4 ms·
If you don’t have a RSS feed, I won’t see your content. There are only a handful of sites I view direct any more and most likely you are not going to make the c
by fmajid 4y ago
If you don’t have a RSS feed, I won’t see your content. There are only a handful of sites I view direct any more and most likely you are not going to make the cut.
- forbiddenvoid 4y agoSure, but you represent what is likely to be a very, very small percentage of readers. There are a lot of people on HN that have that same orientation toward content. But, as with so many things, they're on the periphery of the zeitgeist because they're technologists for the most part. Most blog readers don't share your perspective, and, unless a creator's audience skews very heavily toward a group that does, it would be hard to say the incentives are aligned in the direction that makes a tangible difference for them to support RSS for their posts.
- bastawhiz 4y agoThat would be a compelling argument if any substantive number of each site's potential viewers did this. But they don't. Publishers don't care about RSS because hardly anyone uses RSS because publishers don't care about RSS. Publishers would care more about RSS if they didn't have to sacrifice things they cared about to serve a small minority of viewers.
- derekzhouzhen 4y ago> Publishers would care more about RSS if they didn't have to sacrifice things they cared about What sacrifice are you talking about? For instance, Substack supports RSS, even for paid items. They just only include the teaser portion in the feed. The paying customers can click though.
- bastawhiz 4y agoIf you don't click through, you don't get ads. The publisher makes no money from you browsing the content with a feed. Moreover, they can't quantify what you passed over before clicking something. These aren't things users care about, but it's what the publishers care about.