201–210 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree with this take. People always assume some ulterior motive to every single decision google does, but things are often much simpler than that, and mostly all it comes to prioritization...
Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity.
When chrome started taking over, all other major browsers (probably even internet explorer) had native RSS read support (read at least). They use to show rss icon in the url bar or some other indictor that this site has RSS available. But Chrome ever since has been throwing raw xml at you when you try to open an rss feed link and never indicates if there is RSS here. I believe this to be the main reason for decline o…
RSS is the antithesis to the interest of link aggregators like Google. It is no accident they didn't support it properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the GP but I think that blog post https://web.dev/blog/webdev-migration you linked explains it pretty clearly? • The people working on web.dev decided to migrate to a common Google site platform, so that they could focus on content rather than maintaining an ad-hoc infrastructure, • That platform happens not to support RSS (yet), so they've done the best they can in the meantime, filing a bug with the platform, c…
> relative to the big decision of whether to spend effort maintaining your own custom infrastructure or just focus on the content, the presence or absence of RSS support is probably just not a big factor. This is a false dichotomy. I wasn't questioning the decision to migrate platforms, I was questioning "the deadlines, feature freezes, and project reshuffling". > there are always ongoing migrations between "the old…
And yes, in the decision between "keep maintaining a custom infrastructure" and "switch to a common infrastructure", someone must have decided that RSS support is not an essential feature whose lack should block (or indefinitely postpone) the migration; this seems reasonable and what my previous post was about, including the "probably just not a big factor" bit you quoted above. It looks like they're planning to add this support though.
RSS is not aligned with Google's business goals.
Why? RSS can be monetized. It was monetized by Google before they killed Reader to force people to use Google+. Now, what's Google's goal to monetize social networks? They have non as far as I know. They lost all opportunities in the social space and they lost their lead in RSS. The Web lost too.
that’s the world Google wants. Money sloshing around the system and them getting a cut each time.
Hey all, I lead the team that runs this site. We moved our site to a different infrastructure that doesn't support the automatic generation of RSS feeds. I'm painfully aware that this isn't the best solution right now. I needed our team to hit a deadline for migrating all the content to the new system, and then manage cleanup of known missing functionality after. We are working on making sure this lands asap. Paul
[flagged]
It's too much work and effort to maintain such complicated legacy technology for the incredibly busy brain of a Google engineer.
I have "implemented" RSS on a tiny personal blog. Am willing to be hired for FAANG money. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's lots of reasons some of which I can't go into details about, but there are some that I can: There is a freeze to the new infrastructure's product features until after the new year and we needed to get this in before then (we can land feed support without a product feature change) The people I have working on the older infrastructure will be on new projects for our team in the new year.
Were the deadlines, feature freezes, and project reshuffling imposed on you from above, or were they your decisions? In a blog post two months ago you said, "I've taken the decision..." https://web.dev/blog/webdev-migration There was clearly someone in Google management who decided that RSS could be broken. Why is this important? Well, for example, it seems that the RSS feed was already broken when this important ann…
They were my decisions based on all the data I had, including launching with what we had.
re: "Resuming the transition to Manifest V3" this was posted on the old infrastructure and should have been in your RSS feeds up until late last week when our migration happened - so for just under a month... I can check more to make sure what I am saying is correct, but the migration only happened last week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> relative to the big decision of whether to spend effort maintaining your own custom infrastructure or just focus on the content, the presence or absence of RSS support is probably just not a big factor. This is a false dichotomy. I wasn't questioning the decision to migrate platforms, I was questioning "the deadlines, feature freezes, and project reshuffling". > there are always ongoing migrations between "the old…
The freeze "until after the new year" is just the end-of-year freeze to avoid production breakage when a lot of people are on vacation: it's an extension of the principle of not deploying on Friday evenings / weekends; lots of companies have such a freeze. Once you've decided a couple of months earlier to do a migration, doing it "before the freeze" is also a natural deadline to pick, for migrating to the new infrast…
There was production breakage! The RSS feeds broke. That's the entire point of this HN submission and discussion.
> Once you've decided a couple of months earlier to do a migration, doing it "before the freeze" is also a natural deadline to pick, for migrating to the new infrastructure
Why? Migrations almost always break stuff, right? So why would you break stuff when "a lot of people are on vacation" and thus can't fix the breakage? It seems to me the natural and logical choice would be to wait until after the new year to migrate. What sense does it make to break stuff and then go on vacation?
> RSS support is not an essential feature whose lack should block (indefinitely postpone) the migration; this seems natural (especially if you think you can add it back in a few weeks / months)
It's interesting that you say "indefinitely" postpone but then turn around right away and say "a few weeks/ months".
'Google has stopped...', or 'Google no longer...', 'Google have removed'. As I can no longer watch yt without getting annoyed, looks like it's time to get a new email provider (as well) . @ yahoo seem to have few(er?) problems. There are probably others. Can anyone recommend a good search engine?
> As I can no longer watch yt without getting annoyed uBlock Origin + EFF Privacy Badger should take care of it. I've never seen any ads on YouTube (except the ones the stream includes inherently).