I'd be very happy to see this done with some sort of categorisation system ... I use a couple other sites that let me add feeds and suggest categories for them, Wikio is one.
I rather agree, and don't think it's necessary to reinvent the wheel. Others will know what are the norms elsewhere, and Dreamwidth could cherry-pick the best practices for their taxonomy. Unless an agreed taxonomy exists elsewhere, sort of a Dewey Decimal System for the interwebs.
And now, a derail.
Some feed owners get very very upset about feed "abuse" when a site is merely using the feed for what feeds are designed to do
Licensing, and the way Dreamwidth (and other sites running similar code) are prepared to completely ignore it. There seems to be a blatant contradiction between the BBC's terms and conditions - particularly clause 6.4 - and the current practice on another site, displaying advertiser's announcements on a page full of BBC content.
The point for Dreamwidth is that its code doesn't consider licensing terms at all - it assumes that it has carte blanche to reproduce the content, run its own comments facility, and generally treat third-party work as a submission to Dreamwidth. Nor does Dreamwidth appear to respect time-to-live settings, so it polls more often than it's told, wasting bandwidth.
All of that may be standard procedure, but it's highly impolite and uncivil. If Dreamwidth gets a reputation for disrespecting license terms, as another site has done, then content creators will quite reasonably get upset and become more likely to reduce or refuse it service.
I also recall some other plans to improve feeds and ownership claiming.
This has been "coming soon" for so long that I assume it to be vapourware unless demonstrated otherwise.
In summary. The original proposal I can bear. Dreamwidth needs to improve its RSS etiquette.
no subject
I rather agree, and don't think it's necessary to reinvent the wheel. Others will know what are the norms elsewhere, and Dreamwidth could cherry-pick the best practices for their taxonomy. Unless an agreed taxonomy exists elsewhere, sort of a Dewey Decimal System for the interwebs.
And now, a derail.
Some feed owners get very very upset about feed "abuse" when a site is merely using the feed for what feeds are designed to do
Licensing, and the way Dreamwidth (and other sites running similar code) are prepared to completely ignore it. There seems to be a blatant contradiction between the BBC's terms and conditions - particularly clause 6.4 - and the current practice on another site, displaying advertiser's announcements on a page full of BBC content.
The point for Dreamwidth is that its code doesn't consider licensing terms at all - it assumes that it has carte blanche to reproduce the content, run its own comments facility, and generally treat third-party work as a submission to Dreamwidth. Nor does Dreamwidth appear to respect time-to-live settings, so it polls more often than it's told, wasting bandwidth.
All of that may be standard procedure, but it's highly impolite and uncivil. If Dreamwidth gets a reputation for disrespecting license terms, as another site has done, then content creators will quite reasonably get upset and become more likely to reduce or refuse it service.
I also recall some other plans to improve feeds and ownership claiming.
This has been "coming soon" for so long that I assume it to be vapourware unless demonstrated otherwise.
In summary. The original proposal I can bear. Dreamwidth needs to improve its RSS etiquette.