3 ms·

In contrast I see this squarely as the authors responsibility. In general with RSS if you publish and entry it is published. Feedly did the right thing and disp

In contrast I see this squarely as the authors responsibility. In general with RSS if you publish and entry it is published. Feedly did the right thing and displayed the published entries. The subsub+resub is a nice hack to clean old entries but I think in general it is nice in Feedly that you can subscribe to a feed and get history beyond what is currently on the feed. To me the author is asking Feedly to make the happy, common case worse to make the rare case where the publisher makes a mistake slightly better. I think the only thing that Feedly could have done better is manually removed the items when the author reached out to customer support. But if I was in the position I don't know if I would have conplied either. If the don't have infra for this it is a risky manual database operation. Plus feed entries are argubly their subscribers data, I would think twice before deleting something from under my subscribers even if I thought that most of them would appreciate it. For edits you just edit the entry. Most readers won't actually notify the user again but many will update the content. For deletions there are some proposals for tombstoning. I went into detial here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30625712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30625712

deltarholamda 5y ago
>The subsub+resub is a nice hack to clean old entries but I think in general it is nice in Feedly that you can subscribe to a feed and get history beyond what is currently on the feed I get what you're saying, but for something like Feedly, they're an aggregator, not a publisher, and therefore they should, where at all possible, conform to the publisher's intentions. If I have an RSS feed of my blog, and somehow my pet toucan manages to publish something extolling the virtues of Froot Loop National Socialism, I think deleting that from my feed should percolate out before I get pogromed by Tony the Tiger.
ssivark 5y ago
I don’t see why Feedly has append-only semantics instead of simply mirroring the feed on the website. In general, as both a publisher and a reader, I would want Feedly’s behavior to be simply pass-through to the extent possible. What common case does Feedly’s default behavior prioritize?
- rendall 5y ago
  Feedly appears to cache one feed for all subscribers. I'm speculating, but would it prioritize consistency above accuracy? Fewer complaints from people who are confused because that blog post they read yesterday is gone today.

deltarholamda 5y ago

>The subsub+resub is a nice hack to clean old entries but I think in general it is nice in Feedly that you can subscribe to a feed and get history beyond what is currently on the feed I get what you're saying, but for something like Feedly, they're an aggregator, not a publisher, and therefore they should, where at all possible, conform to the publisher's intentions. If I have an RSS feed of my blog, and somehow my pet toucan manages to publish something extolling the virtues of Froot Loop National Socialism, I think deleting that from my feed should percolate out before I get pogromed by Tony the Tiger.

ssivark 5y ago

I don’t see why Feedly has append-only semantics instead of simply mirroring the feed on the website. In general, as both a publisher and a reader, I would want Feedly’s behavior to be simply pass-through to the extent possible. What common case does Feedly’s default behavior prioritize?

rendall 5y ago
Feedly appears to cache one feed for all subscribers. I'm speculating, but would it prioritize consistency above accuracy? Fewer complaints from people who are confused because that blog post they read yesterday is gone today.