Dave P pointed out an article by Jeffrey Zeldman pointing out the problems with RSS. In a nutshell, the argument boils down to "reading some sites in RSS is akin to reading about the Mona Lisa".
Frankly, i couldn't agree more. That's why i don't publish all of my content via RSS. Yeah, it's a pain if you want to only read my crap from one tool, but i still think that RSS is really nothing more than a notification service. It lets me know when new content is available on a given site. i'll still go to that site to read it all, because that way i can read the comments, see whatever images are associated with it and other nifty bits.
Granted, it does mean that i have to present enough of a hook in the first few lines to get you, dear reader, to actually come here, but i can only put "Britney Spears Hooters" in so many posts.
Oh great. i can just imagine what that's going to do to my search stats…
Yeah, I can agree with your view. I tend to think that the comments that follow my drivel (something you don't have) are often more valuable, so i encourage folks to come here to read them.
I still see value to RSS, though, even if no one is really sure how it's supposed to work.
Well, yeah, we still have to come here to comment. And I can still read your full posts with a simple click that takes me to the individual post instead of a full page.
Save This Page
Well, a single mention of "Halle Berry's Tits" in April of 2002 still has me listed at the #17 result for that search phrase exactly one year later.
But regarding RSS, I decided to hook up an RSS feed for my site that includes everything because a few readers asked for it. The presentation isn't as spiffy as if they were to read my site in a web-browser, but I'd rather have them reading it in the plainish-text presentation of RSS than not at all.