No, I mean: "Google" moment as in what Google originally was. Let me rephrase in edit my original comment to "Google Search" moment.
Basically, when Google came on the scene in 1997, it blew away Yahoo Directory. Do I have my dates right? Hahaha :)
Basically, when Google came on the scene in 1997, it blew away Yahoo Directory. Do I have my dates right? Hahaha :)
It's not impossible that it could come back from this state, and indeed, outside of this issue, there's nothing wrong with it as a system, and podcasts make heavy use of it. But it's worth being aware of this headwind.
It allows me to conveniently keep track of tens of thousands of websites.
If you don't have a feed, no problem. Ill just read something else.
With few exceptions I can't be bothered to keep looking at a web page hoping something new has happened.
That's why the likes of Meta and Google just don't like it.
I mean, like RSS seems like where the web was in 1996 - on the ascent! - waiting for its "Google Search" moment, whereas these types of RSS curations in this product and others like it recently, a little bit like Yahoo Directory!
How do you "know" this? Show some proof! RSS has two well-known use cases: news and podcasts. It is fighting a pitched battle against players with deep pockets who want you to consume content where they can monetize it with ads.
Google Reader survived for as long as it did because such a service is incredibly cheap to run. Google only ended it to push people to Google+. Many of the various competing providers that popped up during that period are still around, but I would not say it is flourishing.
This is what Google thinks of RSS:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=R...
Note a rise and plateau centered around 2005 and a brief peak in 2013 (when Google killed Reeder).
Take podcasting - when RSS was first devised, nobody thought of such a use-case; it just happened that the media-attachment hacks tacked on top of it merged, at a particular time and place, with some other emerging tech (the iPod), creating something so good that it's still around.
The use as parential control is clutter to me. The referring to content selection as filtering was a terrible idea.
The content labels can exist on a different website, they can live in the html document and there is an rss element specifically for it.
You make up your own rating label and put a score behind it. There was an example for example that rated by canadiannes
https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-PICS-labels/#Example
As usual they spend a lot of words explaining something simple.
In its almost most simple form:
(PICS-1.1 "http://www.example.org/ratingservice" label for "http://www.example.com/foobar" rating (javascript 5 php 4 mysql 6 bloomfilter 10))
Looks a lot like hand crafted weights to me. If widely adopted you could make a fascinating tag cloud from your 100k rss subscriptions.
My only objection is when the "youngster" had his viewpoint questioned, his response was "no I totally know it's in ascent". Objective evidence points in the opposite direction.
You know mercury is retrograde right now so there's a lotta confusion on here hahahah! :)
Hahahaah and it's so funny to see contrarian or animosity against RSS on HN because usually it's the total opposite. I guess it's just 'cause I'm saying it people love to disagree, right? Hahahah! :) so hilarios hahah omg :)
So like the whole conversation became a non sequitur after that so I understand if you're confused. Hahahaha! :) The issues with async I guess hahaha so funny :)