Google Reader
2007-05-17
One conversation that occasionally comes up here or there is the one about feed readers. Matt likes them, Adrian doesn't seem to, and so on.
I tried it a couple of weeks ago. Blah blah ... interface ... blah blah ... features... I don't like it, but I probably don't dislike it enough to stop using it. It encourages me not to go to the real sites, but at the same time makes it very easy to get there should I still wish to. It makes it harder to track comments: one of my favourite features on the typical blog software is the list of recent comments, and except for those few who have RSS feeds for comments, I can't see that any more (nice one Lyle).
I tend to get my blog-reading done more efficiently now, but I don't get the same feel of ambling around, which to be honest was part of the charm. All told, though, it's an excellent way of spotting the updated items and it doesn't stop me doing anything I used to: it just encourages me to take short cuts. Perhaps I lack the willpower to use it only for knowledge and defence...
One thing bugs me though, as a content provider more than a user. Google reader caches aggressively, and so far I've seen no evidence of it refreshing anything. First thing I did when I signed up was to check that my own feed looked OK, and it seemed a small template tweak was in order, but even after that the items remained wrong. I don't mind the fact that caches can keep old versions of documents - when I accidentally deleted one of my posts the other day I was counting on Google to still have a copy - and I'm not naïve enough to think that I can change with impunity things I already published, but a cache that doesn't expire and refresh often enough is broken, and I haven't yet seen evidence that Google Reader's cache ever expires. So posts with mistakes will retain them even after I edit them out, and posts I delete will still be there.
It's not caching on a per-user basis either: I removed it from my list and resubscribed and it brought back the cached copy. Presumably it stores a single copy of each feed, giving it to any user who requests that URL. Sucks.
When I can be bothered, I might edit the feed to show only the teaser section of each post. I don't so much mind the idea that readers could avoid coming here (I'm not about to take the stylesheet down and hold it to ransom) but if people are reading the cached version then Google is effectively stopping me editing my post (or it's stopping me effectively editing my post: your choice). People who used the Reader just to spot the new posts but who were happy enough to come here 'in person' won't be inconvenienced.
And feed followers out there? What say you?
Update: Katy's latest post looks like it's been edited but the version in Google Reader is current. Perhaps there's some API antics going on that keeps Blogger feeds up to date. Curiouser and curiouser.
I tried it a couple of weeks ago. Blah blah ... interface ... blah blah ... features... I don't like it, but I probably don't dislike it enough to stop using it. It encourages me not to go to the real sites, but at the same time makes it very easy to get there should I still wish to. It makes it harder to track comments: one of my favourite features on the typical blog software is the list of recent comments, and except for those few who have RSS feeds for comments, I can't see that any more (nice one Lyle).
I tend to get my blog-reading done more efficiently now, but I don't get the same feel of ambling around, which to be honest was part of the charm. All told, though, it's an excellent way of spotting the updated items and it doesn't stop me doing anything I used to: it just encourages me to take short cuts. Perhaps I lack the willpower to use it only for knowledge and defence...
One thing bugs me though, as a content provider more than a user. Google reader caches aggressively, and so far I've seen no evidence of it refreshing anything. First thing I did when I signed up was to check that my own feed looked OK, and it seemed a small template tweak was in order, but even after that the items remained wrong. I don't mind the fact that caches can keep old versions of documents - when I accidentally deleted one of my posts the other day I was counting on Google to still have a copy - and I'm not naïve enough to think that I can change with impunity things I already published, but a cache that doesn't expire and refresh often enough is broken, and I haven't yet seen evidence that Google Reader's cache ever expires. So posts with mistakes will retain them even after I edit them out, and posts I delete will still be there.
It's not caching on a per-user basis either: I removed it from my list and resubscribed and it brought back the cached copy. Presumably it stores a single copy of each feed, giving it to any user who requests that URL. Sucks.
When I can be bothered, I might edit the feed to show only the teaser section of each post. I don't so much mind the idea that readers could avoid coming here (I'm not about to take the stylesheet down and hold it to ransom) but if people are reading the cached version then Google is effectively stopping me editing my post (or it's stopping me effectively editing my post: your choice). People who used the Reader just to spot the new posts but who were happy enough to come here 'in person' won't be inconvenienced.
And feed followers out there? What say you?
Update: Katy's latest post looks like it's been edited but the version in Google Reader is current. Perhaps there's some API antics going on that keeps Blogger feeds up to date. Curiouser and curiouser.
Comments