Comments on: RSS evokes blank stares

By: Ann

Ann — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 06:58:50 +0000

The uptake on the RSS feeds on some of the sites I maintain is incredibly slow, even though I’ve submitted them to feedster and the like.
Try explaining RSS to your Mom without receiving blank stares or her not seing the point of what’s actually good about them.

By: Kevin Yank

Kevin Yank — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 06:40:19 +0000

That brings me to my next point. The search engines seem to be lagging in offering a good way to search for feeds on various subjects.

Speak of the devil: MSN Searches RSS Deeper

By: vinyl-junkie

vinyl-junkie — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 03:18:17 +0000

I believe that there are many reasons why RSS hasn’t caught on. For one thing, it needs to be hyped a whole lot more than it is. I don’t mean that in a bad or negative way, I just mean that information needs to be made more available regarding its very practical uses for both business and home user needs (and yes, Blane, I believe that the home user can get just as much benefit from RSS as a commercial business).

Well, you’re not going to get a whole lot of people on the bandwagon, so to speak, unless there are a lot more websites serving up content via RSS. How many forums are you aware of that have RSS feeds? OK, SitePoint has a couple of forum feeds, but I hate to say this - SitePoint could do a lot better on that score by offering more feed choices than it does. How many company websites offer employment openings via RSS? I daresay, not many. Of course, there are many more possibilities for RSS besides the ones I’ve listed.

That brings me to my next point. The search engines seem to be lagging in offering a good way to search for feeds on various subjects. Do a Google search for the phrase “RSS feed”, and you’ll see a few feeds listed, but many will say “format not recognized” and they won’t tell you what the feed is about. Huh?! There are, to be sure, specialized search engines for this sort of thing, but the big boys like Google ought to be leading the RSS pack, in my opinion.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the coding languages of the web need to have less clunky ways of developing the code that creates the feeds. They’re getting better, but they’re still a long way from where they need to be.

Unless and until all the things I’ve stated come together, RSS is doomed just to being a novelty of the web.

By: struesda

struesda — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:55:04 +0000

Since podcasts seem to be catching on (ala iTunes) - how about textcasts ? They are twin cousins afterall…

By: bwarrene

bwarrene — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:29:33 +0000

I continue to look at RSS as a tool for use with clients more than a function of the home user. Its current value is much more clear commercially as an add-in to client solutions. I.e. I see Google’s new Sidebar, which allows plug-in development, as a way for web professionals to build additional functions for clients, using RSS.

Power users of course see its value - especially in tracking a particular topic across the web.

You are right on target from a home user perspective. If one does not need or want to look across numerous sites for events, news and other content - it is just as simple to open a browser and head toward one’s favorite outlet.

Perhaps if some unique application for it arises or a stronger shift from traditional print or broadcast content occurs - it could grow. I am not sure if a name change will do the trick although it may help.

By: Octal

Octal — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:12:52 +0000

Yeah but if you change the name you can’t have fun with it like; [url=http://sourceforge.net/projects/rssbandit]RSS Bandit[/url] or [url=http://www.sitepoint.com/article/get-off-your-rss]Get off your RSS[/url] ;)

By: BerislavLopac

BerislavLopac — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:18:39 +0000

Regarding the renaming of RSS feeds, I find the Microsoft’s term of “Web feeds” quite appropriate. The linked article quotes Dave Winer as stating “Like it or not Google, the format is RSS 2.0.” Well, if I look to the bottom of the Firefox window displaying this very page, I can see an “RSS” icon which when clicked on reveals a menu with three “Subscribe to:” options: RSS 2.0, RSS.92 and Atom 0.3.

In other words, all three together represent what we could call “Web feeds”; and each of them is in different format, to accomodate for various user’s reader preferences. And one of the formats is not even named “RSS”. This is like TV: we have analog, digital, cable, satellite, HDTV etc, but to the end user they are all just plain old TV.

By: Darcy

Darcy — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:11:43 +0000

I think that finding a practical way to intregrate RSS into a person’s everyday surfing would enhance it’s use and understanding.

By: Ned Collyer

Ned Collyer — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:59:21 +0000

z0s0 before I scrolled to your post, I was thinking the exact same thing :)

By: z0s0

z0s0 — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:47:09 +0000

I reckon it should be renamed “RAJAX” - Someone will figure out a backronym.