Comments on: Rewarding 304s (Faster Feed Refreshing) http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/ FeedLounge is a state of the art web-based feed reader. Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:49:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4-beta by: Avi Flax http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-932 Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:33:41 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-932 I think it's a great idea! It's a very creative solution which awards feeds which follow standards, but for good practical reasons; not just standards for their own sake. It helps FL be more successful as a business and makes FL customers happier. Honestly I don't even see any potential downsides, so I'm confused by the question. Am I missing something? I think it’s a great idea! It’s a very creative solution which awards feeds which follow standards, but for good practical reasons; not just standards for their own sake. It helps FL be more successful as a business and makes FL customers happier.

Honestly I don’t even see any potential downsides, so I’m confused by the question. Am I missing something?

]]> by: Scott http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-931 Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:20:56 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-931 Chris, given that we would decrease our check interval, we would only save about 20% bandwidth if everyone were to support 304s. If we did not change the check interval, our bandwidth would decrease about 3 times. The major savings to FeedLounge would actually be in CPU cycles wasted on non-updates. Chris, given that we would decrease our check interval, we would only save about 20% bandwidth if everyone were to support 304s. If we did not change the check interval, our bandwidth would decrease about 3 times. The major savings to FeedLounge would actually be in CPU cycles wasted on non-updates.

]]> by: Chris Meller http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-930 Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:07:53 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-930 And just in case you didn't get that, I was referring to overall total bandwidth. You gave per feed stats, but that doesn't really tell me anything real-world. ;) And just in case you didn’t get that, I was referring to overall total bandwidth. You gave per feed stats, but that doesn’t really tell me anything real-world. ;)

]]> by: Chris Meller http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-929 Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:05:14 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-929 Hey Scott, I assume you guys did some basic math to decide how much bandwidth you'd be saving if everyone were to support 304 responses. Care to let us in on the #s? I'm always curious about statistics for stuff like this, and since I haven't seen any stats about the number of feeds you guys are supporting, I can't run the numbers myself. Hey Scott,

I assume you guys did some basic math to decide how much bandwidth you’d be saving if everyone were to support 304 responses. Care to let us in on the #s? I’m always curious about statistics for stuff like this, and since I haven’t seen any stats about the number of feeds you guys are supporting, I can’t run the numbers myself.

]]> by: Roel http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-927 Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:12:24 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-927 I think it's an interesting idea. If it increases the adoption by CMS's of 304 messages for feeds, it would be 'a good thing'. Well, and as a FL user I get fresher feeds! :-) I think it’s an interesting idea.
If it increases the adoption by CMS’s of 304 messages for feeds, it would be ‘a good thing’. Well, and as a FL user I get fresher feeds! :-)

]]> by: FeedShow http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-912 Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:59:09 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-912 <strong>Fast feed refresh and “conditional GET” support</strong> When a feed has not changed since the last fetch, a server can answer the request with a “304 HTTP code”. Not all servers have this feature enabled, and the result is bandwidth loss. Here’s a good idea from Scott (Feedlounge). Server... Fast feed refresh and “conditional GET” support

When a feed has not changed since the last fetch, a server can answer the request with a “304 HTTP code”. Not all servers have this feature enabled, and the result is bandwidth loss.
Here’s a good idea from Scott (Feedlounge). Server…

]]> by: Geof F. Morris http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-911 Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:49:56 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-911 Well, I don't think you're obsessive if you're checking 304-aware feeds only every 30 minutes; the industry seems to have accepted that as a standard. If that seems OCD, maybe you just develop a second scheduling algorithm and have it be IF(304-AWARE=TRUE). :shrug: You <em>would</em> be a bad citizen if you pounded non-304-aware feeds every 30 minutes. That just seems needless, and there's a bandwidth and computational penalty to you for doing it---every received, unmodified feed not only has to be grabbed but then parsed [or maybe you MD5 sum those feeds for newness before parsing? I dunno] as well. Seems to me that you have a disincentive to checking those 304 laggards so often. Well, I don’t think you’re obsessive if you’re checking 304-aware feeds only every 30 minutes; the industry seems to have accepted that as a standard. If that seems OCD, maybe you just develop a second scheduling algorithm and have it be IF(304-AWARE=TRUE). :shrug:

You would be a bad citizen if you pounded non-304-aware feeds every 30 minutes. That just seems needless, and there’s a bandwidth and computational penalty to you for doing it—every received, unmodified feed not only has to be grabbed but then parsed [or maybe you MD5 sum those feeds for newness before parsing? I dunno] as well. Seems to me that you have a disincentive to checking those 304 laggards so often.

]]> by: Scott http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-910 Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:25:08 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-910 Geof, You see the adoption of 304s as an overriding benefit, even if FeedLounge were to end up using the same amount of bandwidth? I was wondering if doing this makes FeedLounge the bad citizen, for being somewhat obsessive in our checking. Should we split the difference? Geof,

You see the adoption of 304s as an overriding benefit, even if FeedLounge were to end up using the same amount of bandwidth? I was wondering if doing this makes FeedLounge the bad citizen, for being somewhat obsessive in our checking. Should we split the difference?

]]> by: Geof F. Morris's Indiana Jones School of Management http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-909 Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:24:44 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-909 <strong>Respect for HTTP 304: Positive Feedback Loop?</strong> The FeedLounge crew are considering rewarding feeds that publish feeds that are capable of sending HTTP 304 responses. Here’s how this is a win for most everyone: I, as a FeedLounge user, get fresher feed data. This is where the rubber really ... Respect for HTTP 304: Positive Feedback Loop?

The FeedLounge crew are considering rewarding feeds that publish feeds that are capable of sending HTTP 304 responses. Here’s how this is a win for most everyone:

I, as a FeedLounge user, get fresher feed data. This is where the rubber really …

]]> by: Geof F. Morris http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-908 Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:17:39 +0000 http://feedlounge.com/blog/2006/03/23/rewarding-304s/#comment-908 I think that's a <em>great</em> idea, Scott. If more aggregators start doing this, it will hopefullly push publishers towards adopting 304s, which seems like a positive feedback loop to me. I think that’s a great idea, Scott. If more aggregators start doing this, it will hopefullly push publishers towards adopting 304s, which seems like a positive feedback loop to me.

]]>