[SOLVED] Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby fox » 30 Mar 2013, 18:34

simplepie.org

>But how would this situation happen? The order doesn't make any sense.

Basically: the feed sucks. Contact the author to fix their shit.

Alternatively: contact simplepie people to ask why the date is parsed not to your taste. tt-rss doesn't have anything to do with feeds per se.

User avatar
Let_Me_Be
Joy Division
Posts: 18
Joined: 30 Mar 2013, 17:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby Let_Me_Be » 30 Mar 2013, 18:43

fox wrote:>But how would this situation happen? The order doesn't make any sense.

Basically: the feed sucks. Contact the author to fix their shit.


No it doesn't. Update time is actually very important for some feeds. Although it doesn't make any sense in case of youtube, because it just screws with the order.

fox wrote:Alternatively: contact simplepie people to ask why the date is parsed not to your taste. tt-rss doesn't have anything to do with feeds per se.


Yeah, I don't understand why there isn't a simple "get_date_published()" and they only have this weird heuristic that gives different dates for the feed depending on the version of the format.

Also your initial posts were clearly wrong. The update tags are indeed parsed and the sort doesn't follow publish date, but the last modification/update date.

User avatar
Let_Me_Be
Joy Division
Posts: 18
Joined: 30 Mar 2013, 17:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby Let_Me_Be » 30 Mar 2013, 18:51

In case anyone want's to follow this, this is a link to the issue I reported in simplepie.

https://github.com/simplepie/simplepie/issues/283

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby fox » 30 Mar 2013, 18:52

>Also your initial posts were clearly wrong. The update tags are indeed parsed and the sort doesn't follow publish date, but the last modification/update date.

Fascinating. Let's go back one page and read what I actually said:

tt-rss does not use that atom-specific attribute, unless Simplepie considers it something that should be used instead of pubdate which you need to take to simplepie devs.


Please explain what exactly is wrong with this sentence.

User avatar
Let_Me_Be
Joy Division
Posts: 18
Joined: 30 Mar 2013, 17:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby Let_Me_Be » 30 Mar 2013, 18:56

fox wrote:>Also your initial posts were clearly wrong. The update tags are indeed parsed and the sort doesn't follow publish date, but the last modification/update date.

Fascinating. Let's go back one page and read what I actually said:

tt-rss does not use that atom-specific attribute, unless Simplepie considers it something that should be used instead of pubdate which you need to take to simplepie devs.


Please explain what exactly is wrong with this sentence.


I said initial:

There's no such thing. There's pubdate which comes from the feed and import date tt-rss sets when it sees article first.

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby fox » 30 Mar 2013, 19:00

In case this wasn't obvious, there's no such thing *within tt-rss*. Feed-level stuff should be handled by simplepie, if I wanted to care about specific feed attributes I would write my own feed parser.

User avatar
Let_Me_Be
Joy Division
Posts: 18
Joined: 30 Mar 2013, 17:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby Let_Me_Be » 30 Mar 2013, 19:04

fox wrote:In case this wasn't obvious, there's no such thing *within tt-rss*. Feed-level stuff should be handled by simplepie, if I wanted to care about specific feed attributes I would write my own feed parser.


This isn't some low level stuff. This is pretty fundamental semantic that you actually use in tt-rss (for sorting).

Does this mean that if they actually add the "get_date_published()" you will refuse to use it?

User avatar
blainemono
Gaping Anus of Eternity
Gaping Anus of Eternity
Posts: 246
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 18:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby blainemono » 30 Mar 2013, 19:09

dis gon b good

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby fox » 30 Mar 2013, 19:10

>This isn't some low level stuff. This is pretty fundamental semantic that you actually use in tt-rss (for sorting).

Why do I have to repeat myself? Simplepie gives me a date. I do basic sanity checking on it. Whatever that date is in feed terms I don't particularly care about.

>Does this mean that if they actually add the "get_date_published()" you will refuse to use it?

Oh sure, I'll use it. Five minutes later some other guy will come here crying that he wants the other date because reasons and let's add a dozen options to keep everyone satisfied with fundamental semantics of sorting a fucking news feed. Because lolcats are not funny when out of order.

It would be funny to let you folks fight it out within themselves and whoever posts less shit wins.

User avatar
Let_Me_Be
Joy Division
Posts: 18
Joined: 30 Mar 2013, 17:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby Let_Me_Be » 30 Mar 2013, 19:15

fox wrote:>This isn't some low level stuff. This is pretty fundamental semantic that you actually use in tt-rss (for sorting).

Why do I have to repeat myself? Simplepie gives me a date. I do basic sanity checking on it. Whatever that date is in feed terms I don't particularly care about.


Well, yeah, so the feeds are sorted by some "magic" date you get from the base API you are using. It's completely valid not to care, but don't try to make your users look stupid when you yourself don't know how the feed is actually sorted.

fox wrote:>Does this mean that if they actually add the "get_date_published()" you will refuse to use it?

Oh sure, I'll use it. Five minutes later some other guy will come here crying that he wants the other date because reasons and let's add a dozen options to keep everyone satisfied with fundamental semantics of sorting a fucking news feed. Because lolcats are not funny when out of order.

It would be funny to let you folks fight it out within themselves and whoever posts less shit wins.


That's why we have options, because there are people with different needs.

User avatar
blainemono
Gaping Anus of Eternity
Gaping Anus of Eternity
Posts: 246
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 18:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby blainemono » 30 Mar 2013, 19:18

also, different cognitive abilities

User avatar
blainemono
Gaping Anus of Eternity
Gaping Anus of Eternity
Posts: 246
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 18:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby blainemono » 30 Mar 2013, 19:21

While we are on the subject, I want to make a suggestion too. I have a couple of NSFW feeds I use, so I'd like you to store a timestamp of me jerking off to certain article, then sort the feed by this date. This use case is totally valid because my needs are immense

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby fox » 30 Mar 2013, 19:23

>It's completely valid not to care, but don't try to make your users look stupid when you yourself don't know how the feed is actually sorted.

I'm going to cry myself to sleep tonight over atom attributes.

>That's why we have options, because there are people with different needs.

See, what makes those "users" look stupid is their inability to understand that it is impossible to add options for every bizarre request and have an actual coherent usable product in the end. Not their amazing knowledge of atom specification nobody gives two shits about.

I'm choosing defaults I consider sane. If you don't like my ideas but can't argue your proposed changes as objectively better, don't expect anything to change.

Batch date is a good example I never thought about, but the arguments were good enough to convince me to add it. Your blabbering about fundamental semantics on the other hand is not particularly compelling.

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby fox » 30 Mar 2013, 19:24

blainemono wrote:While we are on the subject, I want to make a suggestion too. I have a couple of NSFW feeds I use, so I'd like you to store a timestamp of me jerking off to certain article, then sort the feed by this date. This use case is totally valid because my needs are immense


How many options are we thinking here? I'm thinking at least five. :!:

User avatar
blainemono
Gaping Anus of Eternity
Gaping Anus of Eternity
Posts: 246
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 18:13

Re: Publish vs. update date when sorting by feed date

Postby blainemono » 30 Mar 2013, 19:26

I'll be perfectly happy with just the one, but considering the decline in your user base I'd also recommend the "I'm special" checkbox that repeats every article at least 3 times, for better comprehension


Return to “Comedy bistro”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests