> however the cloudy nature of Feedly removes an important avenue of control from the user. With RSS reader software, it is possible to remove and re-add a feed

> however the cloudy nature of Feedly removes an important avenue of control from the user. With RSS reader software, it is possible to remove and re-add a feed, thereby grabbing a brand new copy of it. When a content creator like myself makes an error like this, users can fairly easily do this after the mistake had been corrected, mark everything below their most recently read post as read, and get on with their life. I don’t agree with the approach suggested here with RSS reader software. Removing a feed and adding it again means losing out on older articles that are no longer present in the feed, losing “starred” status of articles (in my understanding this is also a way to save an article permanently even if the feed publisher doesn’t include it anymore in the feed), and losing the unread status of some old articles that one wanted to get to later (including as recent as a week or two in the definition of “old”). I wouldn’t want Feedly or someone else to remove articles after those have been received by my reader software. In this case the reason may be good and acceptable, but it breaks a contract that users of Feedly (not the publishers of the feeds) expect from such a service. Soon it could devolve into censorship requests. Feedly or any such service is better off, and would spend lesser time and effort, by avoiding messing with the feeds. “What you publish is what we serve the users” should be their guideline. The peril I see is publishers publishing feeds without adequate testing.