3 ms·
Your analogy leaves out the fact that RSS doesn't work for serving ads, which is why all of this was in Google's interest.
by earthwalker99 3y ago
Your analogy leaves out the fact that RSS doesn't work for serving ads, which is why all of this was in Google's interest.
- nordsieck 3y ago> Your analogy leaves out the fact that RSS doesn't work for serving ads, which is why all of this was in Google's interest. I'm skeptical. There were/are plenty of people who did title-only feeds because they wanted to serve ads.
- bamboozled 3y agoThat’s different to Google serving ads
- nordsieck 3y ago> That’s different to Google serving ads A title-only RSS feed means people have to go to their site to consume the content. Which, presumably, has google ads on it.
- glenstein 3y agoYou could serve ads in RSS. Either has their own distinct items, or embedded in the content of the RSS feed. Although I suppose the point your making is that these forms of ads wouldn't be something that Google necessarily could control or monetize.