interested in tinkering and it will likely just work.
"... but in my opinion quality ux requires someone to get paid to do the un glamorous work like fixing compatibility issues and corner cases."
There are in fact quite of bunch of people getting paid to fix compatibility issues and corner cases.
Try buying hardware from a Linux-based vendor.
Or stopped tinkering with their work machine so that they could spend more time tinkering with things that they actually wanted to tinker with
The only drawback is every wonky package out there is built for Ubuntu, for example Spotify's linux client.
However, if you want a basic system that works, OpenSUSE is the way to go.
>You can install a Linux distro aimed a people not interested in tinkering and it will likely just work.
Ubuntu didn't "just work". Is it aimed at tinkerers?
Soostly it worked, bu no allways. But I like to rely on it - and no loose da
IME you just open the page in the podcast program - it extracts the rss feeds from the appropriate tags automatically, promoting for ambiguity (this is with antennapod (Android)).
I had to write a scraper to find the underlying rss feed for itunes only podcasts.
https://superuser.com/questions/78415/get-rss-feed-from-itun...
Maybe Apple will change/throttle the endpoint in the future but for now it's not authenticated.
So they're always engaged in seeking the information they need, which is so duplicated between correspondence and emails, I could even avoid copy and paste.
This was when I didn't get funny looks for suggesting that I send a email.
Did anyone else notice how regular people seem to have been killing off email and all forms of communication that require any configuration, lately?
Edit: configuration, not confirmation
https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=CHANNELID
https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?user=USERNAME
https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?playlist_id=YOUR_YOUTUBE_PLAYLIST_NUMBER
You used to be able to go into your subscription manager and download an OPML file with the RSS feeds for your subscriptions. I'm unable to find that buton anymore though.Now we have to web scrape the results page because their api requires authentication and who wants to use that for results that are public anyways. I sure don't.
Rss worked great and they removed it. Boo.
I took the time to make a proxy (Twitter API to RSS), and though I did write a few more, a lot more services still provide feeds (such as YouTube, Reddit, Steam, GitHub) than I thought they would. RSS is still going strong.
I stopped subscribing to channels on YouTube after this and only subscribe in my RSS reader, because it was too difficult to manage synchronizing subscriptions between the two.
Luckily, there's other platforms that, apart from giving you more options wrt your database backend, embrace newer PHP practices and versions a whole lot quicker.
The social media platforms have effectively "devoured" and "engulfed" the very idea behind RSS in order to exploit the political economy of content publication, for monopoly.
When Google Reader has been shut down in 2013, it had left millions of loyal fans behind who had loved and used the platform over the years. There had been a strong disappointment, especially in communities like Reddit, HN and Slashdot. Reader platform still seems to have been missed even today [2].
Judging by the range of Google products that had got shut down along with the Reader [2] that time, it seems that it had been a strategic move to preserve their interests in rising social media and mobile market.
Google had failed to "build products that people love," by betraying what people loved.
With Google killing the Reader, Twitter shutting down support for RSS, AI having had started deciding what is most relevant for you, and feeds having buried behind giant walls of API interfaces,
Legacy of Aaron Swartz had been turned into "social media," the new television!
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/897hr1/i_made_mocku...
2: https://googleblog.blogspot.com.tr/2013/03/a-second-spring-o...
As a matter of fact, my problem with RSS is that I can't be sure the websites I'm receiving their notifs are going to keep up the good work and are not "deviated" or "biased" after a while. RSS is solid, but it's also rigid, meaning that it relies on websites to deliver you content. Other alternatives (such as news aggregators) do the reverse: they bring you content based on your own interests and regardless of where that news was published in. I think this is way better than "blindly" trusting our favorite websites to tell us the truth.
News aggregators are having editorial decisions made by the vagaries of some opaque voting algorithm and get gamed by motivated actors and bots. If manipulative bias is your concern, aggregators are way worse.