5 ms·

It is pretty clear why Google doesn't like RSS, it stops you from browsing the web and that is how they get paid. As a user though I also don't like it anymore

It is pretty clear why Google doesn't like RSS, it stops you from browsing the web and that is how they get paid. As a user though I also don't like it anymore and I'll share why... This isn't 1970 anymore where I want to read "What's New" from a small list of new sources. I prefer to go each day to a list of curated aggregators like HN or what the people I follow on Twitter or saying. This is vastly superior to RSS and this is why at least one technical user no longer uses it.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
aaronkaplan 16y ago
I prefer to go each day to a list of curated aggregators like HN or what the people I follow on Twitter or saying But aggregators can publish RSS streams too. How is following someone on Twitter different from subscribing to his RSS feed? I would agree that a site like HN isn't very attractive to read via RSS. When the ranking is dynamically determined by readers' interest, you lose something by freezing the list in the form of an RSS stream. But for a curated site like Slashdot, what difference does it make if the link stream comes in the form of RSS or as tweets? Incidentally, I wouldn't call HN a curated site. Slashdot has editors/curators; HN doesn't.
stanleydrew 16y ago
"It is pretty clear why Google doesn't like RSS, it stops you from browsing the web and that is how they get paid." But they built and are actively maintaining Google reader. I don't think Google dislikes RSS, rather they are hesitant to build a browser feature for something that should really be a separate application.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  They also employ 2 of the 3 creators of PubSubHubBub a technology specifically created to enhance feed syndication. It's also a project that was developed on company time (albeit 20% time) and is hosted on their GoogleCode website. AND Google Alerts was one of the first (if not THE first) to implement the technology.
- reader5000 16y ago
  Plus content producers place google ads in rss content so I dont think google cares.
- wyclif 16y ago
  Robert Scoble says he was told (ostensibly by someone at Google) that the Google Reader team has been largely disbanded, and that the project is no longer maintained. He's mentioned this a couple of times on Quora, on Buzz, and on his blog.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    Well I'll go one step further then and point out that Google is the creator of PubSubHubbub (http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/ http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/). My point is that I don't think Google hates users aggregating content and having it pushed to them rather than browsing for it.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      I don't disagree but in fairness it was created by 3 people one of which worked at SixApart
      - stanleydrew 16y ago
        Thanks for the info. Before posting my comment I did some quick Googling and couldn't find much about the history of PubSubHubbub. I did want to be sure that I wasn't wrong about Google's involvement. Using the word "creator" with respect to Google itself was probably a little strong.
  - javadi82 16y ago
    Here is the link re: Robert's comment from Quora: http://www.quora.com/Is-Google-investing-in-Google-Reader-anymore-I-hear-it-isnt http://www.quora.com/Is-Google-investing-in-Google-Reader-an...
reader5000 16y ago
I don't think aggregators obviate the need for rss. I don't really like the idea of the masses entirely determining what content I have awareness of. Furthermore, aggregators simply don't offer the sheer volume of content pumped by an rss feed with a good couple hundred subscriptions. And if you are into niche content like say arxiv's math.OA you pretty much need rss.
- liuhenry 16y ago
  How much time does it take you to sort through it all? That's the tradeoff you make with aggegators vs. rss. Personally, I'm also subscribed to a few hundred feeds on Google Reader, and I usually go through them first by deleting everything older than a day, and then sorting by "magic". But that has major limitations: I lose occasional posts and older, but still interesting, content, and magic just skews the sort towards what I've read before (maybe through keywords?), and I lose out on new and interesting content. RSS - you have high volume and high breadth, but it takes a long time to look through it and find the things that are interesting. Aggregators - the "most interesting" posts are right there on the front page, but it has a very narrow focus and is filtered or skewed by the community. I think what we're really looking for is the most interesting content that is customized for us, but it's a big problem to tackle. Newsblur (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869136 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869136) was an interesting idea; not sure where that's gone since November's post.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    And where do the aggregators get the news item they aggregate? They often get their news from blogs, news websites, word of mouth, and web searches. RSS is very useful for keeping up with some of these sources. Sometimes aggregators do get their news from other aggregators, but at some point that incestuous chain has to be broken and someone has to read the original news somewhere and pass it on to an aggregator. Finally, most aggregators themselves (including HN), publish their news via RSS (or Atom). I know that's how I read HN headlines, and virtually every other news source I regularly read.
riledhel 16y ago
RSS also has other, more technical uses than reading "What's new". Many systems and websites rely on it as an easy way to publish or consume information.
shashank261 16y ago
Does this mean, its end of the road for feed aggregation and feed reader sites?
Tichy 16y ago
The aggregators might need the rss feeds to do their aggregating, though. Although I always felt making it "pull" is a bit crazy. PubSubHubBub to the rescue?
rapind 16y ago
1970... back when RSS was huge! You just prefer socially aggregated feeds is all. I actually like a mix of both. Setting up intelligent RSS feeds that will come in handy just takes a little upfront work is all. But then you've got an algorithm that you can constantly tweak and refine, which I find very useful, especially as a research tool. Give Yahoo Pipes a whirl and see if it changes your mind. http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/ http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/
Alex3917 16y ago
"I prefer to go each day to a list of curated aggregators like HN or what the people I follow on Twitter or saying. This is vastly superior to RSS" Vastly superior for looking well educated to others, less superior for actually understanding how the world works.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  Maybe you could expound a bit on that?
  - spanktheuser 16y ago
    Obviously, I'm not Alex. But I'll take a crack at it. Seems to me there's an echo-chamber quality inherent in any community of like-minded individuals. For example, if I sourced my tech news solely from HN, I might imagine that large corporations consist solely of oblivious, slow-moving dinosaurs incapable of writing decent software. But if I had http://cacm.acm.org/ http://cacm.acm.org/ showing up in my RSS reader, I'd be exposed to a somewhat competing view. To me, the value of RSS is the ability to subscribe to a few sites I wouldn't normally bother visiting. It's not hard to remember to check HN. Remembering to swing by corporate IT and Microsoft-focused publications is a bit tougher. RSS can help with that.
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    Reading the frontpage of social news aggregators is much less schema-expanding than reading larger bodies of work from individual authors. This is especially true since content written for news aggregators tends to be infused with the sorts of biases that these aggregators reward; in the same way that NYT articles tend to favor establishment interests and authoritarianism, content written for HN is often tinged with Internet-inspired scientism, masturbatory theses, topical gossip, and all other manner of nonsense and pseudointellectualism. The worst part is that when you read HN you actually feel like you're learning, because you are. The problem is that you're not learning nearly as fast as you would be if you were reading books. It's the same reason why 2-5 year olds who watch TV are measurably learning, but at the same time end up dumber than kids who aren't watching TV because they're learning at a slower pace. The fact is that even reading a book about something as seemingly mundane as the history of American homeopathy will teach you more about life, the universe, and everything than six months of reading HN. (E.g. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/13/1590.extract http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/13/1590.extract )
Lagged2Death 16y ago
But most of the significant "curated aggregators" offer RSS feeds: http://news.ycombinator.com/rss http://news.ycombinator.com/rss
groby_b 16y ago
Of course, there's the question of "Where do the curators get their news".... HN contributions don't just materialize - they're often posted by people who scan large amounts of material. Via RSS, usually. Then again, those users are certainly savvy enough to use RSS without a browser button.
jonknee 16y ago
Google operates the largest RSS reader and largest RSS host... I'd say they have no problems with it.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

aaronkaplan 16y ago

I prefer to go each day to a list of curated aggregators like HN or what the people I follow on Twitter or saying But aggregators can publish RSS streams too. How is following someone on Twitter different from subscribing to his RSS feed? I would agree that a site like HN isn't very attractive to read via RSS. When the ranking is dynamically determined by readers' interest, you lose something by freezing the list in the form of an RSS stream. But for a curated site like Slashdot, what difference does it make if the link stream comes in the form of RSS or as tweets? Incidentally, I wouldn't call HN a curated site. Slashdot has editors/curators; HN doesn't.

stanleydrew 16y ago

"It is pretty clear why Google doesn't like RSS, it stops you from browsing the web and that is how they get paid." But they built and are actively maintaining Google reader. I don't think Google dislikes RSS, rather they are hesitant to build a browser feature for something that should really be a separate application.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
They also employ 2 of the 3 creators of PubSubHubBub a technology specifically created to enhance feed syndication. It's also a project that was developed on company time (albeit 20% time) and is hosted on their GoogleCode website. AND Google Alerts was one of the first (if not THE first) to implement the technology.
reader5000 16y ago
Plus content producers place google ads in rss content so I dont think google cares.
wyclif 16y ago
Robert Scoble says he was told (ostensibly by someone at Google) that the Google Reader team has been largely disbanded, and that the project is no longer maintained. He's mentioned this a couple of times on Quora, on Buzz, and on his blog.
- stanleydrew 16y ago
  Well I'll go one step further then and point out that Google is the creator of PubSubHubbub (http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/ http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/). My point is that I don't think Google hates users aggregating content and having it pushed to them rather than browsing for it.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    I don't disagree but in fairness it was created by 3 people one of which worked at SixApart
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      Thanks for the info. Before posting my comment I did some quick Googling and couldn't find much about the history of PubSubHubbub. I did want to be sure that I wasn't wrong about Google's involvement. Using the word "creator" with respect to Google itself was probably a little strong.
- javadi82 16y ago
  Here is the link re: Robert's comment from Quora: http://www.quora.com/Is-Google-investing-in-Google-Reader-anymore-I-hear-it-isnt http://www.quora.com/Is-Google-investing-in-Google-Reader-an...

reader5000 16y ago

I don't think aggregators obviate the need for rss. I don't really like the idea of the masses entirely determining what content I have awareness of. Furthermore, aggregators simply don't offer the sheer volume of content pumped by an rss feed with a good couple hundred subscriptions. And if you are into niche content like say arxiv's math.OA you pretty much need rss.

liuhenry 16y ago
How much time does it take you to sort through it all? That's the tradeoff you make with aggegators vs. rss. Personally, I'm also subscribed to a few hundred feeds on Google Reader, and I usually go through them first by deleting everything older than a day, and then sorting by "magic". But that has major limitations: I lose occasional posts and older, but still interesting, content, and magic just skews the sort towards what I've read before (maybe through keywords?), and I lose out on new and interesting content. RSS - you have high volume and high breadth, but it takes a long time to look through it and find the things that are interesting. Aggregators - the "most interesting" posts are right there on the front page, but it has a very narrow focus and is filtered or skewed by the community. I think what we're really looking for is the most interesting content that is customized for us, but it's a big problem to tackle. Newsblur (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869136 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869136) was an interesting idea; not sure where that's gone since November's post.
- gnosis 16y ago
  And where do the aggregators get the news item they aggregate? They often get their news from blogs, news websites, word of mouth, and web searches. RSS is very useful for keeping up with some of these sources. Sometimes aggregators do get their news from other aggregators, but at some point that incestuous chain has to be broken and someone has to read the original news somewhere and pass it on to an aggregator. Finally, most aggregators themselves (including HN), publish their news via RSS (or Atom). I know that's how I read HN headlines, and virtually every other news source I regularly read.

riledhel 16y ago

RSS also has other, more technical uses than reading "What's new". Many systems and websites rely on it as an easy way to publish or consume information.

shashank261 16y ago

Does this mean, its end of the road for feed aggregation and feed reader sites?

Tichy 16y ago

The aggregators might need the rss feeds to do their aggregating, though. Although I always felt making it "pull" is a bit crazy. PubSubHubBub to the rescue?

rapind 16y ago

1970... back when RSS was huge! You just prefer socially aggregated feeds is all. I actually like a mix of both. Setting up intelligent RSS feeds that will come in handy just takes a little upfront work is all. But then you've got an algorithm that you can constantly tweak and refine, which I find very useful, especially as a research tool. Give Yahoo Pipes a whirl and see if it changes your mind. http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/ http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/

Alex3917 16y ago

"I prefer to go each day to a list of curated aggregators like HN or what the people I follow on Twitter or saying. This is vastly superior to RSS" Vastly superior for looking well educated to others, less superior for actually understanding how the world works.

glhaynes 16y ago
Maybe you could expound a bit on that?
- spanktheuser 16y ago
  Obviously, I'm not Alex. But I'll take a crack at it. Seems to me there's an echo-chamber quality inherent in any community of like-minded individuals. For example, if I sourced my tech news solely from HN, I might imagine that large corporations consist solely of oblivious, slow-moving dinosaurs incapable of writing decent software. But if I had http://cacm.acm.org/ http://cacm.acm.org/ showing up in my RSS reader, I'd be exposed to a somewhat competing view. To me, the value of RSS is the ability to subscribe to a few sites I wouldn't normally bother visiting. It's not hard to remember to check HN. Remembering to swing by corporate IT and Microsoft-focused publications is a bit tougher. RSS can help with that.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  Reading the frontpage of social news aggregators is much less schema-expanding than reading larger bodies of work from individual authors. This is especially true since content written for news aggregators tends to be infused with the sorts of biases that these aggregators reward; in the same way that NYT articles tend to favor establishment interests and authoritarianism, content written for HN is often tinged with Internet-inspired scientism, masturbatory theses, topical gossip, and all other manner of nonsense and pseudointellectualism. The worst part is that when you read HN you actually feel like you're learning, because you are. The problem is that you're not learning nearly as fast as you would be if you were reading books. It's the same reason why 2-5 year olds who watch TV are measurably learning, but at the same time end up dumber than kids who aren't watching TV because they're learning at a slower pace. The fact is that even reading a book about something as seemingly mundane as the history of American homeopathy will teach you more about life, the universe, and everything than six months of reading HN. (E.g. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/13/1590.extract http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/13/1590.extract )

Lagged2Death 16y ago

But most of the significant "curated aggregators" offer RSS feeds: http://news.ycombinator.com/rss http://news.ycombinator.com/rss

groby_b 16y ago

Of course, there's the question of "Where do the curators get their news".... HN contributions don't just materialize - they're often posted by people who scan large amounts of material. Via RSS, usually. Then again, those users are certainly savvy enough to use RSS without a browser button.

jonknee 16y ago

Google operates the largest RSS reader and largest RSS host... I'd say they have no problems with it.