The problem isn't RSS itself, its shitty RSS readers.
Think about the way RSS feeds are handled by browsersfor a second, because that's the most likely place a user is going to encounter RSS feeds anyway ...
Google Chrome sends you to Google reader or another RSS reader of your choice ... if you've never messed with RSS, you're going to tap out immediately (what the heck is an RSS reader?), Firefox adds it to your bookmarks, and you can't even tell when new items have arrived etc, The RSS feeds in IE are an absolute joke ... only Opera even gets this remotely right.
Even on Feed Demon which is by far the best RSS reader on the market, the way it is initially set up, makes consuming content rather awkward unless you know exactly what you're doing. The View Port is half or a quarter the normal size of a browser window (until you adjust the reader orientation in the options), and you're forced to click twice to read content since the actual article isn't usually shown in the window ... Unless you're a determined user, you're not going to care very much for all the hoops you have to jump through to actually read content in an RSS reader ... when you can just keep using a browser.
That is the problem.
Google reader is nice, but why should I go to a web page to read content that I could be reading in a browser anyway?
If someone sits down and makes a kick ass RSS reader (feed demon with smart defaults is pretty much there already), and sells the fact that you can now read, tag, annotate and bookmark your content as easily as you would with email ... and like email ... have the ability to get access to all these bookmarks, notes, read/unread articles regardless of what machine they were on ... I think RSS would get a lot more traction.
So, lets focus less on the technology (how many email readers really care if they're using IMAP or POP, for example) and just get users a new, smarter way of consuming content.
First, Google Reader is the best RSS reader I've tried. The reason one would go there when one could be reading the source website in the same browser instead is because presumably we're subscribing to more than just one RSS feed. So you go to Google Reader in place of visiting every single website whose RSS you subscribe to. Isn't that the original problem RSS tried to solve, anyways?
Second, there are a slew of native clients for Google Reader, all of which synch up with it. Meaning, you can read your feeds on your smartphone, your iPad, your computer, your computer at your work, someone else's computer and everything is just synched. This works great for me, and there are some great native clients for Google Reader out there.
Third, I don't understand the problem of having too many feeds. It's just a matter of removing the ones you don't want to read much, or categorize them into things that you must read, and things for when you are just bored.
I think RSS reading is a tool for pros. It's not for those who just visit a handful of websites every day, it's for those who are interested in many many more, and who want to automate the task of finding out what websites have been updated; not an everyman a tool, it's one for advanced users. It doesn't matter how simple RSS useage is made, if you don't find the job of checking your sites for updates tedious and laborious you're not going to need an RSS reader.
On the substance of the article, it's not "repurposing" RSS to use it in ways beyond traditional feed readers. RSS has always been an open syndication format, and still has plenty of uses.
On to less productive comments...
RSS may not be dead, but punctuation apparently is. I thought there was a typo in the post on HN, but it turns out that this little run-on headline is in the actual post. The rest of the post is even worse grammatically.
Hey guys, if you're going to write on your company's blog, invest in a bit of proofreading. Bad posts reflect negatively on not only you, but your startup also.
I wonder if they've rewritten it somewhat; the headline now has a comma, and most of the post isn't too far from being entirely grammatically correct. It's closer to conversational English than many blog posts, but that's no crime against language.
They could use a few semicolons in place of some of those periods, though; especially where it starts to get period-heavy near the end.
You can't call it "repurposing" when you're using it for its designed purpose! RSS readers from day one have only ever been one aspect of the larger ecosystem around the format.
I see where you are coming from. Our thinking was that RSS was not designed to create an embed from a url, but for feed syndication in a standard format. This is definitely "repurposing" a standard format into an oEmbed type response for embedding.
I wasn't around then, but I'll take your word for it. In any case, the main point remains valid. We may see the decline of RSS readers, but RSS is alive and well.
RSS is not dead, there simply is no good alternative to it. The only other programmatic ways of to getting updates from a website are either e-mail or HTML screen scraping.
> For many people, like me, Twitter has replaced most of the functionality of a reader. I still get the same information, but it's pushed to me, nicely curated, by people I follow.
I'm completely baffled by comments like this. I've tried subscribing to feeds that have just headlines or headline and one sentence and I end up never reading them. Almost all the feeds I read have full text and the rest have at least 100 words of the content per post, not 140 characters, so I can tell if it's worth clicking on.
Sites like reddit (or HN) which have voting and a decent commenting system add value, but Twitter? I'm actually turned off when I read some thoughtful blog post somewhere and at the end it says "if you liked this, follow me on Twitter." Yeah, thanks, but no, I must have mistaken you for someone who could form complete sentences.
And RSS readers don't naturally hook into the underlying comment systems on the content they present, so if you want to read/write comments, you need to click through anyway.
It's okay for consuming newspaper articles that don't support comments, but frustrating for blogs where you want to be part of the conversation.
RSS sucks because it's the bastard child of long content and short content.
Until publishers can figure out how to write for medium length content, it will be tucked away for use by self professed nerds who like to access and manipulate information quickly.
[+] [-] trustfundbaby|15 years ago|reply
Think about the way RSS feeds are handled by browsersfor a second, because that's the most likely place a user is going to encounter RSS feeds anyway ...
Google Chrome sends you to Google reader or another RSS reader of your choice ... if you've never messed with RSS, you're going to tap out immediately (what the heck is an RSS reader?), Firefox adds it to your bookmarks, and you can't even tell when new items have arrived etc, The RSS feeds in IE are an absolute joke ... only Opera even gets this remotely right.
Even on Feed Demon which is by far the best RSS reader on the market, the way it is initially set up, makes consuming content rather awkward unless you know exactly what you're doing. The View Port is half or a quarter the normal size of a browser window (until you adjust the reader orientation in the options), and you're forced to click twice to read content since the actual article isn't usually shown in the window ... Unless you're a determined user, you're not going to care very much for all the hoops you have to jump through to actually read content in an RSS reader ... when you can just keep using a browser.
That is the problem.
Google reader is nice, but why should I go to a web page to read content that I could be reading in a browser anyway?
If someone sits down and makes a kick ass RSS reader (feed demon with smart defaults is pretty much there already), and sells the fact that you can now read, tag, annotate and bookmark your content as easily as you would with email ... and like email ... have the ability to get access to all these bookmarks, notes, read/unread articles regardless of what machine they were on ... I think RSS would get a lot more traction.
So, lets focus less on the technology (how many email readers really care if they're using IMAP or POP, for example) and just get users a new, smarter way of consuming content.
I bet there's some money in it even ;)
[+] [-] tjogin|15 years ago|reply
Second, there are a slew of native clients for Google Reader, all of which synch up with it. Meaning, you can read your feeds on your smartphone, your iPad, your computer, your computer at your work, someone else's computer and everything is just synched. This works great for me, and there are some great native clients for Google Reader out there.
Third, I don't understand the problem of having too many feeds. It's just a matter of removing the ones you don't want to read much, or categorize them into things that you must read, and things for when you are just bored.
I think RSS reading is a tool for pros. It's not for those who just visit a handful of websites every day, it's for those who are interested in many many more, and who want to automate the task of finding out what websites have been updated; not an everyman a tool, it's one for advanced users. It doesn't matter how simple RSS useage is made, if you don't find the job of checking your sites for updates tedious and laborious you're not going to need an RSS reader.
[+] [-] stevenp|15 years ago|reply
On to less productive comments...
RSS may not be dead, but punctuation apparently is. I thought there was a typo in the post on HN, but it turns out that this little run-on headline is in the actual post. The rest of the post is even worse grammatically.
Hey guys, if you're going to write on your company's blog, invest in a bit of proofreading. Bad posts reflect negatively on not only you, but your startup also.
[+] [-] Groxx|15 years ago|reply
They could use a few semicolons in place of some of those periods, though; especially where it starts to get period-heavy near the end.
[+] [-] jerf|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] screeley|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doki_pen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iwwr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] turbodog|15 years ago|reply
My assumption is debatable for sure, but I'd like to hear what folks think is lacking.
[+] [-] kahirsch|15 years ago|reply
I'm completely baffled by comments like this. I've tried subscribing to feeds that have just headlines or headline and one sentence and I end up never reading them. Almost all the feeds I read have full text and the rest have at least 100 words of the content per post, not 140 characters, so I can tell if it's worth clicking on.
Sites like reddit (or HN) which have voting and a decent commenting system add value, but Twitter? I'm actually turned off when I read some thoughtful blog post somewhere and at the end it says "if you liked this, follow me on Twitter." Yeah, thanks, but no, I must have mistaken you for someone who could form complete sentences.
[+] [-] andrewescott|15 years ago|reply
It's okay for consuming newspaper articles that don't support comments, but frustrating for blogs where you want to be part of the conversation.
[+] [-] aberkowitz|15 years ago|reply
Until publishers can figure out how to write for medium length content, it will be tucked away for use by self professed nerds who like to access and manipulate information quickly.
[+] [-] PCapone|15 years ago|reply
http://www.pclapper.com/GetRandomRssSummary/