2 ms·
> The RSS entries are cached by the aggregators, and the publisher never sees how many people have seen them. Aggregators like NewsBlur, Feedly, and Feedbin pa
by chipotle_coyote 7y ago
> The RSS entries are cached by the aggregators, and the publisher never sees how many people have seen them.
Aggregators like NewsBlur, Feedly, and Feedbin pass on subscriber counts. I am literally looking at my own FeedPress dashboard in another window right now. I promise I have the analytics I say I do, cross my heart.
As for AMP, I'm not sure I see how AMP takes less control away from publishers than RSS does. There's nothing that stops anyone from running an RSS reader which directly hits each web site they subscribe to. Aggregators may be more convenient but they're not mandatory, and this seems to me to be a pretty important architectural difference. Even if we grant that RSS is pretty difficult to monetize, AMP takes my content and cuts me out of any monetization possibility entirely -- and Google may punish me in search rankings if I don't let them do that. Surely you see why that's going to raise some hackles that RSS doesn't?
- lern_too_spel 7y ago> Aggregators like NewsBlur, Feedly, and Feedbin pass on subscriber counts. I am literally looking at my own FeedPress dashboard in another window right now. They do not pass them back in a standard way. If there is a new aggregator, the publisher has to integrate with them for analytics. > As for AMP, I'm not sure I see how AMP takes less control away from publishers than RSS does. I already told you in the very first comment you replied to. RSS is strictly worse for publishers than AMP. Apple News is strictly worse for publishers than AMP. Apple News has some advantages (monetization, analytics) over RSS and some disadvantages (single company integration). Yet nobody on HN complains about Apple News or RSS because they don't understand the technology.