Unattributed

The old Postville Courthouse in Lincoln, Illinois, via The Library of Congress. Abraham Lincoln practiced law there from 1847 to 1859.

Well, as a surprise to me, my silly little Gravatar article was posted to Hacker News. This has called a lot of attention to the post, and made for some interesting comments. The most interesting of this is the claim that I have “cognitive dissonance”:

We live in a world with cognitive dissonance. We have to because if you don't you'd go insane.

This article is perhaps a good example of that. On the one hand live in public (post blogs, use the same avatar on multiple sites) but at the same time try and control how that publicness is consumed (humans only, no AI).

Right now, whatever you make public is in AI. Whether that is on HN, or your blog, or wherever. You may not like that, but public is ultimately public.

Ironically a blog post about leaving some service because they used the marketing phrase “AI”, is immediately added to the AI training corpus.

So, of course, I feel the need to respond to this.

First off, I don't have cognitive dissonance on this topic. Instead, I would say I have a rather refined set of principles when it comes to AI. But, I'm sure you aren't here to read all my thoughts on AI. So, I will summarize them as: AI is a technology that holds promise, but at this time it's not ready for public consumption. Despite what Alphabet, OpenAI, Anthropic, and other companies have you believing, there is still a lot of work and research that needs to be done. And, it seems that a substantial portion of the AI research community agrees with this stance, according to a report published by the AAAI.

Now, on to the idea that “whatever you make public is in AI.”

The questions surrounding this are matters for legal discourse. There are, in fact, many ongoing lawsuits with respect to AI companies (OpenAI, Meta, Alphabet, et al.) vacuuming up large quantities of copyrighted material into their system. There are currently 163 cases according to this tracker. Not just in the United States, but globally. Anthropic settled one case already, to the tune of $1.5 Billion, which shows that there is reason to believe these companies are aware of the harms they are doing in violating the ownership of the works they are ingesting.

This is not a matter of public versus private. This is a matter of ownership. In the U.S. and quite a few countries works are owned by their creators automatically on creation. Sharing a work publicly does not remove that ownership. Works are not transferred into the public domain for lengthy periods of time, unless the creator explicitly assigns their works to the public domain. (And, even then it's difficult to do. See the reasoning behind the Creative Commons 0 license.)

My ownership of a work means I have the right to control how that work is reproduced. I could, for example, assign the rights to reproduce the work to a publisher. Or I could transfer those rights to a foundation or another organization. I can even reproduce the work publicly, while still maintaining ownership of the work.

Social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. are potentially a different matter. Originally they stated that their reproduction of your posts did not transfer ownership to them. However, over time, they have slid more and more towards a position that they have the right to reproduce your work in ways they feel is appropriate (this was mostly for advertising originally, but that's becoming increasingly blurry these days).

Alphabet has a contract with Reddit to slurp up users postings, and they are certainly using Gmail, YouTube and as many other sources as they can to train their AI. Meta is almost certainly using Facebook, Instagram, and What's App to train their AI's. And Elon's companies are doing whatever they can to feed Grok. But I don't have to capitulate to this loss of ownership. I've left all of those platforms behind for a reason. They might have whatever relics are left over from my time there, but I never agreed to their usage to feed AI systems, and I won't willingly provide them with more fodder.

Hopefully this clears up the misunderstanding that I might have “cognitive dissonance” where AI is concerned.

As a final side note: I was amused by the side discussion regarding the aesthetics of my site. As noted, the font is indeed Work Sans. And, I have done some very minor tweaks in terms of the spacing to make it nicely readable. The overall structure of the site is designed to be minimal. And, through its minimal design I'm aiming for each page to be small and fast loading (there is an issue here, which is based on how the underlying platform works). There are no images in the footer, the buttons are all HTML. The images I use are hand edited to reduce their size (I aim for under 250K per image). As for the color: I just wanted an earthy tone, but yeah, tan isn't really my favorite color either. As for the person that said they didn't like the logo, well what can I say? :) The logo is meant to be mildly humorous—the “A” being a triangle is intended to be a slight visual cue to the name “Unattributed” being a joke about the Attribution clause of the Creative Commons license. (IE, “Attribution: Unattributed”) Yeah—I know it's a joke that passes over most people heads.

---

Categories: #Features Tags: #AI, #HackerNews, #repsonse, #cognitivedissonance, #public, #ownership, #copyright License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

Green and Blue Nighttime Landscape.

A couple of RSS based projects have been brought to my attention since I published The State of RSS Feed Readers a little over a week ago. So here's a brief update.

Kagi News

Several people mentioned Kagi News in comments on Mastodon to the original article. Kagi News was really not what I had in mind when writing the original article. It is more of a curated news service along the lines of Google News or Ground News rather than a reader that you can add the feeds you want to track. However, it bears some more resemblance to Techmeme or Memeorandum than Google News in a sense.

Kagi News uses hundreds, possibly thousands, of RSS feeds to aggregate news stories. These stories are then fed into an AI system that reads them, and writes a summary of all the articles it has consumed. The summary is heavily cross-referenced against the original sources, and all the sources used in writing the summary are listed at the bottom of the article.

While AI is a very controversial topic these days this is one of the few times when I believe it is used properly. There is little chance that anyone could read all 50+ versions a story published by all the newspapers and magazines in the world. Having a summary that pulls all of them together, and tries to present a story with facts that align with the majority of the available reporting is interesting.

It's also useful that they provide an RSS feeds for each topic, so you can pull their feeds into your personal choice of RSS reader.

Miniflux

I didn't mention Miniflux as an option in the self-hosted portion of the original article, despite its popularity. The reason? Quite simply: I forgot it. :) Miniflux was one of the options I had looked at, and has a major selling point in its favor.

Miniflux is an extremely lightweight RSS feed reader with a minimal interface that is fast and responsive. The whole application is minimal, even a full Docker image is under 20meg in size. The only downside I see is the requirement to set up an external database to use it.

If you don't want to self-host Miniflux, there is a hosted version for $15/yr.

Feedgrab

This is the reason I decided to write this update. I don't think I saw Feedgrab referenced anywhere, and it's a shame. Feedgrab is a beautiful, minimal hosted RSS reader from the creator of Pagecord. And while it's a hosted application it is completely free.

While Miniflux may have a some more features than Feedgrab, it makes up for them with one feature: starting feeds. When you create an account you are presented with a menu of categories, in each category is 30-50 feeds for you to chose from. This makes it quick and easy to populate your feed with stories that will be of interest to you.

And, there is a little extra: there is a browser extension for adding the feeds of sites to Feedgrab. Just install the Feedgrab extension, and whenever you find a site you want to follow, just add it to Feedgrab. And, of course, you can import your own OPML file if you have one, or export your feeds to an OPML file.

It's a very simple system. No special features or options for you to set. You can star items, mark them read / unread. That's it. No categorization of feeds. No ranking feeds, or tagging items, etc. It's all about reading the feeds that you have selected.

Conclusion

This was just a short update, a few items that I had missed the first time around, which seemed relevant to add to the discussion of RSS feed readers.

One last thought: I was impressed with Kagi News. Enough that I added their feeds to Calibre to scan daily, as a “quick news” newspaper / magazine I can scan each morning. It's quite a nice to have a publication that I can look at quickly, have an idea of what's going on, and if something really catches my attention, I can dig in deeper by looking at the original sources.

In testing the Feedgrab extension didn't work as expected in Waterfox. But, that could be some incompatibility with Waterfox. Or it could be that the extension hasn't been updated for some time. At this point there were only four downloads of the extension, so I have doubts that it's getting extensively tested.

---

Categories: #Features Tags: #rss, #feeds, #readers, #update License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

Shoreline with lights. License: CC-0

So, Brennan Kenneth Brown wrote about the experience of my response to one of his posts topping the Bubbles list for most of a day. To that, I have to apologize, and hopefully provide a little context. Brennan wrote at the beginning of his post:

The writing was critical, but it was also fair and written in good faith. That said, seeing a 3,500-word article about me on the top of Bubbles.town yesterday certainly did give me anxiety—but that's par for the course. My chickens have come home to roost. I mean, if you're going to share your work with the world, then you need to expect the world to respond.

So, to set the record straight: I didn't start with the intention of writing a 3,600-word critique in response to Brennan's article. Especially not one as critical as it is. Personally, I like to pick up on someone else's thoughts that have some similarity to mine, or are tangential and seek a common ground. That's how my responses to Gordon Mclean and Michael Lynch have largely gone.

In this case, it felt necessary to start out of with a few corrections before moving on to my own thoughts. But, by the time I had written those corrections, I was no longer sharing my thoughts. Instead, I was back in the role of the critic, attempting my best to use academic scrutiny (despite being out of academia for over forty years):

Believe it or not, we haven't even gotten to the meat of Brennan's article yet. This article is so dense with information that it's going to take a lot of work to go through and pull it apart for a clear examination.

And this is where I failed. I wasn't able to maintain the level of even-handedness in my criticism that I should have maintained. My only excuse: I was frustrated with myself for being so critical that I turned my frustrations towards the author at times, instead of maintaining focus on the work itself. For that I apologize.

Brennan then goes on to talk about his reaction to my article:

But my body doesn't know the difference. I'm somebody who has struggled with scrupulosity, or moral obsessive-compulsive thoughts, for my entire life. I hold a high (maybe impossible) bar for myself to do good, and feel as though I'm failing no matter what I do or don't do. Irrationally—because of mental illness—I see a bad article I've written as an awful moral failure. The same order of magnitude as the things that actually get people milkshake ducked

And I want to address this point because I think, while we experience it differently, there is some common ground here.

For those who don't know, I have another website that has been dormant now for about ten years. But, during it's prime, I wrote over 500 articles on it, over half (360-420) music reviews. And I have a netlabel that has been dormant for about the same period of time. The reason I bring this up is to talk about two situations I found myself in that bear some similarity to Brennan's struggle.

The first, one of the artists I was working with on my label started demanding that I supply materials for him to use in support of his performances. None of those materials had ever been discussed when we started working together, and nowhere had I documented making any such materials available. The truth: the whole operation was running on a shoestring. I was putting in whatever money I could. There were no profits from the label to work with for supplying the artists with anything more than I had provided. The artist was enraged when he heard this, and started posting all over the place about me, trying to assassinate my credibility.

Nobody who knew me bought his allegations. I made a couple of posts correcting misinformation he was spreading, and providing receipts. Receipts I had pulled together in a panic because his attacks felt personal enough that I thought we were going to end up in a legal action. That's when things got worse: his attacks turned into threats against me. Yes, those kinds of threats. However, after his attacks had been called to the attention of the platforms he'd posted them on (by others who knew me) he cooled down a bit. At least publicly. And that allowed both of us to walk away, working relationship shattered.

In the other case, an artist I had written numerous reviews about decided, at some point, that I was his enemy. He wrote a long diatribe to me demanding that I pull down all the reviews of his works over several years. Apparently, this started because I had made a couple of mistakes in some reviews, combined with him having some bad personal experiences unrelated to my reviews. It took a week (or more) of going back and forth with him, but in the end, he agreed that it would be best to just add corrections to the reviews in question. That was something I was always more than willing to do.

But, the reason I relate these two experiences is they are similar in some respect to Brennan's experience. I was invested in the work that I was doing. I thought I was doing a greater good for everyone involved. Never would I have considered my work to be harmful in any way. (Even in my reviews I had a policy: I had to have a minimum of three good things to say about a release, if I didn't, the review would likely not be published.) But both of these experiences made me feel like I was in a war in a way, under attack and on edge for days, even weeks after the experiences. Both experiences severely undermined the person I thought I was, made me question everything.

That is an experience I don't wish on anyone. It is an experience I don't wish to inflict on anyone. And, it is something I will endeavor to improve on in the future.

---

Categories: #Response Tags: #criticism, #scrutiny, #scrupulosity, #writing, #experiences License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

A city full of millions of people living their lives. Photo: CC-0

Michael Lynch wrote an excellent and thought-provoking article yesterday titled Why I Stopped “Creating Content”. In this article he discusses a lot of the mentality that motivates the mainstream web these days which is worth discussing a bit more.

Industry Speak

I started encountering a lot of the industry speak when I found my way into the bowels of the SEO industry some years back. At the time I just accepted that terms like “funnel,” “conversion,” “landing page,” “content,” and “traffic” had meaning. After all, these were the people that were making a lot of money, and getting a lot of eyes on their websites, right?

Turns out, no, they weren't. I've known a few people who have been engaged in the drop-shipping industry for a while now. Basically, they use as many tricks of technology and marketing as possible in order to sell (often dubious) products at a substantial markup for profitability. Basically a “passive income” type of scheme. These are the kind of people that think of customers as “traffic”. They don't care about their customers, they are only interested in chasing the dollars, pounds, or whatever currency…

When my eyes were truly opened about what the SEO world was really about, I was completely repulsed. I found the whole thing repugnant. And, while I've never mentioned it before, this was another black mark on Google's reputation as far as I was concerned. Why Google? Because they enable this industry. They actively engage with SEO marketers to make certain they understand the changes being made to their search engine.

Why would they do this? While I never had the time to dig into it deeper, I believe Google is profiting from SEO marketers. And, I believe that it's significantly profitable for Google. Why? If it wasn't profitable, why would Google directly engage with these marketers?

The thing I found disgusting about this is: Google has been actively distorting search results for a long time. If some SEO marketer's page can outrank bad review(s) of the same product, that likely means the SEO marketer had an upper-hand over the reviewer. At least that is what I keep seeing.

The Rise of Influencers

I don't know if anyone will be surprised reading this, but the people doing “influencer” marketing are just a subset of the SEO marketing crowd. As social media started becoming more influential, it was apparent to many of the SEO marketers that Google didn't represent the whole market anymore. So, they turned to “creators” to market their garbage.

What I think many don't realize is that when your favorite YouTuber, Instagram-er, (or whatever platform) takes a sponsorship they are subject to the same measurements SEO marketers use. They are seen as a “funnel” to “drive traffic.” The result is “conversion” to a “customer.” Many times their agreements depend on the “conversion rate” of their audience. Basically, it pulls you out of your role as an audience member, and makes you into a commoditize-able asset.

But who can blame the people who are creating the things you watch? They need some way to make money in order to keep making things for their audience. And that's what these marketers are preying on. They are living on the willingness of a person to turn their audience into “traffic” fodder.

Getting off the Roller Coaster

This entire thing is a big roller coaster. Once you are on it, it's hard to see where or when the ride is going to end. And I took a long ride on the SEO coaster, but I managed to jump off it a few years back. I had been trying to decide what to do with the rest of my life during the pandemic. Actually, I knew what I wanted to do, but I didn't know how I was going to do it.

The answer, of course, was writing. I t was the thing I've wanted to dedicate myself to since College. However, over the past few years I have been confronted with an old insecurity: would anyone be interested? It's the age-old question that confronts every writer: who is your audience. When you start any project, especially a creative endeavor, you have to wonder if there is any appeal to that project. So, of course, I started writing again. First with this very blog, and then I started a niche blog. The idea was to see if there was any interest. No sales, no marketing, just me writing.

And, of course, they failed. Why, I wondered? I found several reasons. First was the demotivation provided by WordPress. But, I didn't recognize that at the time. Instead, I turned to the SEO articles I had stashed away. I quickly found I was doing X wrong and Y wrong. I would never generate “traffic” unless I did Z instead.

This was when the proverbial light bulb went off in my mind. SEO was doing precisely the wrong thing. I was looking for answers from marketers. I was looking to generate numbers instead of considering the value of my work, and the value of those that would read my work. And that's when I put it together: what I really wanted was to build an audience instead of “followers” or generate “traffic”.

The Difference

Artists, especially performing artists, understand the difference. Audiences are not nameless, faceless masses being marketed to. An audience is a participant in the performance or presentation of a creation. You are a participating right now by reading these words on your screen. And, you can take your participation further by upvoting, or leaving feedback. But, that is for you to decide: that's the audience member role as a participant in this process.

Don't believe this? Let's try another example, music concerts. Have you been to a show that just felt different? That felt like it was something that was just more than you were expecting? Have you been to shows that were less than you expected, or shows that met your expectations? Now, have you ever heard about a band or an artist talk about a show that we extra special to them? This is because the audience is interacting with the band / artist. It's all about the mood, the reaction, and interaction between an artist and their audience.

So, that's the difference with the IndieWeb: we don't use SEO marketing speak, we don't think of people as “traffic” and more so, we aren't in competition with each other. We each decide who we are, what the want to present, and we find the best way to present that through writing, music, video, painting, drawing photography, whatever form works for you.

We don't use the tools of SEO marketers. We use aggregators like Bubbles to allow our audience to tell others what they might like. We use web rings and blog rolls to allow our audiences to find things that they like. Our audiences grow, shrink, change, and define their role in our work. This is exactly the opposite of what marketers do: they want their “traffic” to constantly increase so they can “convert” more of them.

Conclusion

The SEO marketing have done one thing correctly. They have provided us with some tools that are useful for making certain our blogs are set up in a technically correct manner. Beyond that, there's little else they can offer in terms of genuine communication. Nothing about their terminology: “content creator,” “traffic,” “conversion,” “funnel,” and so on treats people for who they are. People are just numbers to SEO marketers, just a faceless mass.

This is what we reject. We instead understand that people are authors, artists, musicians, painters, performers, poets, sculptors, or any of hundreds of other things they decide to be. We understand that people choose to make available the things they want other people to see, experience, and appreciate.

We understand that you are an audience. You are not a faceless, nameless mass. You are people who have feelings, thoughts, and experiences you bring to our works. Audiences grow, shrink, and change over time, you are not a monolithic group. It's through interaction that we learn to grow and change as persons. There is no place in SEO for that.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out at least a few of the interactions that have helped drive this point home to me. Michael Lynch is the very reason this article exists, he was the inspiration for it. Brennan Kenneth Brown was very humble in understanding my feedback on his work, as critical as I was. Gordon Mclean made a post that he thought was just a light little piece about Gravatar, my reaction surprised both him and me.

If it weren't for these, and other people on the IndieWeb, I would not be learning and growing as a person. And that, in the end, is what the IndieWeb is about for everyone. F*** the SEO marketers.

---

Categories: #Response Tags: #seo, #marketing, #promotion, #artists, #writers, #painters, #audience License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

You've probably run into some Obsidian evangelist espousing some convoluted system of organizing all their notes, and building some knowledge base. Heck, I was just involved in a conversation about Personal Knowledge Management. This isn't that article.

My personal use of Obsidian tends to be simple. I build into it the tools that I need to get things done, to make things easier. There is a saying (which I can't locate, so I'll paraphrase) that a system should only be as complicated as needed, and nothing more. The idea is there is no reason to build a Rube Goldberg machine when all you really need is a wrench. That's the approach I take: use a wrench to bolt on a few tools, and tighten things up where necessary.

So, this article will walk through how I work with things now. This system has evolved a bit over the last few weeks, and is likely to evolve further. But the primary idea is, and will remain: keep it simple, but make it useful.

Planning

When I switched from WordPress to write.as, the biggest thing I “lost” was having a way to plan the articles that I wanted to work on. Obsidian recently added a feature called Bases that made it simple to set up a table containing all the articles for all three of my sites:

View of the main planning table. Unpublished articles blurred—no spoilers! ;)

The simplicity here is that the table quickly lets me see which articles I have published, which are in the planning / drafting stage, and the scheduled date for the articles. But, looking at a table this big could be tricky to navigate. Fortunately, I have a couple of alternate views available:

The Plan / Draft view lets me see just the articles I am working on.

And the Published view lets me see what I've already posted.

There are two “genius” parts to this system. First, all this information is part of the article, it's not some extra information that I need to keep track of. Second, I can update the “Published”, “Scheduled” and “Status” fields from this list without having to open the specific post. How is this done?

New Post Drafts

Every time I have a new idea, I create a new document in the website's folder, and insert a template:

Blog Template is for website posts, CMP Template is for my archived podcast posts.

Once the Blog Template is inserted, the document shows up in the Planning table. After the template is inserted the document looks like this:

Template inserted in document, with Properties for the Planning table circled.

You might notice there is both an Untitled field, and a Title field. Untitled is Obsidian's filename for the document, whereas Title is the actual article title. Why both? Obsidian places some restrictions on the names of documents. For example, the character : isn't allowed in an Obsidian filename, but there are times when I need it in an article title.

From here, writing is dead simple…

Writing In Obsidian

The full writing environment, with a few highlighted items.

Now it's just time to write. The majority of the screen is dedicated to the editing window where I can work on an article. If I have images (like this article) they can be drag-n-dropped into place. To the left is the Navigation panel, with my folders on the top half, and the files in the selected folder on the bottom. To the left of the editing window is the version control panel for the current article (I'll explain my choice in the next section).

When I am done with the article I export it to an output directory. The export process converts any Obsidian specific markup (such as using wiki style links) to standard Markdown formatting, and places all the attachments (images) in a folder with the article. This makes it dead simple to upload to write.as.

Obsidian Plugins

I have a selection of Obsidian community plugins that I use for working in Obsidian as can be seen in this image:

Image: screenshot of installed community plugins.

The most important of these are Harper and LanguageTool, both of applications these plugins call are installed locally on my system as I have a slow internet connection, and prefer to have my tools running locally. markdown export is the export tool I use for blog posts. Notebook Navigator enhances Obsidian's built-in navigation panel a ton, I've barely scratched the surface of what it can do. Outliner provides better list handling, allowing drag-n-drop of items, folding, and more. Typewriter Mode is really only used for one feature: highlighting the current line I am editing. (I have been doing this for 40+ years as it helps with my unique form of dyslexia.)

Remotely Save is the tool I use for syncing my vaults between systems. Version Control is a simple built-in version control system. The advantage to using it over git or another external version control system is that the versions of my documents are synced with Remotely Save. This removes the need to synchronize a git repository separately from the vault.

Zotero Integration allows me to search and insert bibliographic references when I need them. Alas, write.as doesn't support reference links, so I have to do it inline, instead of in end-note style.

Safi Site Audit is a tool that is unique to this vault for me. It's used to check the health of my sites, and catch any major issues, like broken links, missing alt text, and so on. I don't run it often, but it's good to be able to check and generate a report once in a while.

Conclusion

Obsidian, between it's recently added Base feature and a handful of plugins makes for a great writing environment for me. The ability to track the status of the posts I am working on, have version control over the documents, and have some additional tools that allow me to customize the environment to my liking.

I know there are a lot of evangelists of Obsidian out there, and their enthusiasm and overly complicated setups can make Obsidian seem unapproachable. Personally, I've found that it is excellent if you tailor it to your specific needs. And that is what is most important, and makes me most productive with a tool: doing what I require in the way that I need.

This wasn't too detailed in terms how I actually tweak things (like key bindings for certain tools). Hopefully it gives you some insight into my workflow. And maybe it will give you some ideas about how you can refine your workflow.

---

Categories: #HowTo Tags: #obsidian, #tool, #writing, #blogging, #configuration, #workflow License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

Bridge heading into the smokey landscape. License: CC-0

I read Brennan Kenneth Brown's What have note-taking PKMs accomplished, really?, and found myself writing a lengthy response. But, after I wrote my response I reread Brennan's article and found myself in a bit of a quandary. I found myself asking a simple question: was it intentional that he presented both arguments and counterarguments in his piece? That seemed to have a simple answer: yes.

Any good piece of writing should undertake to present the relevant perspectives, and treat them seriously. But this is where I stumbled to understand Brennan's position. While he presented the counterpoints, or counterarguments to these positions, he didn't seem to treat them in the same manner as his primary arguments and points. That has caused me to think about his article from a different perspective.

What Was the Purpose

There is a statement, or rather a question, that forms the premise of Brennan's argument about Personal Knowledge Management:

Obsidian has been out for six years now—has there been an increase in public-facing understanding and knowledge?

That is a question that, the more that I look at it, seems completely wrong. It's taking the idea of a single piece of technology, a single application, and asking what that tool has contributed to the world. How does anyone measure what the contribution of a piece of software is to the world?

Take for example a couple of applications that have been around for many more decades than Obsidian: Emacs and vim. Have Emacs and vim contributed to “public-facing” understanding or knowledge? No, they haven't. However, what they have enabled people to do a lot of things: write code, programs, applications, papers, documents, books, poems, and a lot more.

The tool doesn't make the contribution. The tool enables people to make contributions to the world. But Brennan goes on to double down:

I think it's safe to say that, while there have always been courses and lessons on productivity people sell and buy, the unique values and principles of Obsidian (local plain-text files written in Markdown, data privacy, portability, “future-proofing,” etc.) give the ideas and the people behind them a certain higher-brow purpose and epistemological value.

And this is where the wheels come completely off the train. Basically nothing about the linked document supports the statement that Brennan is making. The page in question does not mention: data privacy, portability, or “future-proofing.” What it does suggest is, “We believe in plain text for something as important as your knowledge base. […] When the file system replaces the cloud, you get flexible options to work with your files: you can back them up with Dropbox, use Git to do versioning, or encrypt your disk for security. Whatever works on your file system will work on your Obsidian knowledge base.” There is no hint at the concepts being “higher-brow” or anything to indicate an ascribed “epistemological value.”

Instead, the core argument the Obsidian team makes is nearly the opposite:

Note-taking is a highly personal activity. Naturally there is no single all-encompassing solution for everyone.

Instead of providing you with an opinionated and assembled product, Obsidian gives you a foundation and numerous functional building blocks to discover and build your own solution.

The foundation is to be able to view files, edit them, and search them. For the minimalist, that's enough.

So where Brennan came up with all of this “future-proofing” and “highbrow” and “epistemological value” is minimally unclear, and maximally misleading. Obsidian is just a tool. A tool that is designed for users to create the system they want or need.

Where I think Brennan has gone wrong with this is reading or watching what others have said about Obsidian as a tool. I have seen this ecosystem that seems to have developed around Obsidian, and honestly it is quite off-putting. But should we judge a tool by its users? Or should it be judged based on what it's developers have provided?

I think I am going to side with the developers on this one.

Brennan then posits his central thesis a second time:

My concern is in the lack of critical examination of what these complex, robust systems are producing: Has there been a meaningful increase of understanding and creation thanks to personal knowledge management systems? This is the question I want to investigate and try to answer.

I do wonder what “complex, robust systems” he means at this point. He's only mischaracterized Obsidian, which certainly at its core is not all that complex. It's a personal Wiki with a few extra features. Wikis have existed since 1994 when Ward Cunningham developed the first one (which was installed online in 1995).

Believe it or not, we haven't even gotten to the meat of Brennan's article yet. This article is so dense with information that it's going to take a lot of work to go through and pull it apart for a clear examination.

Personal Knowledge Management Systems

After providing a list of PKM's (most notable of which are PARA, Johnny Decimal, Zettelkasten, GTD, and Commonplace Books), Brennan sets out a series of questions for the examination of these systems:

1. First, what does it mean to make an important and meaningful contribution to our understanding of the world?
2. Second, are PKM frameworks being used by those making important, meaningful contributions in fields of academia and communications? By communications, I mean synthesizing the understanding of expert-domains so these discoveries can be understood and shared among everyone instead of gatekept by elitism.
3. Third, what does the process actually look like for the actual people who write important papers and books?
4. Fourth, what is the throughput and output of the people who have dedicated themselves to PKM frameworks?

This series of questions, in itself, is something of a mess. The first question doesn't have any relationship to personal knowledge management. What a person contributes to the world isn't measured by their ability to store or regurgitate information. Making an “important and meaningful contribution” is a highly nebulous concept that is dependent on the audience and the author.

The second question is a complete shift in scope. Making “important, meaningful contributions” to academia and communications is not the same as making a contribution to “our understanding of the world”. And then there's this: “…shared among everyone instead of gatekept by elitism.” To many, academia is quite literally a form of elitism that gate keeps information. (Aside: I could make a long argument here about what happened to Aaron Swartz in his attempt to liberate the information that was being gate kept by academia.)

Third question: surely it looks like whatever works for them, right? I mean, this is what the promise of Obsidian is in the first place: “Note-taking is a highly personal activity. Naturally there is no single all-encompassing solution for everyone.” If someone wants to use PARA, they use PARA. If they want to invent their own system (spoilers) then they will do so. Again, how is this relevant? Is a person's choice of system indicative or predictive of their ability to perform some task?

The fourth question is, possibly, the most valuable, and yet the most difficult. How do you know what people are choosing to use for their knowledge management? How does someone measure “throughput and output”? Certainly you can perform a quantitative analysis of this, however assessing the qualitative nature of this question is far more difficult.

Next we talk about German sociologist Niklas Luhmann, whose Zettelkasten system has become widely known, and is frequently cited as a “genius” method for organizing one's notes or information. Brennan here thinks of this as a “Myth” because no one has been able to take Luhmann's notes and create new works based on them. People have realized that his system was idiosyncratic to Luhmann himself. But does that make his methodology a “myth?” I don't think so, it just means his method was specific to him.

The Questions

At this point Brennan starts going through the questions that he outlined (as quoted above), only there's a bit of goal shifting here. For example, question one is now stated as “What counts as a meaningful contribution to understanding?” Before it had to be both “important and meaningful” and it had to apply to “our understanding of the world”. But, nonetheless, let's continue. Brennan states:

The empirical literature on insight and creativity centers on incubation, the act of stepping away from a problem, unconscious restructuring, working memory offloading. This is not the act of browsing a hyperlinked card catalog.

Incubation is, quite literally, a portion of the process that systems like PARA (Forte, Tiago. Building a Second Brain: A Proven Method to Organize Your Digital Life and Unlock Your Creative Potential. Vol. 1. Simon and Schuster, 2022.) actually supports. In Chapter 3, he quite clearly states:

There are four essential capabilities that we can rely on a Second Brain to perform for us:

1. Making our ideas concrete
2. Revealing new associations between ideas.
3. Incubating our ideas over time.
4. Sharpening our unique perspectives.

(Emphasis added.)

The understanding is that this is very much in line with the ideas that works about insight and creativity have suggested. This isn't just spending time “browsing a hyperlinked card catalog.” It's storing information such that it can be found when it is needed and additional information might surface during the process that allows intuitive leaps in problem-solving. This whole concept is completely in line with the papers being cited.

And then Brennan disproves his whole point by pointing to a paper: Scholars ARE Collectors: A Proposal for Re-thinking Research Support which makes the point that academics are “hoarders” of information. And they organize and interact with this information in their own way. In other words: they make intuitive leaps through use of hoarded information.

The next question, “Are PKM frameworks used by people making real contributions, or mostly by people selling PKM?” is completely different from the one listed in the beginning of the article: “Second, are PKM frameworks being used by those making important, meaningful contributions in fields of academia and communications? By communications, I mean synthesizing the understanding of expert-domains, so these discoveries can be understood and shared among everyone instead of gatekept by elitism.”

Seriously? How does the literal questions keep changing this much? The first question mostly in scope. But now, the second question doesn't even match between statements of the question. I think I know why this happening, which I will explain towards the end of this article. For now, we'll talk about the revised question.

Brennan notes that there is a whole market of people selling books, courses, and other materials about PKM. And, makes note that it is likely that those who are writing and doing training about it are not likely applying their teachings.

Honestly, I don't know that this is really an issue. There are people that get into many lines of work, including things like life trainers, gym trainers, motivational speaking, etc. What works for one person may not work for another person. Listing off a bunch of people that don't use a system doesn't disprove the system, it only shows that there are other methods that can be used.

The part that I think was hilarious about this section was the “gotcha” Brennan tries to make of this post on the Obsidian forum. The way the original poster made his post, it's obvious that he was trying to promote his own book, and his website. But then one respondent posts a literal bibliography of at least fifty works the original poster didn't reference. The clear implication of this post: the original poster is unqualified in the field, he hasn't done his research. And yet, here we are, using this post where someone is debunking the original poster as an example.

Okay, on to the third question:”What does the process actually look like for people who write important books?” Hey, what do you know: this time the questions actually match!

Now, while I love to examine the processes of others when possible to glean any insights I can from them, and possibly integrate some of their concepts into my own, I don't see how this proves anything. Just because people that are highly successful, or are high functioning in their field don't adopt a PKM methodology or specific tool is no reflection on the methodology or the tool. It's just a matter of the person having found the tools and methods that work for them.

So, let's look at this statement from Brennan:

The analogue systems used by demonstrably prolific working writers are project-bounded and disposable. The digital PKM ideology sells the opposite promise of a permanent, ever-growing, cross-project system that gets more valuable the longer you maintain it.

Are the analogue systems always project-bounded? There are many times when fiction writers have started developing some idea or concept for a work, but found that it didn't fit the story they wanted to tell. So, do they just throw it away? No. They put it aside someplace only to be retrieved when it fits in the story they are writing.

The PKM system, on the whole, is about building a knowledge base, basically a library of knowledge that you can pull from. When you have a specific project, you pull the information that fits specifically within the scope of the project you are working on. This is basically no different from going to a library and gathering research materials. Just because a library has hundreds of thousands of books that don't apply to your field doesn't mean those books don't have value. There are likely books that don't fit in your field of study that still have value to you for other reasons.

Singling out three or four people that have processes that are completely different from PKM method doesn't disprove anything about PKM methods. It just shows that those methods don't work for them.

Okay, on to the last question: “What is the actual throughput of people dedicated to PKM?” Originally this was stated as “throughput and output” but now the scope is narrowed to “throughput”. And, what exactly is “throughput?” Is that quantifiable or measurable? Output could be quantified or measured: X number of articles, Y number of books, Z number of videos… More importantly, one could consider the potential impact based of their work product based on their relevance as measured by following.

The example given in this section is of Theo Stowell, someone who has been writing about PKM and using Obsidian for several years, and now is supposedly developing a new tool. How relevant is he? Well, the highest number of followers for Theo I could find was on Medium, where he has 1.8K followers. Everywhere else I looked (YouTube, Instagram, Substack) he had well below 1K followers, and in many cases well below 500 followers.

Now, how big is Obsidian? On Obsidian's own website, they indicated there were around 750K downloads by 2022. The most recent estimate I could find of Obsidian's distribution was in this Fueler article, which states there are between 1-1.5 million copies of Obsidian out there.

So, I don't understand the example of Theo Stowell, he doesn't seem to represent a significant presence in the Obsidian community considering there are plugins with well over 1 million downloads (23 as of this writing).

Now, we know that there is a big market around self-help, personal-development market. And organization systems, methods, and tools is a part of this market. But, honestly, it's not as big as it might seem. Tiago Forte, the most notable name in the PKM had a revenue of about $2.4M from his “Building a Second Brain” book. But when all the expenses were factored in, he netted approximately $1.26M. That is on the sale of 500K books.

Sure that sounds like a decent chunk of change, but in a market worth somewhere around $46 Billion in 2025, $2.4M is a fairly small amount compared to the potential. Obsidian is very difficult to estimate, but based on the referenced Fueler article, its revenue is somewhere between $5M and $25M annually. And even that is still a fairly small amount when compared to the overall industry.

Where Did Brennan's Article Go Wrong?

When I started the first draft of this response, I was stymied by how so much of the article had gone so wrong. I was thinking, “I don't know how I can ever explain this.” But, then, just when I thought I was going to have to say “I don't know” an article popped up on Bubbles that provided some insight: People and Blogs: Brennan Kenneth Brown. In particular, there is a segment about Brennan's writing process where he points to a post on his own site: My Blogging Workflow: A routine for nearly a post a day for 4 months straight., wherein he talks about how he handles the research parts of his posts:

Regardless of my focus or topic, I go as fast as possible, as I want to reach 750 words in around 20 minutes, though sometimes it takes much longer.

How do I have articles heavy with links and stats and quotes from others if I'm writing so quickly? When I'm writing a research-heavy essay or commentary, I'll put something in brackets with TK and return back to it in the editing process so I don't slow down with the writing.

Rightly, he points out, this is a practice from journalism, as journalists are frequently writing in the field and don't have access to the research materials. But, there is a pitfall to this process: in trying to write and edit articles quickly, it can lead to poorly done research. And that is what appears to have happened with this article. Many of the cited (aka linked) articles, papers, and websites are inconclusive in relationship to their supposed point. In some cases they don't support the arguments that are being made at all.

This response post has been a two-day slog for me through all of this, and trying to do some quick research of my own to correct the misleading information in the original article. Indeed, a lot of this is my opinion or my interpretation of the materials that Brennan has placed before his audience. However, it's pretty simple to see that there is a substantial portion of his article that just was not well considered.

Conclusion

And this is where I get to point to a substantial irony in this story. Much of Brennan's issue with PKMs and tools like Obsidian is that we don't see a lot more output from people. That instead, we see quite a few people that have gone the route of trying to become influential in the PKM field, and writing their own books about it (with or without appropriate levels of research).

Brennan himself, has documented that his approach is to write a post every day. He makes it a process by which is tries to write 750 words in 20 minutes. He also notes that he has written quite a few novels, all of which are self-published works.

Personally, all of this is sounding completely backwards from what I was taught to do when writing a research paper. I was always told: come up with a thesis, do the research, and only when the research is complete write the paper. In fact, I was called out several times in school for not having done my research well, and trying to use sources in a narrow manner to prove points that they didn't support. Sound familiar?

I always had the excuse that I was working on a deadline, and I didn't realize the complications that I was going to run into, so I did the best with the materials that I had. But the fact was that I hadn't done the research properly, and I hadn't based my writing on the research. Instead, I went into the writing process trying to prove my thesis correct, even when it was weak or incorrect.

And that's the issue with Brennan's article. There is just a lot of the research that doesn't completely support the underlying statements. And even Brennan knew that he couldn't make the information fit the narrative that he had in his mind when he sat down and started writing. That's why we see things like restatements of questions that have substantial shifts in scope.

In the end, I think Brennan went into his post with good intention. But he became over-ambitious and let the whole thing creep out of his control. However, there is one thing that we both agree on: AI. As he states in his article:

I promise there is a deep debt to be paid if you attempt to offload cognitive labour to a non-deterministic machine, especially if you care about objectivity and facts.

Indeed, AI is no replacement for the labor of actually committing one's own cognitive processes to the page or screen.

---

Categories: #Essays Tags: #response, #pkm, #knowledge, #management, #research, #writing, #notes, #notetaking License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

The latest anti-feature from Automattic—now infecting Gravatar. Photo by: Unattributed, Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Happily Imperfect posted Bye bye Gravatar a short while ago, and I have to say, I've had a similar thought about deleting my account on there as well. My feelings towards WordPress and Automattic started changing some time ago, back when they introduced the Gutenberg editor. Ever since this “improvement” it's been a downhill slide for WordPress to the point where it's become an unusable mess in my opinion.

I know a lot of people also think that Matt Mullenweg's recent statements about WordPress, open source, and other companies have been problematic. I reserve my opinions on those areas. Instead, I am judging the quality of the software and the services that are being produced.

But there is an irony when it comes to Gravatar: even though it serves little purpose in and of itself, it does do one thing: it serves your avatar. I can't say how many times in the past I've logged into some new site / application only to have my avatar automatically populate itself. For a while it was jarring because I hadn't updated Gravatar for years. But at least it was filling in something rather than nothing. And, I felt that something filled a purpose: a consistency of identity across the web.

But, now I wonder about that. I cannot recall the last time my avatar was automatically filled in. The only notable case recently was that my avatar updated automatically on GitHub when I changed it on Gravatar. And, honestly my feelings towards GitHub and Microslop are in the shitter as well. So, there's that.

And now, I have an absolute reason to nuke this f***ing account all to hell. I do NOT EVER consent to ANYTHING being done in regard to AI in my name. There was never any notification sent about this change to Gravatar. Hell, I haven't received any notice of any changes being made to Gravatar in the last 5–10 years. It was a similar change that pushed me over the edge with WordPress, and I feel the same way about it with Gravatar.

I know, they haven't actually sent anything directly to any chatbots on my behalf. But the fact that they saw fit to add this ANTI-feature without announcing it speaks more about where Automattic is in the process of enshittifying their products than anything else. Nope—it's goodbye to any and everything Automattic, including Gravatar.

With newer sites like Bio Link (it has been called to my attention that Bio Link now has AI-anti features, and as such can no longer be considered a good option) and FediProfile I don't see the usefulness of Gravatar. If anything, I think it now has ANTI-features.

And now Gravatar is gone, kaput, deleted. Goodbye and good riddance.

---

Categories: #Rant Tags: #response, #automattic, #ai, #antiai, #nukeittohell License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

Wolf looking directly into a camera at close proximity.

There is a bit of an issue I have noticed lately: websites actively blocking Reading Mode in Firefox, and derivative web browsers. I was stunned to find out (just a minute ago) that Reading Mode doesn't appear to be a default feature in Chromium, but instead an add-on. So, I don't know if this is an issue for Chrome based browsers.

This is getting frustratingly annoying for me. Why? There are multiple reasons that Reading Mode is a necessity for many people, myself included. Let's talk about a few of them.

Poor Contrast Color Schemes

This is a problem I see a lot with websites, it seems to be a trendy or fashionable aesthetic… Have a light gray background so it's not completely white, then have a “dark” gray for the text. In most cases probably not too bad, but for some people that's not enough contrast. My personal issue seems to be with blue versions of themes with this style.

I understand quite a few people like pastel colored themes. They really do look nice. I have even tried to take some from this aesthetic with my sites: use a medium/neutral background color, light color for the logo and highlights so they aren't overbearing. But, I still maintain a fairly high contrast for the main content.

While sites like this can really look amazing in their simplicity, and soothing color choices, they can be a nightmare from an accessibility standpoint.

Neo-cities Style Sites

I get it, really I do: there is a lot of nostalgia for the 1990s personal websites… Heck there is a lot of nostalgia for anything that is “retro”. That isn't a bad thing. I enjoy websites where personal expression is as important, or sometimes more important than the content.

But, sometimes, we want to read and potentially engage with the owner of the website… Sometimes the retro aesthetics get in the way. When it does, allowing visitors choices in how they engage with your content is necessary.

Tiny and / or Thin Fonts

I don't know what has happened in the last twenty-something years, but somewhere along the way we seem to have gone wrong with fonts. There are a lot of sites that, while they are amazing from an overall aesthetic perspective, have fonts that are either tiny or have very thin strokes.

Personally, I think this is likely due to changes in displays. We have to have our websites look good on many devices (desktop, laptop, tablet, eInk tablets, phones), and under multiple browsers and operating systems. All of these factors can make it difficult to get font choices right. This is especially true when you are trying to make a site that has a clean look, or a professional aesthetic.

This is another reason to allow visitors options for how they view your content.

Audience Vision Differences

I'll hold my hand up here and say this applies to me specifically. I have an issue that is categorized as dyslexia, but isn't typical dyslexia. The problem is my eyes don't synchronize properly all the time. One of the worst is when I am reading. Let me try to explain.

When I read my right eye will move through a line of text more quickly than my left eye. In order to compensate for the difference in speed between them, I slow down my right eye to keep it in sync with my left eye. This issue can be exacerbated by the font and color choices. This was found when I went through a series of tests over forty years ago. (Before anyone asks / comments: no, the “dyslexia font” doesn't help, it makes things worse for me. That font is more for people with issues recognizing letter shapes, or people that tend to recognize letters out of order. I recognize the letters / words / etc. just fine. This is purely an eye muscle / neural control issue.)

More recently, a couple of color blindness tests have shown indications I may be partially color-blind. Not to any significant level, I can still differentiate all colors in the spectrum. Rather some blues may appear more washed out to me than they do to others.

Another, far more common issue is age. As people get older their eyes can become weaker. They need to be able to read sites in as comfortable a manner as possible. The best way for many of them is using Reader Mode. How do I know this? Up until she passed away, I took care of my mother. There were numerous times when she needed to read a website, but had difficulties. I showed her how to use Reader Mode, and helped set it up so it was comfortable for her.

Finishing My Rant

Basically, actively disabling the Reader Mode of any browser is an act of denying someone with a disability access. It's the same as non-disabled asshats parking in the spots reserved for people with disabilities. Or stores / shops that won't provide a ramp for people in wheelchairs or walkers.

While this isn't a super common issue, I've been noticing it more and more lately. Especially with the IndieWeb, where we want people actively reading and interacting with each other.

I noted tonight on one site, an author made a comment about their site potentially being difficult to read. Honestly, the color scheme of the site was difficult for me. But, guess what: I was able to use Reader Mode to read their comment without issue. I wouldn't change their site, it has a really cool semi-retro aesthetic to it. As long as Reader Mode is available, it's accessible for me.

That's all I'm asking for: accessibility.

End rant.

---

Categories: #Essays Tags: #accessibility, #readermode, #eyes, #disability, #rant License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

Two boats docked behind a berm.

Introduction

Many years ago (over a decade) I wrote an article about RSS Feed reader alternatives after Google announced they were killing Reader in March 2013. That article attracted a fair amount of attention, including a request from RedHat to republish the article on their blog. On the ten-year anniversary of the death of Google Reader, the Verge published the article: Who killed Google Reader? (pay-walled article), indicating (to me) that even a decade on there was still interest in these products. Today, with the rising profile of the FediVerse and the IndieWeb, it seems RSS readers and feed aggregation are seeing a bit of a renaissance with the likes of Bubbles. I've also noted several feed reader sites showing up as referrers on my sites.

And, just to make things more interesting, as I was working on the first draft of this piece, Rishabh P. Sharma posted an article on his site called: FreshRSS vs My Own Feed Reader: A fierce competition. I took this as yet another indicator that there is still quite a bit of interest in RSS/Atom Feed Readers.

This started me wondering what is the status of RSS feed readers and other news aggregators these? Are they the technology of a bygone era as once predicted by Google? Or are they still around and thriving as I'm starting to believe from seeing several readers in my websites referrers? Are there any new ones that might be worth looking at? And, most importantly, have they changed?

This Isn't a Roundup Article

The original article I wrote back in 2013 was focused on a simple, and single question: what to do now that Google Reader is going away? Back then, everything was an opportunity for open source alternatives to shine. So, that's how I wrote the article (and why RedHat was interested in it). I provided a roundup of what were the best alternatives that I could find at the time.

Obviously we aren't in 2013 anymore, so it doesn't seem like a roundup article is what is needed. Instead, what I would like to do is examine a few questions:

• Are Feed Readers bygone tech?
• What is RSS, and why is it so heavily used?
• Why would you want to use a feed reader today?
• What are your options for setting up some type of feed reader?
• Are there any interesting, and lesser known options?
• Are there any significant changes since 2013?

These might be more of interest to you today if you don't use, or don't understand why RSS/Atom feed readers are useful.

Tech of a Bygone Era?

From looking around for a bit, I was able to answer Google's prediction: no, RSS/Atom readers and aggregators are definitely not the technology of a bygone era. First, not only do many websites still have RSS/Atom feeds available, but I was able to identify a number of different ways in which they are being used now:

• Websites like Memeorandom, Mediagazer, Techmeme and WeSmirch actually use RSS/Atom feeds in several ways: First, they use feeds from other media outlets to gather current stories. The stories are then aggregated to produce their single-page quick view website. Second, they make RSS feeds available for viewing in a feed reader. Third, they use RSS/Atom feeds to export their content to social media, like the Fediverse. (Aside: they almost make a list of all the feeds they scrape available on the leaderboards, which are part of each site. This is a great way to find a list of feeds if you need one.) Basically, that's a lot of RSS/Atom based tech to produce what is, essentially, a single page website.

• Of course, we have the recent site Bubbles. Bubbles is a website that presents a ranked list of posts from IndieSites that sign up for the service. The use RSS/Atom feeds to populate their lists of articles to Pretty cool stuff, reaching back to the old days of the internet.

• As hinted above, there is a lot of RSS feeds being bridged to the Fediverse. Possibly the biggest / most common are the weather and weather camera feeds. Of course, there is also the ever popular Elon Musk Jet tracker. Fedi Directory has an extensive list of bots on the Fediverse, including many RSS bridging bots.

• Platforms like Mastodon and GotoSocial make public user posts available via RSS. For example, my feed is: Unattributed's GTS Feed. Of course, this can be disabled by users if they don't want their posts published use RSS/Atom. But why use it? It's a good way to archive your posts, especially if you want to implement automatic post deletion application, but might want to keep some of those bangers around to reuse later.

• The most unusual use of RSS/Atom feeds goes to Calibre, which uses them to scan websites and build e-Books for reading offline.

• And, let's not forget podcasts. Lots of podcasting platforms serve RSS/Atom feeds for retrieving shows, and many podcast players use RSS/Atom feeds to retrieve the podcast(s).

Hopefully it's obvious that RSS feeds are not tech from a bygone era. I would say, in fact, that RSS/Atom is literally the protocol that is literally powering a substantial portion of the internet as we know it today.

What Is RSS?

The name RSS has multiple definitions, but for our purposes here, the best is Really Simple Syndication. Its purpose is to provide of stream of updated information from a website. This information can take many forms, and can include different types of media, such as photos, audio files, or video files.

The idea is that a website produces a stream (file) when another application or website sends a query to the site. The stream contains the information that has been updated since the last query. In some cases, the site (or client) may limit the number of items in an update. This is mostly true when the site has a lot of information that is changing very quickly.

The idea that only updated information is sent is what makes RSS flexible and light-weight. Since only a limited amount of information is sent during each query the overhead in processing each request is low.

Applications that receive these updates read them, and then take actions based on the updates. For example, if an update says there is a new article, the application can download that article. This processing includes items like images, video, and audio files.

Why Use an RSS Reader?

RSS readers are convenient. They allow you to keep track of the changes on as many sites as you desire. In most cases, the RSS reader will automatically check for updates on the sites you have specified, at an interval you specify. Most readers also allow you to set an expiry period for the information it gathers.

In addition to these features, many readers include additional features to allow you to tag items, mark items as favorites, or mark them for some other processing. Many times you can also export items to other formats or programs (say a note-taking application like Obsidian or Joplin).

And even more advanced readers will allow you to set up rules to tell the program how to treat items that match a one or more sets of criteria. For example, automatically download podcasts, or tag an item if the title contains a keyword.

This flexibility can allow the user to deal with massive amounts of information in a quick and efficient manner. You can think of a reader like a berm: it provides a barrier between you and the wide ocean of information that is out there on the internet. Inside the berm's perimeter you have your docks organized into bays where each of your boats (ie, website feeds) are docked.

RSS Feed Reader Options

So, time to look at some RSS reader options that you might be interested in. This is not going to be an exhaustive list by any means. I checked out the Wikipedia Comparison of Feed Aggregators list earlier. It's a large list, with a lot of applications that are both maintained and unmaintained, and some applications that probably really shouldn't be on the list.

Instead, I want to focus on different classes of reader applications you might want to consider. We'll talk about the reason(s) why you might want to use each, and These include extensions you can add to your web browser, desktop applications, cloud based applications, and hosting your own RSS aggregation server.

Browser Extensions

If you use a desktop computer or a laptop as your primary computing device, this is the most obvious place to start. Adding an extension to your browser can make your feeds available in a way that smoothly integrates with your current environment. The ones that I would look at are FeedBro, LiveMarks, SlickReader and The RSS Aggregator.

Of all of these readers, LiveMarks is available as both a Firefox and Chrome extension, and is rather unique when it comes to how it works. When you add a site to LiveMarks it creates a folder in your bookmarks with links to all the articles that are in the feed. You open the bookmarks to read the article, which actually literally opens the website web page. This can be nice if there are things about the actual web page that you want to or should see. However, this can also open you up to being tracked by the website, so I would only go this route if you have strong ad block and privacy measures in place.

The (unfortunately named) FeedBro for Firefox, and SlickReader for Chrome are the most traditional RSS feed readers, looking like an email application in your browser. As you add new sites, a folder is created in the application's database. You open an email like view and can scan through and read the entries.

The RSS Aggregator for Chrome differentiates itself a bit by allowing you to interact with your feeds through your choice of a drop-down menu, or an email-like interface. When installed a button is added to your shortcuts which will indicate how many updates there. Clicking the button will show you the feeds you've added, and selecting a feed will show you the updates. From there you can go directly to the article, or mark it off. The one downside to this reader is if you want the Filters, Rules, and Collections features you have to purchase their Plus or Professional version.

Self Hosted

Personally, I think this is where the best options are for aggregating content using RSS feeds. However, the downside is that you need to have some technical skill, and the desire to set up a self-hosting system. This is likely most appealing to people that are already into setting up home labs. However, if you run a Jellyfin server, or other media server, maybe this approach will appeal to you.

There are three options for self-hosting that I am aware of: TTRSS (Tiny Tiny RSS), FreshRSS, and Nextcloud News App. Personally, I ran TTRSS on a server many years ago and absolutely loved it. This was right after the Google announcement that they were discontinuing their reader application. I haven't used FreshRSS, but it looks to be comparable to TTRSS. The Nextcloud News App has the advantage of being available in the Nextcloud App store. If you already have a Nextcloud server set up then this is an obvious choice.

The reason I feel the self-hosted option is the best is that they offer the most flexibility. You can access them through their web based interfaces, or you can use them with standalone applications as clients. In this way no matter what device you are reading on, your clients will always know what you have / haven't read.

Cloud Readers

Right behind the self-hosted options are cloud based feed aggregator / readers. The biggest advantage that these applications have is they often have the work to build large databases of feeds to make available to you. You get to select the feeds that you want to read without having to find and add them to your reader. Often during the account creation process you will be presented with a list choose from.

Some of the most notable cloud based aggregator / readers are: Inoreader, Newsblur, Feedly, FeedMe, FeedLand, and The Old Reader. The (to me at least) downside to many of these sites is that they want a subscription for “advanced” features. The prices and features vary between applications. The plus side of cloud based applications is they often have companion web browser plugins, and standalone cellphone apps.

The most interesting of the cloud based options is FeedLand. This is a platform created by Dave Winer – one of the originators of RSS. His idea is to make a site that is “social” based around newsfeeds. You can share posts from your feed to your own social feed, which others on the site can follow. The site also provides exporting lists of your feeds, which you can use with other feed reader applications. And, best of all, there is no charge for the system.

Another one that is a completely free cloud based platform is FeedMe. I was unaware of it until it showed up in the referrers list in my analytics. It is self-described as a minimalist feed reader, and it is. You add your feeds manually, or using an OPML file if you have one. You can make categories for your feeds, and read them. There is no tagging feature, only a favorite option, and you have to manually mark each item as read (or mark the whole feed as read). There's no option to limit the number of items in a feed, or the age of the items. And there is no option for third party application integration.

Inoreader, Newsblur, and Feedly are all sites that seem to be fairly popular as they are ones that are showing up in my referrers, along with FeedMe.

Desktop Applications

There are a fair number of desktop applications, with a couple of them standing out as being available on many operating systems: RSS Guard is available on Windows, Linux, OS/2, and macOS. Fluent Reader is available on Windows, Linux, and macOS. Communique and NewsFlash are Linux native applications, while Fiery Feeds is available on iOS and macOS. The reason for singling out these applications is they all integrate with the Nextcloud News application.

Notably, RSS Guard also integrates with Tiny Tiny RSS and Feedly.

As I mentioned in the Tech of a Bygone Era section, Calibre can take your RSS feeds and produce e-Books from them, which turns them into a magazine-like reading experience. There are also a couple of desktop email applications that include support for reading RSS feeds: Thunderbird and Claws Mail. While Claws Mail is a Linux based application, Thunderbird is available on Windows, Linux, and macOS.

All of these applications should be able to import OPML files, if you decide to move from one reader to a desktop application.

iOS and Android Applications

While I am not very familiar with iOS applications since I've never used an iPhone, the aforementioned Fiery Feeds is an option that provides Nextcloud News integration. A couple more options with Nextcloud News integration are: CloudNews and Nextnews. Additionally, I believe (although I could be wrong) there is a news application that comes with the iPhone?

On the Android side there are plenty of options: Nextcloud News Reader, OCReader, Newsout, and Readrops are all notable for their Nextcloud News integration. A couple of other notable apps include Feedly, Flipboard. On the open source side there are quite a few more applications: RSS Reader, Feeder, Capy Reader, and FeedFlow to name a few (available in the F-Droid store).

And there are the applications designed to work with specific cloud platforms like Inoreader, Feedly, and NewsBlur.

(NOTE: while I did mention Flipboard, I am not mentioning apps like GroundNews, SmartNews, Google News, Yahoo! News as those apps are more specifically focused on gathering news from a predefined list of news outlets, and typically don't allow adding your own feeds.)

Conclusion

What I find interesting about this is an image of seeing all the information that is available on the internet as a stream. Much of that information is available for the taking, consuming, researching, etc. However, it's what we do with this information that matters. Feed Readers are like docks. You use a reader to set up the bays for all the information to flow into. How the docks and bays are organized is up to you.

So, what would I do given the whole sea of available options?

I've already mentioned several times that I use Calibre's RSS scanning feature. I like the idea of having e-Books that I can just put on my e-Reader and read at me leisure. But, there is another feature of Calibre I haven't mentioned: the Content Server. This feature starts a web server application that I can use on any of my devices within my house. So, if I wanted to read anything from my library, including all the news sites I download, on my tablet or phone, I can use the content server with my web browser.

But, if I weren't using this solution, I would self-host Tiny Tiny RSS, and use RSS Guard on my desktop, and the open source Tiny Tiny RSS android app on my phone and tablet. The other option I would explore would be setting up Nextcloud, using the Nextcloud News App and using the Android version of the Nextcloud News App.

However, I wouldn't take my advice in this area, as my needs and desires are likely far different from yours. Explore what's out there, see which options give you what you want. Personally, I am happy reading the IndieWeb on my desktop using my web browser, and don't see a need to do anything else with it.

---

Categories: #Features Tags: #rss, #feeds, #readers, #windows, #macos, #linux, #android, #ios, #cloud License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️

Calm waters on Lake Superior.

I've been collecting a lot of images of water lately. This is the outgrowth of a post I made on Ennui Vagaries about repurposing weather camera photos. There are a lot of weather cameras that are on the shores of lakes, rivers, or at the docks and launches. Collecting these photos has been made exceptionally easy by the Fediverse having many feeds of these images.

While collecting a bunch of the sunset images tonight, I thought of the song Downstream by Supertramp. It's a gorgeous solo piece by Rick Davies with just a simple piano accompaniment. The lyrics are a tribute to his spouse at the time. Basically a simple love song, sung in a very simple manner.

This, in turn, started me thinking about another water themed love song. That would be To Be Over by Yes. Not a lot of people know the story of this song. It was a song that Steve Howe brought to the group. He had written it based on a boat ride he and his wife had taken on a Sunday. Of course, bringing in the start of the song, the rest of the band expanded it into a true Yes ballad. Possibly one of their most underrated works ever.

And then I was thinking, what else kind of matches this mood? Basically slow, gentle water themed songs. And there was one that popped into my mind immediately: Ruby Pool by Vola. The wonder of this song is the piano arpeggios by Martin Werner that lead off the song, followed by the pairing with Adam Janzi's drum pattern is just magical. I could almost listen to a whole song just built off this pairing, but fortunately the lyrics of the song are just a gorgeous as the arrangement, and as always Asger Mygind's vocals are stunning.

So, there you have it. Three, gentle, water-themed songs for a peaceful Sunday.

---

Categories: #Music Tags: #songs, #yes, #supertramp, #vola, #pop, #rock, #progressive License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

	FediRing
◀️ Prev	Home	Next ▶️