To answer his ?: Sort By Magic! Sort By Magic is the one Reader feature that I don't see any replacement taking care of.
Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
11–20 of 131 posts
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#12G+ can't be google reader for two reasons:
1. Information density. Magazine style / tiles / graphics etc aren't the same as single line expandable headline with maybe 40 headlines visible per screen height.
2. Just the content. Reader didn't try to guess what you wanted to read or notify you what your friends were up to.
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#13"Comments which disregard the previous paragraph will simply be deleted. Comments complaining about my deleting those comments will result in me blocking and/or mercilessly mocking you for failing to read instructions. Comments complaining about that will lead to some interesting replies in a combination of languages, probably starting with Yiddish and moving on from there. " I just love this offensive/defensive writ…
It sounds like Google customer service. Oh wait, it is.
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#14Interesting, but doesn't speak too well of Google. Shouldn't Google know how people were using Google Reader before deciding to axe it? And even if that information's in a different part of the company, shouldn't the chief architect of Google+ have access to it?
Well regardless of what data google has about Reader's use... the best way to really understand how people used it is to ask.
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#15Interesting, but doesn't speak too well of Google. Shouldn't Google know how people were using Google Reader before deciding to axe it? And even if that information's in a different part of the company, shouldn't the chief architect of Google+ have access to it?
Surely you "have access" to wikipedia, so therefore nothing there will surprise you, right?
This doesn't sound so weird to me. No one was working on Google Reader. The traffic to the web app was negligible. It generated little to no revenue. And even the API traffic probably didn't amount to much. It just wasn't on the radar.
The fact that got missed wasn't that Reader was a popular app, it simply wasn't, period. What they missed is the demographics: the specific people who relied on Reader, though few in number, are disproportionately loud and influential tech leaders and journalists. So they were shocked at the outrage.
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#16If you don't like what is being said, change the conversation. Nice try buddy, I'm not falling into that trap.
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#17Do the benefits of an RSS reader really need explanation? Or is he simply hoping to hear some unexpected input from this?
He's asking for specific elements of the reader that people found useful, enjoyable, easy to use. I'd say that's valuable. How is it not?
No, I agree, I just hope he doesn't hear "I liked that the list of feeds is on the left" and think that's the takeaway. Not that, you know, it's an RSS reader that people had gotten used to.
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#18Yeah, I really don't understand what he's looking for here. He wants constructive criticism about what parts of Google Reader were useful, but if you complain at all, your comment will be deleted. Google Reader itself was the useful piece. It aggregates RSS feeds. I don't really know how else you can explain that "yes, it aggregated RSS feeds, and I like to read all of my RSS feeds in one place".
I think he's asking what about Reader specifically made it more useful than the dozens of other RSS readers out there.
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#19Interesting, but doesn't speak too well of Google. Shouldn't Google know how people were using Google Reader before deciding to axe it? And even if that information's in a different part of the company, shouldn't the chief architect of Google+ have access to it?
Surely you "have access" to wikipedia, so therefore nothing there will surprise you, right? This doesn't sound so weird to me. No one was working on Google Reader. The traffic to the web app was negligible. It generated little to no revenue. And even the API traffic probably didn't amount to much. It just wasn't on the radar. The fact that got missed wasn't that Reader was a popular app, it simply wasn't, period. Wha…
Is it really true that the web app was getting no traffic? I know quite a few non-tech people that use it to follow blogs
Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader
#20Yeah, I really don't understand what he's looking for here. He wants constructive criticism about what parts of Google Reader were useful, but if you complain at all, your comment will be deleted. Google Reader itself was the useful piece. It aggregates RSS feeds. I don't really know how else you can explain that "yes, it aggregated RSS feeds, and I like to read all of my RSS feeds in one place".
I think he's asking what about Reader specifically made it more useful than the dozens of other RSS readers out there.
UI-less sync scheme between numerous devices, simpler application backends as the work of actually aggregating (querying and parsing feeds, notifying, ...) was handled by Reader and the client just had to implement a UI to that.