2 ms·
If RSS scales badly for sites like Gizmodo, don't use it for sites like Gizmodo. RSS is great for small-scale personal publishing; in fact some sort of aggregat
by bdarnell 10y ago
If RSS scales badly for sites like Gizmodo, don't use it for sites like Gizmodo. RSS is great for small-scale personal publishing; in fact some sort of aggregator is practically a necessity for such a thing to work (this is why blogging has drifted to tumblr, facebook, and twitter: publishing integrated with aggregated consumption is a powerful thing).
This leads to a chicken and egg problem: when someone is first introduced to RSS, the only sources they know about are ones that don't work well with RSS. It's hard to cultivate the kind of network that makes RSS valuable to you until you've already bought in to the concept.
Personally, at my peak I was subscribed to about 400 feeds, but they only published about 100 items a day.
- shostack 10y agoThe other issue is that a lot of these sites gate the content fed through RSS to make you visit the site for the whole thing (plus, you know, ad impressions). RSS works best when the content can be fully digestible in the reader. If you can read most of it there, great--you get a preview. What I hated was when I'd get like a line or two, or couldn't even see an image load in an image-only post without visiting a sloth of a site. Oddly enough, my Reddit homepage is pretty decent now due to pruning subscriptions and using RES.