News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The RSS Apocalypse by gwern on Friday March 15, 2013 @01:40PM (#5381835)
FWIW, an acquaintance of mine worked on one of the early RSS readers (Bloglines, I think). He mentioned that they had run some analytics on their users and found that the typical user would join, add a bunch of feeds, then slowly add more feeds over time until they had a ton of feeds and then would either delete a bunch of feeds or quit using the reader entirely.

I found that kind of funny. They were clearly deriving value from the reader, or they wouldn't've joined or kept adding feeds in the first place; but if they were feeling burdened or oppressed by their reader, why didn't they just stop adding feeds? Or if they had to keep finding new feeds, prune back the old feeds a bit. Why load up on feeds until you need to do a burst of spring cleaning or quit entirely?

Re:The RSS Apocalypse by bentcorner on Friday March 15, 2013 @01:43PM (#5381862)
There's probably a lesson in ensuring that high-value items show up, and "noisy" feeds have lower visibility, or similar work to make it feel like the user is not obligated to read everything (i.e., make it feel like work).

Even a "hide feeds with no posts" would help (I don't know if bloglines has that).

Re:The RSS Apocalypse by gwern on Monday March 18, 2013 @08:42PM (#5398169)
> Even a "hide feeds with no posts" would help (I don't know if bloglines has that).

I dunno about Bloglines then or now (whoever bought it threw out all the old code and started over), but at least in Google Reader, there is an option to, in the sidebar, omit feeds with no updates. I checked that option. It saves a lot of space for me.