> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:24:33 GMT, Big Bill <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Largely owing to the CONTENT of those RSS's, let's not get confused
> That's an excellent point. It's the content of RSS that matters
> (beside the possibility thet SE's like merely having an RSS).
Subscribers would need a good reason to unsubscribe (if they ever will). It
is easier to just skip a subscribed-to feed that keeps updating. Removal is
done actively and people are lazy or reluctant, so don't be alarmed. Many
feeds that I subscribed to are shaded (hidden in deeper levels of the tree)
so I don't read them unless I have a good reason to do so.
>From search engines point-of-view, the handling should be similar to that of
standard Web pages.
> My RSS is designed to inform users of my site of new content submitted
> by other users, to which the subscribers could do something. For
> example, subscribers could be alerted that a new math problem was
> submitted, and then go and solve it.
> I have a few very intelligent math addicts on my site who love solving
> submitted problems just for fun. All I am trying to do is to make it
> as fun and addictive as possible.
Roy S. Schestowitz