Agreed, there is no soapbox needed for those thoughts. I believe a feed should always be reviewed in context. Time limits should never be hard and fast rules, just guidelines. At times there is more original and pure content in a feed updated once every other month than some that are updated daily that merely mirror content from elsewhere. I even had one yesterday evening I syndicated that at first glance I thought was trash. But what I saw at first glance was content that I did not like. Yet after spending almost half an hour checking links and content I found that the content was original and all very well written. Not to my taste or liking but deserving of syndication none the less. Now see what you have done! Got me rambling on....(gotta blame someone :) I'm out...
Lance Stuart Whitmore wrote: >On 10/27/05, Kent Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I normally 'reject' stuff that has had no articles for >>about two months. I think some people might even >>reject at about a month, but I reckon this is a >>contentious issue. >> >> > >I always advocate for a little more leniency than that. Yes, there >are feeds that have new content at least daily if not hourly, but >there are also feeds that are useful for their intended audience that >are updated monthly, or even quarterly. We should, IMHO, be reviewing >based on what the desired audience would expect from the feed, not >what the general notion of feed freshness is, or what we personally >like to see. > >I would not recommend rejecting a feed for "stale" content if it has >been updated in the past 6 months, or even 12 months. Older than >that, sure, it may very well be abandoned, although for those I often >just skip them and go on to another feed that is easier to judge >pass/fail -- there are certainly plenty of feeds to work with! > >I will give one example of an chaotically- and infrequently-updated >feed, one of mine: 312203 This is an Atom feed from a blog where, >when I get free time and a creative burst at the same time, I'll write >a micro-story as a back story for one of my novels. The intended >audience, other than myself for future reference, is anybody >interested in reading odd bits of fiction from time to time. Is this >something that should be updated daily or weekly to be "acceptable?" >Will somebody who subscribes be annoyed that this particular feed >isn't as active as their Wired (or whatever) subscriptions? Or will >they just enjoy seeing a new entry whenever it comes through? > >Ok, I'll get off my soapbox, but please consider the broader picture >when it comes to deciding that content is "too stale." > >-- >Stuart Whitmore >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://www.just-stuart.com/ > > > >If you're getting "too much mail" then send a message to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(this will tell it to stop sending you mail) > >To change your membership use THIS WEB PAGE: >http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/syndic8/join >(here you can set your mail to digest, no mail or LEAVE the list) > >To find more info about Syndicated XML newsfeeds visit http://www.syndic8.com/ >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/IRislB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> If you're getting "too much mail" then send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (this will tell it to stop sending you mail) To change your membership use THIS WEB PAGE: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/syndic8/join (here you can set your mail to digest, no mail or LEAVE the list) To find more info about Syndicated XML newsfeeds visit http://www.syndic8.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndic8/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
