Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
All the local feed readers I tested sorted by published date, as well as many of the big online feed readers. I found only two exceptions, two online readers, Netvibes and the iGoogle gadget (not Google Reader, which started to do the sorting one year ago).
Interesting. I've tested Google Reader a lot more recently than a year ago and I was convinced that they were ordering entries as they appeared in the feed. Although, to be honest, I don't think the answer is necessarily as simple as that, and I would like to have researched this in more detail if I'd had the time.
For example, a feed reader might sort individual feeds differently to aggregated views (assuming they support such things). They may sort an initial set of entries in a subscription differently to how they order a new entry added to an existing subscription.
It was quite inconvenient for the users and I received several bug reports. They were forwarded to these organizations, which never replied.
Also interesting. Given that there's no requirement that feed readers sort entries by the published date, what made you think they'd want to work around a problem in your feed that you could easily fix yourself?
If you can try and imagine, for just a moment, that sorting by published date might not be the one and only correct way to order feed entries, you'll begin to realise how ridiculous your bug report must seem to someone that doesn't share your views.
So, I would not call this "research" but "anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that sorting by <published> is the norm, not sorting the exception".
I'll accept for now that the most popular choice of ordering is uncertain. Without more concrete evidence, though, I would think it unwise for a feed publisher to rely on any particular sort order.
Regards James
