--- In [email protected], "Bill Kearney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Approval is about technical accuracy, not value of content.  I've
> > approved feeds for blogs that were awful (in my opinion), and 
marked
> > feeds for repair where the content was great (in my opinion) but 
the
> > feeds were broken.
> 
> Excellent point Stuart, thanks.
> 
> > > Although one person said that a couple of the feeds needed 
fixing, it
> > > was only a font problem in 2 or 3 of the feeds.
> >
> > Probably not a "font problem"...
> 
> The tendency to jam all sorts of formatting gunk sort of misses the 
point
> about how to best use RSS.  It's all about preseting titles and 
descriptions
> that let the reader make decisions about whether it's worth 
following that
> link and reading more about it on the website.  You don't need 
flashing
> formatting for this.  What you need are well-written titles and 
descriptions
> that effectively engage your audience.  Catch their attention and 
they'll
> come visit the website for more of the story.  You can then track 
those
> landing URLs in your server logs and get a VERY accurate measure of 
just
> what drew the audience's attention.
> 
> > > for some reason, RSS likes this quote: " and not this one: "
> >
> > ...that implies an XML encoding problem.
> 
> Yep, it's not the validator or RSS, it's XML that's picky about 
it.  There
> really aren't than many rules in XML but there are a few that 
cannot be
> ignored.  Character encoding is one of them.
> 
> The validator is pretty thorough in how it checks feeds.  The good 
part is
> it's independent.  It's not tied to any one particular service so 
it's free
> to be VERY rigorous in it's testing.  Note that not everything it 
complains
> about is an error.  There are some 'warnings' it makes (along with 
offering
> explanations) that are generally good to correct.
> 
> > We're more than happy to approve technically-sound feeds, but if
> > you're looking to have broken feeds approved because you think the
> > content is good, you need to re-think what approval on Syndic8 is
> > really about.
> 
> I agree.  First and foremost it's about the feed being valid.  Then 
it's abo
> ut being usable in a feed reader (as in, not laden with formatting 
gunk).
> 
> I suppose foremost would be that it's not SPAM, but that's a 
given.  That
> the content isn't something we dwell too closely upon.  That it's 
not useful
> to "me" doesn't mean it's not valid or approvable. Lots of other 
folks might
> find the content quite useful.  There are things like test feeds, 
setups
> from new sites than never got updated, junk sites just looking to 
pimp
> adsense links or game search engines, and the like that are things 
we
> reject.  But beyond those obvious attempt to publish junk 
everything else is
> worth being validated and approved.
> 
> When reviewing, if the feed is valid but the content is outside the 
realm of
> what you might consider "useful" just pass on it.  Leave it for 
someone else
> to approve if you like.  The act of 'approving' a feed doesn't have 
to mean
> you 'like' it.  It just means it was valid and appeared to have 
content that
> could be used.
> 
> But even I've come across feeds that were, shall we say, not 
exactly my cup
> of tea.  I just passed over them and left them for someone else to 
mark
> approved.  If only because I didn't want to have my account show up 
linked
> to approving it and giving the search engine stalkers something to 
fixate
> upon.  I mean, who'd want to have some half-wit HR person run a 
google
> search and reject them from a job because a link to a strange blog 
came up?
> Thus sometimes it's simpler to just pass over a feed, even when 
it's totally
> valid otherwise.  It's not a perfect science, but we try.
> 
> -Bill Kearney
> Syndic8.com
>


Sorry Everyone! I fee very bad! I did not think there was a technical 
problem. I have a full time developer, I thought he had done his job 
on programing this correctly. I will tell him to look at it again.

PRBuzz.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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndic8/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndic8/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> 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/
 

Reply via email to