/blog

Kev Quirk links to a couple of posts on the topic of using feed readers vs visiting the actual sites, the first of which has the rather inflammatory title "Your RSS Reader Is Robbing You".

The argument is that if you only read posts in a feed reader then you are not seeing the post as it was intended to be viewed.

I have written a number of posts about this over the past few years. I built /reader with the intent of having an integrated environment where I could reply and send webmentions straight from an item in a feed. Great if the author's site supports webmentions, a bit of a waste if not.

I wrote that "I was unhappy with the homogeneity of seeing everything displayed according to my own style preferences" so built /updates — a view that just gave links to unread items, forcing me to read them in situ. This became more of a notification system than a feed reader.

Previously, I had mentioned that a feed reader "reduces the cognitive load when consuming posts from multiple and varied sources" which echoes the counterpoint from Christian Cleberg that "using RSS allows us to consume many different sites with typography that we prefer".

I've lost count of the times I've debated this with myself, but I'm still using /updates over three years later so suppose that indicates which side of the fence I'm currently on. The good thing is, however, that both views still exist so I can switch between them as I see fit, or as needs dictate.

I was worried if removing the convenience of having everything in one place would mean I read less. I needn't have been. With /updates I have the option to follow individual post links or go to the site homepage where I can go through everything I might not have read.

While I understand that some sites might not be designed to everyone's taste, I feel that we ought to view them at least once in a while to appreciate the work authors are putting into them. Still, it's ultimately a preference thing and that is the beauty of the web.