Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Feedburner bad for us?

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

kpss — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:56:13 -0000

nice blogs

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

sakizimu — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:50:14 -0000

http://sakizimu.blogspot.com/

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

oyunlar1 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:13:21 -0000

feed burner very cool ;)
thanks

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

sbs — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:28:51 -0000

Dave: I updated the post to say simply “moved.”

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

kpss — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:50:14 -0000

Provider of feedburner are much more protective of their reach than they care about which format they are using...

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

kpss — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:03:33 -0000

Provider of feedburner are much more protective of their reach than they care about which format they are using.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

kpss cd — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 04:19:44 -0000

Provider of feedburner are much more protective of their reach than they care about which format they are using.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

kpss — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:28:38 -0000

feed burner very cool ;)
thanks

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

kpss — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:31:00 -0000

its actually quite understandable.i slightly disagree with him also.
their strategy of getting bought bby a bigger company, will usually be for the better. it looks a damn good thing from a ‘little company’s’ point of view.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

msn avatarları — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:29:11 -0000

feedburner very cool ;)

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Surflizard — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:24:56 -0000

Um yeah...Dave Winer is worried about giving a big company too much power over our blog syndication? The same Dave Winer that dumped thousands of blogs he was hosting without any warning just 3 years ago?

From Wired:

"I just did the best I could," said Winer, in his audio message. "This is not a company here ... this is a person. To expect company-type service ... that's just not going to happen."

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

danja — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:25:58 -0000

I'm a little surprised by how short memories are in the blogosphere. It was only 3 years ago that Google was evil because they favoured Atom. At the time the sub-target wasn't FeedBurner but Blogger, who had not only shown a preference for the Atom format, but also for the Atom Publishing Protocol instead of the crude APIs that went before. Why are the battle lines being redrawn?

There seems to be absolutely nothing to substantiate the claim that RSS 2.0 is being messed with. On top of the points already made, it seems FeedBurner’s CTO voted against the spec revision.

That there have been unnecessary and effectively incompatible proprietary extensions (like Apple's) is down to the design of the spec, it was to be expected. The suggestion that Google might make its Reader Feedburner-only is on the one hand a bit silly, they'd be cutting off the vast majority of feeds, other readers would overnight become much more appealing. On the other hand, there have been plenty of services over the years that depended on the publisher opting in to a 3rd party system to benefit from the service (c.f. weblogs.com pings).

There may be genuine issues with Feedburner behind all this, but they won't be clear while the water's full of mud/fud. I suspect the real story here is that while RSS 2.0 won the first syndication battle, it's now losing the war.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Randy Charles Morin — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:15:03 -0000

I pointed out my disappointment with the above exaggerations and misunderstandings. Their are 14 members on the board and as you point out, 6 members from BigCos. How does that equate to control?

http://www.therssweblog.com...

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

zakkforchilli — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:10:11 -0000

i slightly disagree with him also.
their strategy of getting bought bby a bigger company, will usually be for the better. it looks a damn good thing from a ‘little company’s’ point of view.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

zakkforchilli — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:09:45 -0000

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

David — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:17:50 -0000

48 hours ago I emailed Dave Winer and stated that I would almost take his post serviously if his current email wasn't gmail on his blog...

No reply from him yet.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Maurice — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:54:27 -0000

“I really don’t get why these big companies want to mess with the RSS 2.0 spec when the Atom spec, which is a formal standard, is out there”

NIH I suspect.

And if you have eaver worked on OSI/ITU standards based systems there is way more polatics as well as some bone head stuff.

Sprint totaly ignored how one key part of how x.400 was suposed to work - one uk company(ICL) decided to start a key counter from 0 when the standard says "MUST start from 1"

(802.11n is a more recent example)

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Rogers Cadenhead — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:48:09 -0000

Similarly, how many RSS users and implementers are going to take any notice of the RSSAB's clarifications?

A bunch of RSS software developers have participated on our mailing list. Some have members of the board.

We also do a lot of work to figure out how RSS is being used. That's how we discovered that Matt Mullenweg at WordPress had spurred the adoption of the content:encoded element, which is a great way to offer both a summary and a full text item in RSS 2.0.

But the comparison between RSS 2.0 and Catholicism is starting to weird me out. Should the spec also be offered in Latin?

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Paul Montgomery — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:12:16 -0000

Tom: "Paul: Actually Pope’s do write new doctrine based on (and presumably inspired by) the bible which constitute new commandments to the church."

Yes, but how many Catholics take any notice of what the pope says? Similarly, how many RSS users and implementers are going to take any notice of the RSSAB's clarifications?

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Ed Daniel — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:51:30 -0000

"I really don't get why these big companies want to mess with the RSS 2.0 spec when the Atom spec, which is a formal standard, is out there"

You should know better than to ask that question Robert, sort of echoes the sentiment of people wondering why Microsoft wants to push MSOOXML instead of adopting ODF.

Not entirely related but have a peek at this rant I posted back in 2005 as well:
http://weblogs.asp.net/edan...

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Ian Betteridge — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:45:20 -0000

Robert says: "I never converted those feeds over to my new one."

Ahh, interesting. Does that mean your old blog is still up, and that you're cross-posting? Or did you just use the same feed location/URL and feed from the new blog?

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Jerry Mead — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:01:24 -0000

"this new unofficial board +is+ changing the RSS spec"

Like Rogers said, read the change notes:

http://www.rssboard.org/rss...

As I read it, one or two samples have been moved or added, an additional comment was added, and a couple of words were added in clarification of one aspect of the spec. And that's it, from 2004 to date.

Did you not bother to read this before posting, just to inform yourself of the facts? I fail to see any reason *at all* for your "changing the spec" accusation.

C'mon Robert, this is embarrassingly poor stuff.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Robert Scoble — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:45:01 -0000

Ian: no, my old feed just stayed in place. I never converted those feeds over to my new one.

I also just changed my post and retracted that part of it.

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Ian Betteridge — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:29:26 -0000

Incidentally: Didn't you switch feed locations when you moved to Wordpress? How did that go?

Re: Feedburner bad for us?

Ian Betteridge — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 06:28:41 -0000

So Robert, given the comment above from Rogers, will you be retracting the "changing the spec all the time" bit of your post? Because you know that the entire post is looking more than a little... erroneous? :)