The Next Web

Google Reader is Wrong

Editors Note: This is a guest post by Dave Winer, widely considered the father of RSS, a legend of the Internet technology industry and a pioneer of far too many areas to mention. We’re both delighted and privileged to have him contribute to the The Next Web.

I was happy to read Richard MacManus’s article about stagnation in the RSS reader market. He said the market is in “disarray” but I believe that’s the wrong word. Disarray would imho be a good thing, because it would mean users have lots of choice, there would be competition, we’d be learning what works and what doesn’t. The problem is that Google Reader dominates the market, fully, and its view of RSS is wrong.

Fundamentally, Google Reader views RSS as email. But…

Google Reader is WrongRSS is not email. It can be confusing because there are feeds that are like email. For example, GMail offers a feed of your inbox. I’ll concede that feed not only is like email, it is email. A reader for email feeds probably must behave like an email reader.

There are other feeds that you never want to miss a post on. If a member of your immediate family has a blog, you probably want to see every post. Or your boss or teacher or best friend. For those feeds you need a simple feature in your reader that allows you to click on the name of a feed to see all the posts from that feed. But that should not be the primary view of RSS, because the vast majority of RSS feeds, the ones that make RSS really unique, are not like email.

What makes it unique: RSS syndicates news.

News. Stuff that’s new. When you want to find out what’s new you don’t want to know everything, you can’t. The world is too big. There’s too much happening. If you were to get a true readout of the number of stories you didn’t read, just today, it would number in the millions. It’s a pointless number. As if it would mean anything if you got the number to be zero. All it would mean is that you spent every waking moment reading, and you had no idea what any of it meant. It wouldn’t make you smarter, happier, worth more, have more friends, get laid more often, go to heaven or become a saint. Reading every story is a meaningless concept.

I don’t know why I have the impulse to find out what’s new, and I’ve been spending decades thinking about it. But 99 percent of the time I sit down at the computer it’s what I want to know first. What just happened. Not what happened five hours ago, what just happened.

In the old days when news was distributed on paper, reporters had to chunk their stories into bundles because they were printed and distributed as collections. It was a physical reality. But if you went into the newsroom and saw how they got their news you would get a big clue about how RSS readers should work. The teletype. It scrolled stories on a printed roll, the newest story first. When you saw a story you were interested in you ripped it off. It meant that your colleagues wouldn’t get it, but that’s the reality of news. There’s nothing wrong with an incomplete view. It’s the natural order of things.

Anyway, Bloglines, Google Reader, Newsgator, etc all embarked down the wrong path, the view that news is email. Sure they added contortions that made it possible to go from story to story in reverse chronologic order. But the primary view, the one that isn’t hidden, is the one that defines the product.

Ask Richard about this. When ReadWriteWeb started, it was a Radio blog, a product I developed at UserLand. Radio was both a news reader and blog authoring tool. The biggest decision in designing that product was which view should be on the home page. We could have gone either way. I went with the blogging tool, forever cementing its position as a writing tool. Had I gone the other way, the market would have seen it very differently. That’s the way these things work.

But to see the market as stagnating you have to overlook the 800 pound gorilla running around the room throwing things all over the place. Twitter. We’re using it every day. If you follow more than a few dozen people you miss tweets all the time, and so what. Twitter doesn’t tell you how many you didn’t read because it doesn’t matter. If it’s important it will come back around again. If not, well no one can know everything.

Twitter found a way to put both the authoring tool and the reading tool on the home page. Had I cracked that nut in 2002, Twitter might have happened a few years earlier. :-)

Dave Winer
Dave Winer, 54, pioneered the development of weblogs, syndication (RSS), podcasting, outlining, and web content management software; former contributing editor at Wired Magazine, research fellow at Harvard Law School, entrepreneur, and investor in web media companies.

  • Hi Dave

    First of all big kudos for your contribution to field of digital communication.

    Having said that I would like to take issue with one of your comments.

    "But to see the market as stagnating you have to overlook the 800 pound gorilla running around the room throwing things all over the place. Twitter. We’re using it every day. If you follow more than a few dozen people you miss tweets all the time, and so what. Twitter doesn’t tell you how many you didn’t read because it doesn’t matter. If it’s important it will come back around again. If not, well no one can know everything."

    I think the problem is not that it will come back if it's important, but that you have to sit there and watch it item by item.

    Feeds are designed as bottlenecks for information, with you as the reader.

    I wrote a lengthy article on the subject that I hope you will have some time to read and perhaps comment on.

    http://000fff.org/slaves-of-the-feed-this-is-no...
  • With all due respect Twitter or alike is the worst platform for reading, writing and communication promoted in an unusual way. I am with RSS readers and hope to see a new generation of them.
  • Google Reader suffers from a lack of prioritization, but then so does Twitter.

    After all these years it's amazing that there is still so much room for improvement in news clients. At the end of the day, Twitter and a RSS reader are not different in any meaningful way except that Twitter has less content.

    It's a slight overstatement to say that Google Reader is 'Wrong' but it has a ways to go. With the recent advancement of the bogus 'RSS Is Dead' meme, you have to wonder how much Google will be investing in it.
  • Batman
    And, it probably wouldn't have been called Twitter, either :)
  • of course if you only follow people who you know or are your friends, instead of the 10,000 people who friended you back you wont miss many tweets if you are away from your computer for a day or two.

    the second problem with the river is it assumes all information is of the same importance, it's not.
  • Even with Reader set up to look like the River, there's way too much cruft in the interface and the headlines are too imposing.
  • Show all items, expanded, is not so different from Radio's river of news. But to a large extent, I agree with Dave. Which is why I'm still using my homebrew reader 5 years on, because I haven't found anything that's as easy to read.
  • It's akin to road traffic news. 99% of the time 99% of us want to know what delays and/or diversions are occurring on the route we're on now or about to take.

    What's happening on the other routes is probably of little interest.

    What happened anywhere 12 hours ago is of no interest at all.
  • Jayasimhan
    Dave, Which RSS reader would you suggest as the one that is true to the soul of RSS?

    Thanks,
    Jay
  • Deep Throat
    Besides, Google has become e-v-i-l. Why would I want all of my curated feeds to be automatically scanned & archived by the MSoft empire replacement?

    Note, there's a reason why Google Reader does not handle private RSS feeds!!!
  • This is very interesting - I think your exactly right about how Google Reader views RSS feeds. The "Feed as Email" isn't the newest concept - but I think its a better and more universal way to see RSS feeds than, say, trying to morph your feeds into something like a newspaper/magazine a la Feedly.

    After all feeds are new stuff - news. When we read the news we may read it in many different ways - but being able to fundamentally split it up into sections (like Sports, Entertainment, etc) is great. Google Reader does that extremely well.

    Being able to see the news immediately when we look at it (the newspaper doesn't make you wait to download...) is also something Google Reader does well.

    Being able to handle LOTS of feed items, Google Reader does it better than any reader I have tried so far.

    The big issue here is continuity. Whether we should maintain or even care about maintaining a continuity with the outside world or, as you say, miss some things. Using twitter and following enough uses to get a grasp on what's new will definitely cause missage of news. There is a difference between what an RSS may represent to some versus Twitter.

    Twitter is more like a conversation - like a water-cooler, if you will. If something is important or uber-newsworthy it will continue to be posted and postulated in a number of different ways and with a number of different viewpoints. Twitter is also a noise of unfiltered masses constantly chattering. I have little control over that noise and can use it to know what's going on NOW. I couldn't use it to read about something niche that I might be interested in.

    With RSS and Google Reader, I can sort, reverse, skip, mark as read a whole group or just everything I see. In effect, Google Reader lets me define my own continuity (while rudely reminding me how many things I haven't seen). I may go hours or days without reading, and all the news items will be there - ready for me to either get up to speed or just skip it all. I define my own level of continuity.
  • What a show of arrogance!
  • Photar
    Dave didn't even invent the technology which is his claim to fame as the granddaddy of the Internet.

    If only the unwashed masses would use his amazing technology the way he invisioned it!

    Dave wants people to fill their RSS readers with way more news than they can read and just skim the newest stuff and that is just a fundamentally outdated view of the world.

    The reason people are using rss like an inbox is because they only want to see the news that they already want to read. It's the same way with TV, the new generation wants their shows on demand they don't want 500 channels of shit.

    Same with radio. They want their songs when they want them.

    Why Dave Winer doesn't understand this has got to be because he's an old person.
  • Richard Brooksby
    Google Reader looks a bit like Google Mail, but so what? The main thing it does for me is allow me to get ten times as much information as I would by site hopping. The view it encourages is newest first, so I'm really not sure what the complaint is about apart from that the unread counts might cause anxiety. (And I'm really no Google fanboy!) Twitter's content just isn't equivalent to what you can gather via RSS.
  • Hi Dave,

    I agree with what you are saying. I think getting the top news first is important and personalized for you is event better. It'd be nice not get repeats about the same story from different sources. And one thing Google Reader doesn't do is make reading news an enjoyable reading experience, like you said there is always a sense it's something you haven't read like email.

    I have to admit, I am biased because my startup, BuzzBox.com, is doing what I said. We rank stories based on sources you select, so you get a personalized list of top stories. We group same stories together and if you interested in a story, we provide a story analysis pages to see all the sources writing about a story.

    We are doing a Minimum Viable Product right now, so it's only focusing on top technology sources and UI is a work in progress. Would like to get your thoughts on BuzzBox the idea of consuming news this way.

    Checkout our video http://www.vimeo.com/8265907 and www.buzzbox.com.
  • Reader works well for my needs, regardless of what the original intentions for RSS were. I use it primarily for keeping up with webcomics, and I absolutely do not want to miss a single one, no matter how long I've been neglecting to check the feeds. With your twittery RSS I'd likely miss whole chunks of plot and character development (yes, I read Questionable Content :P)

    I also use it for reading news and blogs. When I'm in the mood to read thenextweb, for example, I just scroll back a few stories without paying any attention to how many I've missed. I don't even mark everything else as read, it just doesn't matter to me that there is a number next to that feed. Some way to distinguish between the two types of content might be nice, but it doesn't seem like a significant lack.

    I'm actually surprised that you had a vision for how RSS feeds should be used. It seems like the kind of thing that is rightly offered to the world to do with as it sees fit. That is largely how twitter works now as well through its API. The fact that most twitter clients follow the same model is largely down to the fact that twitter offered a reference interface that worked reasonably well. One could easily write a twitter client based on Reader, but like you said, what would be the point? Tweets just have no relevance beyond a couple of hours.

    On the other hand, I couldn't care less about stars and stuff in Reader. I star things sometimes, and then never look at them again.
  • I don't know if it's wrong, but I sure love the way it's offered before my eyes.
    Netvibes and other services don't consider RSS as e-mail, but as separate "contents".
    Though it is good when you deal with various 'gadgets', such as TV programs, weather info, etc, nothing beats (to me, and as of now), the 'e-mail' view Google Reader offers.
    That is, as long as you can tag, star, archive, etc, which Google Reader enables.
    That's where Netvibes comes short when it tries to switch from its traditional cluttered way of displaying content to the more "Google Reader like" view : Looking at content in a list is not what I'm looking for. What I want is quick browsing through a mess of content (which most certainly inevitably is, considering the whole purpose of following XXX feeds to sometimes only actually 'read' 50 articles (out of 400) a day), search capability through my whole archives, and... speed.
    Google Reader provides this, so it might be broken in terms of initial RSS purpose, but as a user, I've never actually felt like it was.
    Can't wait to be proven wrong and find out about anything better than Google Reader for skimming through heaps of content.
    I guess it all depends on what you use the tools for :).
blog comments powered by Disqus