RSS is what got me to this post, so not quite dead yet I guess.
Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
191–200 of 211 posts
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#192No, it's just unpopular with mainstream-users, and kinda dying for newssources. As a format there seems to be not much improvment done in the last decade, as an ecosystem there are always new clients and libs, but no innovation is done IMHO, it's always the same set of features being implemented. As a longtime user of at least 15+ years now I've seen some strong dying of feeds in the last years, To the point that I'm thinking now aboubt alternative ways to scrap data from my sources. I think most existing feeds are more a case of legacy code in popular frameworks. Also, there are many new sources growing which are build without RSS for commercial reasons. So having alternative source-scrapers is a neccessary anyway.
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#193probably
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#194I still use it for all of my Youtube subscriptions. I have about 50 channels in there.
yep me too. yt's subscription page becomes really cluttered once your channel count is that high. so I prefer to check them in a rss reader
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#195> Is RSS Dead Have you heard of podcasts? They're booming and they rely on RSS. The way they're subscribed to and the way they're submitted to large platforms is via their RSS feeds.
You won't be able to succeed, until you'll fix this.
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#196No
/thread
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#197I think a lot of people think RSS is dead because they never see it promoted anywhere. Pretty much every web site has a row of social media icons, but hardly ever is there an RSS icon in the row, even if the web site supports it. Frankly, I don't think most people who run web sites even know that the framework/CMS/rolfburger they're using automatically publishes RSS feeds for them. Yesterday I stumbled across an app…
>Even the New York Times has RSS The NYTimes is actually an example that undermines the ideals of RSS for the average web surfer who is not a tech geek. The NYTimes RSS feeds are not full texts of the article such that a one can read the entire story within the comfort of the RSS reader. NYTimes only provides snippets and excerpts to bait people to click on to the real web page. For many normal people , this crippled…
So, I do find that behavior annoying, but I wouldn't call it worthless. I still get a list of articles that I can skim through fairly quickly, and, while one more click to get to the full article is a (very) mild inconvenience, it hardly eliminates the value of the RSS Feed.
It is admittedly more of an issue in airplanes. But I'm disinclined to throw out the baby over a few hours per year's worth of bathwater.
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even the New York Times has RSS The NYTimes is actually an example that undermines the ideals of RSS for the average web surfer who is not a tech geek. The NYTimes RSS feeds are not full texts of the article such that a one can read the entire story within the comfort of the RSS reader. NYTimes only provides snippets and excerpts to bait people to click on to the real web page. For many normal people , this crippled…
So, I do find that behavior annoying, but I wouldn't call it worthless . I still get a list of articles that I can skim through fairly quickly, and, while one more click to get to the full article is a (very) mild inconvenience, it hardly eliminates the value of the RSS Feed. It is admittedly more of an issue in airplanes. But I'm disinclined to throw out the baby over a few hours per year's worth of bathwater.
>, but I wouldn't call it worthless.
Well yes, of course you wouldn't! A techie HN discussion participant like you is not the demographic I was talking about when I qualified my sentence with "For many normal people, ..."
In the most complimentary way I can convey it, you are example of "not normal" in the context of dealing with a higher threshold of pain regarding any RSS inconveniences.
Again to emphasize for productive discussion, a bunch of us HN geeks sharing anecdotes of how we're still using RSS in sophisticated and clever ways does not actually answer the OP's question.
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#199RSS was never really alive to begin with.
Re: Ask HN: Is RSS dead?
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, I do find that behavior annoying, but I wouldn't call it worthless . I still get a list of articles that I can skim through fairly quickly, and, while one more click to get to the full article is a (very) mild inconvenience, it hardly eliminates the value of the RSS Feed. It is admittedly more of an issue in airplanes. But I'm disinclined to throw out the baby over a few hours per year's worth of bathwater.
>, but I wouldn't call it worthless. Well yes, of course you wouldn't! A techie HN discussion participant like you is not the demographic I was talking about when I qualified my sentence with "For many normal people, ..." In the most complimentary way I can convey it, you are example of "not normal" in the context of dealing with a higher threshold of pain regarding any RSS inconveniences. Again to emphasize for prod…
When you use terms like "pain", that suggests that RSS is significantly worse than other options in this respect.
I'd argue that it's quite the opposite. Facebook always gives you a blurb. Twitter gives you no more than 280 characters minus the length of a link. Pinterest gives you a picture. RSS/Atom remains the only option where it's at all common to get the whole article without clicking a link and taking a shotgun blast of JavaScript to the face.