Talk:News aggregator

Browsers with built-in RSS readers

There's no mention of the handful of browsers that have a built-in RSS reader, thereby giving the impression to the reader of this article that they must always obtain a 3rd party RSS reader if they wish to read RSS feeds, which isn't necessarily true. ie: Firefox, the Classic browser.

AOL RSS Reader

Hi, I was wondering if we should add in a note about AOL's RSS Reader. I currently work for them, so I want to wait for community approval before adding it. I'm aware of Wikipedia's COI clause so I don't want to cause any problems. --TravisBernard (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Intention to clean up & some thoughts

Anyway here's some thoughts.

The first paragaph says An aggregator is a 'type of software'. I don't particularly like this phrasing. I'd suggest changing it to An aggregator is a 'software application'... I realise that a software application tends to indicate a desktop app, but I feel the distinction should be made later between desktop aggregators, web based etc...

An aggregator need not deal specifically with XML based content feeds though the majority of modern syndication formats are indeed XML based. Several formats for syndication predate the modern formats. See Push technology & Pointcast which were incorporated onto Microsofts failed Active Desktop, I'm not 100% but I doubt they were XML based.

Not all aggregators allow users to subscribe directly to content feeds, as many aggregators are deployed for syndication between sites, without the user necessarily knowing it. Many sites feature links to headlines etc as part of their layout, this is still syndicated content, but the site designers have decided on what to syndicate. This is mentioned at the end of the article as "OEM/Meta news feeds". I think that "OEM/Meta news aggregation would be better".

The different aggregator classifications should be flushed out with their particular benefits. e.g. web based - centralised, accessible from anywhere. desktop - greater protocol support e.g. support for https and private feeds, richer client interface. Bookmarklets should be mentioned as a common mechanism for subscribing to feeds for web based aggregators.

OPML and OML should be mentioned file formats which are commonly used for exporting/importing subscription lists between aggregators.

I would also argue that there is another classification of aggregator, allowing people to use their email as a 'feed reader', the aggregation here tends to occur in the 3rd party system, which manages the subscriptions and bridging to other protocols/formats.

There should also be some discussion (perhaps in the "Meta News aggregation" section about how multiple levels of syndication/filtering and republishing can occur.

Go ahead and make these changes, but I think the cleanup tag is overkill. The article has shortcomings, but not the awful dealbreakers that one normally assoiciates with the cleanup tag. I'm going to remove it. Babajobu 15:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree the start is messy. The first paragraph starts with what aggregators do but then there is a section on what aggregators do which in fact is about why they do it. --BozMo|talk 11:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

i think the article should start with the definition of 'aggregator' as well. 24.60.66.216 (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Pardon Me If I'm Going About This Wrong

Howdy Wiki Folks,

A few months ago I went to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregators and at the bottom of the page in the External Links section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregators#External_links I added a link to this page: http://bloggingpoet.squarespace.com/blog-aggregators/

A few weeks later someone removed the link.

I added it again.

A few weeks later someone removed the link again.

So I waited a couple of months.

I guess I could put it back up but rather than going back and forth and risking getting my IP address banned from Wikipedia.org I thought it might be best if I get one of the editors at Wikipedia to decide if the link is the sort of thing Wiki should be linking to.

Some thoughts: The 4 external links that remain are commercial in nature just as I am attempting to earn revenue from my website/blog.

While far from complete my list is the most extensive list of local blog aggregators in the world-- bar none. I admit it includes only English Language aggregators but then I wouldn't know an aggregator in any other language if it bit my leg off and slapped me with its tail.

I've continually added to my list for over 1 year because I really want it to be a valuable reference tool to bloggers who are looking to add their blogs to local aggregators. It's my belief that citizen run aggregators are the most effective tool citizens' media has in its box.

I've spend countless hours building the list and still search for more each week.

So, to make a long story not quite so long, I've decided not to attempt to add a link to my list again. If the editors at Wikipedia agree that my link is up to editorial standards then please add it to the list. If not then please accept my thanks for considering my proposal.

Thanks -Billy Jones August 20, '06

RSS Aggregator Information anybody?

I've been running all over the web looking for RSS creation/aggregator tools over the past few weeks and I've just about driven myself crazy. Making RSS feeds doesn't seem to be the challenge--you simply write up an XML file in a particular format, of which there are thousands of samples available on the web, but everywhere I go this is the only information I find.

The problem is how to display RSS feeds on your website, particularly PHP which seems to be the most common way. This issue is not addressed enough on the web and seems to be a gaping hole. For programmers who know PHP, probably no, but what about the rest of us who can barely get by in HTML?

For being Really Simple Syndication, RSS sure seems pretty complicated. There are sites that exist for getting RSS feeds to display on your website, but they are either buggy, or require knowledge of databases, neither of which I'm able to do. Can anybody out there do a step-by-step write-up with sample PHP code showing the following:

1. How to call (or include) the XML feed 2. Code on how to parse the XML file, where this code is supposed to be put, and can it be kept in a separate file 3. Show us the basic code for options we have to do the following things: headlines only, headlines with description, background/text/link color control, number of items in the feed.

I suppose caching in a database is the best way, but the best solution for programming newbies who don't have a year or even a month to learn PHP is just a simple step-by-step solution that allows us to get a feed displayed, then shows how to control the various options. I welcome commentary. Thanks a lot. Glossika 17:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Making your own reader

I had the same question not long ago. I found a freeware PHP program called MagpieRSS which does all the hard work of parsing the XML info, and delivers it in a form that can easily be placed in any html format you wish. However, you still need to know some basic php in order to generate the final page. If you'd like to see the code for the RSS reader I created, I'd be happy to share it.Kitoba 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Would be nice to have a Comparison_of_aggregators similar to the Comparison_of_instant_messengers. I am attending vloggercon and find that there are so many services and products available that it gets a little confusing sometimes. I would suggest 2 categrories: desktop software aggregators and website aggregators.

Jozecuervo 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

---

My apologies for stumbling in -- I have made some style edits to the "Online Version" paragraph to fix grammatical problems. I did try to comment on my changes for the history page, but am not sure how to do that (I did save my comments, but they do not appear on the History page.) I will research proper editorial etiquette before butting in again. Thank you, GrammarGal.

List of aggregators

We need here list of aggregators and comparison between them There is no reason to have link to threz.com and not to have bloglines.com etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Larytet (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Agreed. This article is surprisingly weak and very out of date (!) relative to the importance that the most widely used aggregators likely have on public opinion and access to information & misinformation. We need estimates of how many users the leading aggregators have (e.g. google news, microsoft news (comes stock on windows 10), most smartphones seem to come with pre-installed news apps, etc. and now News Corp is talking about making one with the intention of having a different slant.) How many users do aggregators have in comparison with major news portals (apnews.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, etc.. whose editorial practices, biases, and alliances may be more well understood... more curated by humans and less algorithmic in how they change.) There needs to be more information on how the major aggregators work in terms of how sources are chosen to be included, or choose to be excluded, how "balance" is contrived, what are the various motivations for being included or excluded, examples of specific decisions of sources that were e.g. excluded for being too biased, erroneous, irresponsible, etc. or being included due to being a "partner" of the aggregator in some way. DKEdwards (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Should this be added: social bookmarking aggregators?

• PopUrls.com and TheWebList.net aggregate the top social bookmarking services.

Does this belong here, in the external links, or in some other article, such as Social bookmarking? GeoFan49 05:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

'News Feed' redirects here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_feed redirects here. Would it not be better to redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_feed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.131.176.54 (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

External Links

I added a link to my own RSS reader. While I know adding links to your own site is generally frowned upon, it seemed like this is a useful service not readily available. The page is free, non-commercial and does not host advertising. I placed the link here on the advice of the talk page for RSS. Kitoba 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)solci_btz

Categories section

I think this section is trying to make the distinction between conventional web sites that use RSS feeds on the back-end and consumers access in a web browser, vs. RSS feeds that consumers access using a standalone feed reading application that they are running on their desktop. Apparently AJAX-based browsing is more like the latter, but is included in the paragraph about the former? I marked it as confusing. -- Beland 02:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Aggregator?

MediaMonkey is listed as a Media Aggregator. I don't see any mention of this ability in the MediaMonkey article. Does it have some feature that would qualify it as an aggregator? Some googling indicates that it doesn't, but the results were inconclusive. Dr. Zed 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Feed reader vs. Aggregator

I have been cleaning up the article, but before I continue, I think we have to discuss certain changes that I think need to be made. Most importantly, why does Feed reader redirect here? I know that the terms 'aggregator' and 'feed reader' are not yet well defined, but as far as I know they are not the same thing. A web feed aggregator aggregates feeds and optionally sorts/filters them. A feed reader, on the other hand, is used primarily to view feeds. Those are two very different operations. As an example, the Feedview Firefox extension is a feed reader but not an aggregator because it is used only to view a feed. In the same vein, Google News is an aggregator because it groups together news feeds, but it is not a feed reader because the site cannot be used to view a specific feed. I think a split is in order.--Ѕentry 20:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is obviously wrong and must be redone from the start. It confuses two different things: the news reader software which is an application type that allows to read news from one or more news feeds, and the services that provide such news, often through a community of users. Telling the one from the other is necessary and different names (and articles) are needed.-Ignacio Agulló — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio.Agulló (talk • contribs) 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again half a year later. I'm still right, and the article is still wrong. Wrongly named. Let's put this simple. A person watches the TV news for the first time. This person, which we'll call ignorant not for being unintelligent but because he/she ignores the way TV works, thinks the TV set makes all - the faces of the news anchors, the voices. This person ignores that it is necessary for a TV studio to exist somewhere, and also a way of delivering the signal to the TV set, be it broadcast or cable network. This persons thinks that the TV set is all that there is to it. This article makes the very same mistake as the ignorant person. It identifies news readers with news aggregators. It goes so far to define news aggregator as "client software". Well, let me put this clear from somebody who knows how both TV news and Internet news work: client software cannot exist without server software. There are always two sides on the client/server architecture. The news aggregator is in the server side, it is the service providing a selection of news regardless of doing it through a HTML document, a RSS feed or an Atom feed. The news reader is in the client side, is the sofware used to display the news. They are completely different parts of the same process. This article continues to confuse them in an ignorant way in spite of some of us warning against it.~Ignacio.Agulló — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio.Agulló (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You can delete uncited or incorrect information from the article, which may include all or most of article, or add/replace content with correct material that provides citations. If you can't find good citations, I wouldn't bother adding/replacing material, because it's just going to be another unverifiable set of opinions that someone disputes. While you're asserting that the title is incorrect, the flipside is viewing it as the article being incorrect – some of the information may be factual, but is about topics other than what this article's topic, which is indicated by its title. Agyle (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I find it problematic that one does not start with a more broad definition. Here one starts the entire entry on Aggregator with what it is in computing. I believe there are disambiguation to the concept, but am a bit unsure of when and how to develop such. For instant there is the five aggregators or Skandhas from the teachings of Buddhahood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 January 2008

I think we need a disambiguation page. I came to this article looking for information on a network capacity aggregator. There are many different types of aggregators. Pong2015 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Aggregator and client software

Could someone add a list of aggregator and client software?

130.76.64.93 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Video aggregators

What about the various online video aggregators, e.g. Peekvid.com, OVGuide or Joox.net. Shouldn't they be mentioned in the/some article?--Hhielscher (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a new article is the best idea (assuming reliable sources can be found) - see next talk section. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Move this page?

I think the content of this page should be moved to Feed aggregator (which is currently a redirect, pinting here), and this page turned into a disambiguation page with links to feed aggregator, search aggregator, video aggregator etc. any thoughts/objections? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't support this move. Google shows that 'Aggregator' is a far, far more popular term than either 'Feed aggregator' or 'News aggregator'. I question whether 'Search aggregator' even deserves an article; it is already tagged for notability. In my opinion, it's better to keep things as they are. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support this move. Social/Search/RSS aggregators are just a subset of what aggregators are, regardless of what is popular on Google. Pong2015 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, this page should cover all types of aggregators, not just feed aggregators. Alternatively, as seems to be the style for some other pages, use Aggregator_(feed), or something of the like, and a link to it could be on the Aggregator disambiguation page. Kaell (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Feed aggregator is by far the most know type of aggregator, so much that the article itself mentions it's sometimes simply called "aggregator". Not to mention "news aggregator website" is a confusing term, as feed readers can (but shouldn't) be thought of as "news aggregator" sofware, which is, in turn, confused with "news readers" (clients for Usenet newsgroups - far older than web feeds, by the way).

So, my suggestion is to disambiguate this into one page titled "News aggregator" and another one called "Feed aggregator" with the former having an "About" tag (like the one right now directing to "review aggregator"). All the emboldened alternate terms to "feed aggregator" would redirect to the same respective page (except for "news reader", which is already a disambiguation page). This page, in turn, would be a disambiguation listing "feed aggregator", "news aggregator" and "review aggregator". I may do it myself in the near future, but don't wait for me.

--189.27.249.59 (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There are also poll aggregators. I think I'll be bold and move this page to "news aggregator" with a redirect from "feed aggregator" and make this page a disambiguation page for the various web types as well as feed aggregator. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well we need an admin to do this since "news aggregator" already exists. I've started the formal process below. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved. There was viable page-history at News aggregator (that page was previously a real article that got merged into what was Aggregator, I'll look for technical solution to avoid losing that history (per GFDL). DMacks (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Aggregator → News aggregator — There are many kinds of aggregators per editor discussion and consensus. This page is about news aggregation web sites and feed aggregator software. Since both aggregate news, I suggest "news aggregator" with a redirect for "feed aggregator" to it. "Aggregator" will be recreated as a disambiguation page after move for all types of aggregators, website and software.

Perhaps there should be two pages for "news aggregator" and "feed aggregator", but lets leave that for another day since it would involve major article rewriting. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This move seems to be uncontested and can be closed. But an admin needs to do the job as it involves a deletion. Can someone help out? Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Feed aggregator

"Feed aggregator" should not redirect to "News aggregator" since "web feeds" are also used by aggregators of videos, reviews, polls, etc. I suggest it redirect to "Web feed", which mentions aggregators in its introduction as "that which is used to make a collection of feeds available in one spot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.207.47 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Two very different topics under one article

Having just seen this article (currently named "News aggregator", btw) for the first time, I think it's very odd that the Drudge Report and RSS readers are being handled in the same article.

I would suggest splitting this into two articles, one about the software, and one about the web sites.--NapoliRoma (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

RSS Reader

Good day,

I am looking for a program or web service which searches through the original site of an RSS feed for keywords and phrases. With this discovery requirements should be given feedback. NewsReader not do this, but always just browse the feed.

There are about 100 (rising) to browse feeds. Or any suggestions how I could fix it?

Thank you so much says Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.111.226.36 (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

News Feed and Copyright

There should be some discussion of Fair Use and how it covers the aggregation of news in RSS feeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.67.73 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Principle and Method for News Aggregator

There should be some discussion on the Principle and Method to get feed.

Using web API and get the XML file can help get news feeds.
e.g. using google feed api.

1. . It is an AJAX api.
   
2. . Steps:

  a. Call google feed api
  b. Find the XML url
  c. Load XML file, pick up the what you want.

The result is in JSON format, and you can read and output the content of feed result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chl160 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

History

There should be a history section to introduce the news aggregator history.

The basic idea of restructuring information about websites goes back to as early as 1995, when Ramanathan V. Guha and others in Apple Computer's Advanced Technology Group developed Meta Content Framework
the first version of RSS, was created by Dan Libby and Ramanathan V. Guha at Netscape. It was released in March 1999
In July 1999, Dan Libby of Netscape produced a new version, RSS 0.91, which simplified the format by removing RDF elements and incorporating elements from Dave Winer's scripting News syndication format.
This RSS technology is used widely at that time, with supporting of many big companies, such as Yahoo, Useland.
In 2003, Google developed a new aggregator supporting Atom, which is a new technology developed by IBM software engineer Sam Ruby. One successful example of is Google Reader.
In March 2010, Dave Winner declared that RSS and Atom will merge in the future.

--Chl160 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Features

User can get Title and Content Snippet without advertisement and images
News reader will aggregate the content from website which user subscribed for automatically.
User can have multiple subscription from different website, and read in one news aggregator.

--Chl160 (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Economics

Monopoly table:

              Unit sold     Total Revaneve   Average Revaneve     M.Revaneve 
                2              16                16                 16
                3              30                15                 14     
                4              42                14                 12   
                5              52                13                 10 
                6              60                12                 8  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.189.55.24 (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 

Types header

There is a sentence in the "types" header that says "For instance, Google News belongs to the first group since news are gathered and published independently from customers' needs while . . . " I'm not sure how accurate this information is. Users of Google News who do not sign in to an account have been increasingly locked out of Google's top sources of late. I've seen it several times and it happened just tonight with the Washington Post - you need to provide an email address to read an article that is top listing in Google News if you are not signed in. This is directly opposed to the "type" referred to in the first sentence. 75.134.25.139 (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Keeping the update tag

I'm just going to express my belief that the update tag must be kept up because there have been several new aggregators on the market since the tag was updated, and they probably deserve some mention on the page Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a directory or a catalog - listing aggregators that are on the market is off-mission for an encyclopedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)