Microsoft, Google Ruffle Some RSS Feathers - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Mobile // Mobile Applications
Commentary
8/19/2005
12:53 PM
Tom Smith
Tom Smith
Commentary
50%
50%

Microsoft, Google Ruffle Some RSS Feathers

Microsoft and Google have sparked considerable industry debate by using "different" names for their RSS feeds -- "Web feeds" and "feeds," respectively.

Microsoft and Google have sparked considerable industry debate by using "different" names for their RSS feeds -- "Web feeds" and "feeds," respectively.For the uninitiated, RSS is Really Simple Syndication, a name for content feeds to which Internet uses can subscribe through various content "readers" and track updates at a wide range of Web sites.

Some in the industry are complaining that Microsoft and Google should exert their considerable influence elsewhere and leave this technology alone. The hue and cry, to some degree, is understandable, given concerns about the ever-expanding influence of these two giants.

Yet, the complaints are short-sighted, given the positive impact these moves can have.

Proponents can talk all they want about the benefits and value of RSS, yet the technology to many, many Web users remains mysterious and dense (and that's why I felt the need to define it above); subscription pages have to spell out in excruciating detail what RSS is, how it works, how to subscribe, and so on. One of the reasons RSS isn't used more widely -- an assertion based on the clicks we get from RSS feeds -- is that it's currently too difficult to figure out and too difficult to use.

Indeed, market researcher Nielsen/NetRatings found in a survey of blog readers released this week that 66% either didn't understand RSS or had never heard of it.

To the nonfaithful, it's all but impossible to look at icons or links that say "RSS" or "XML" and have any clue what a given Web site offers. I suspect strongly that if InformationWeek, for example, were to buck the common industry practice of posting icons that say "RSS" or "XML" and instead used "Our content feeds" or "subscribe to our content," our readers would be much more likely to at least check out the page that explains our feeds.

As Web publishers, we should use concrete, simple terms to explain our services to readers. Then, in turn, readers would be less intimidated by an RSS sign-up page and more likely to try out our feeds.

The more simple RSS is -- right down to giving it a label that means something to all manner of Web users -- the more its value can be unlocked for a broader audience. In the end, the RSS die-hards may not like seeing this technology morph into something with a different name, but even they should recognize it would lead to more widespread acceptance.

I'd definitely like your feedback on this important issue, and any input you have on the current stable of "our content feeds" (RSS purposely omitted). Reply in the comments field below or take our poll on this topic.

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
News
Top 10 Data and Analytics Trends for 2021
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  11/13/2020
Commentary
Where Cloud Spending Might Grow in 2021 and Post-Pandemic
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  11/19/2020
Slideshows
The Ever-Expanding List of C-Level Technology Positions
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  11/10/2020
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Why Chatbots Are So Popular Right Now
In this IT Trend Report, you will learn more about why chatbots are gaining traction within businesses, particularly while a pandemic is impacting the world.
Slideshows
Flash Poll