4 ms·
I totally disagree. The old social functions were totally opaque, irrational, and hard to control. The new system allows you to share with select groups, or pu
by joebadmo 15y ago
I totally disagree. The old social functions were totally opaque, irrational, and hard to control.
The new system allows you to share with select groups, or publicly, in a very granular way.
Just because you got used to an old, broken way of doing things doesn't mean that it was better. I can't believe the amount of collective bitching about this long-overdue overhaul.
- rfvtgb 15y agoWhile being able to share to particular groups is nice, this just adds a new site that I need to check everyday (ie. G+) which goes against everything a feed aggregator should be. It would be nice if there was an interface to G+ from reader where you can share, view and comment from inside Reader.
- rdl 15y agoI never used their old social features at all, but loved how easy it was to skim long lists of RSS items in the old reader. I'll probably switch to a self-hosted web rss thing or a local client instead, now.
- barredo 15y ago> The old social functions were totally opaque, irrational, and hard to control. They were not. I've been using them (with a group of +100 people, almost of all of them "Computer Illiterate") for 4 to 5 years.