Talk:RSS

Podcasting Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Podcast Magazine, February 2020 / Vol. 1 No. 1 Pages 86 and 87 - The Push to Expand RSS
"The Rise and Demise of RSS". www.vice.com. 9 January 2019.

On 17 September 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 100 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

To discuss rss syndication feeds from wikipedia, visit Wikipedia:Syndication.

followup to move discussion

Since the above was closed, I have to post this separately :)

So we don't know what the people are typically looking for when a primary topic is in place, because the search engines learn our navigation layout and then send the readers looking for the web syndication topic to RSS and readers looking for whatever else over there. We only see a part of the organic lookups of "RSS" in our statistics, and we can't really tell how big of a part.

With meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream we can try to analyze reader behavior once they get here. https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=RSS shows that in August, there were over 43k views, and the top outgoing link was to the Indian organization at 509 identified clickstreams, and the generic hatnote got 218. In total, there were 5067 identifiable clickstreams to 59 destinations. So these ratios aren't obviously bad for the presumption of primary topic - 727 is just ~1.7% of incoming and ~14% of identifiable outgoing.

However, we did have a number of examples where this wasn't critical, I've been collating a list at WT:D#on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics and there were cases where there was actually ambiguity.

We should come back to this topic in the future and check again if there are any further hints of ambiguity. --Joy (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the page views graph from before had periods of intense spikes in 2017 and 2018, which sound like some sort of artificial traffic.

The WikiNav graph for August also showed 16k incoming from search, 11.5k with empty referer, 6k in the "other-other" category and 5k in the other-external category. This could indicate that there's still some amount of traffic where the the appearance of reader interest might be getting artificially inflated - places that cause readers to make this traffic for some reason. It's not totally clear how organic that interest is - are these readers genuinely curious what RSS is or are these websites doing something to promote clicking on this link beyond what would usually happen. --Joy (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity

RSS (RDF Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication) is ambiguous. There is a 1.0 version called "RDF Site Summary" and a 2.0 version called "Really Simple Syndication". 2.0: https://cyber.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html. 1.0: https://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/spec. Macaldo (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ambiguous, it's deliberately written as such and used when both are being discussed.

There are more versions than this in fact, and some are still of technical interest. The political history between them is significant. The best overview of all this for years has been the article at DiveIntoMark. This should be linked here (or just replace the entire article with a link to it!) and an archive found, if it's no longer live. It's a crucial source for understanding RSS. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm is ki nsisk sjisensn sjde e s deje e s udje edhejbe

heheb dbsue. Ee dienebbe ~2026-12441-75 (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm is ki nsisk sjisensn sjde e s deje e s udje edhejbe

heheb dbsue. Ee dienebbe ~2026-12441-75 (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]