---------------------------------------- I am currently losing unread items in Google Reader pretty frequently, and certainly more frequently than I would like. I've written about the problem here (and have confirmed that other people are seeing this, too):
I know there was a problem like this back in June. Do you know if this is a known issue and if it's being worked on? I am one of Google Reader's biggest proponents, but I will have to switch to another reader if I can't rely on my unread items sticking around until I have time to read them.
Thanks in advance for looking into this matter. ----------------------------------------
Are any of this group's readers seeing this problem as well?
> Here's a message I sent to [email address] today:
> ---------------------------------------- > I am currently losing unread items in Google Reader pretty frequently, > and certainly more frequently than I would like. I've written about > the problem here (and have confirmed that other people are seeing > this, too):
> I know there was a problem like this back in June. Do you know if > this is a known issue and if it's being worked on? I am one of Google > Reader's biggest proponents, but I will have to switch to another > reader if I can't rely on my unread items sticking around until I have > time to read them.
> Thanks in advance for looking into this matter. > ----------------------------------------
> Are any of this group's readers seeing this problem as well?
> Here's a message I sent to [email address] today:
> ---------------------------------------- > I am currently losing unread items in Google Reader pretty frequently, > and certainly more frequently than I would like. I've written about > the problem here (and have confirmed that other people are seeing > this, too):
> I know there was a problem like this back in June. Do you know if > this is a known issue and if it's being worked on? I am one of Google > Reader's biggest proponents, but I will have to switch to another > reader if I can't rely on my unread items sticking around until I have > time to read them.
> Thanks in advance for looking into this matter. > ----------------------------------------
> Are any of this group's readers seeing this problem as well?
> Here's a message I sent to [email address] today:
> ---------------------------------------- > I am currently losing unread items in Google Reader pretty frequently, > and certainly more frequently than I would like. I've written about > the problem here (and have confirmed that other people are seeing > this, too):
> I know there was a problem like this back in June. Do you know if > this is a known issue and if it's being worked on? I am one of Google > Reader's biggest proponents, but I will have to switch to another > reader if I can't rely on my unread items sticking around until I have > time to read them.
> Thanks in advance for looking into this matter. > ----------------------------------------
> Are any of this group's readers seeing this problem as well?
Are the items in questions more than a few weeks or a month old? The items shown as bold in Google Reader are not, strictly speaking, "unread" items, but simply "new" items. They are no longer considered new if you read them OR if they age long enough. Since most people read most feeds frequently enough to not run into the second condition, it's easy to start thinking of it in terms of "bold = unread," which then leads to this confusion if, for instance, you go on vacation for a month or something like that.
Actually, my oldest items are now dated from september 11th. At the beginning of this week I had new items going back to august.
So Reader is resetting the "new" flag after some time, in my case it looks like 8 days :( An issue in which I have never run into before. Since my preferences are set to show new items only, this is very annoying, and I loose track of unread items.
> Are the items in questions more than a few weeks or a month old? The > items shown as bold in Google Reader are not, strictly speaking, > "unread" items, but simply "new" items. They are no longer considered > new if you read them OR if they age long enough. Since most people > read most feeds frequently enough to not run into the second > condition, it's easy to start thinking of it in terms of "bold = > unread," which then leads to this confusion if, for instance, you go > on vacation for a month or something like that.
Why not have items age/expire at all? Why not give users the option? Is it purely a space issue? If possible, I'd like to all my items as unread forever and ever
> Are the items in questions more than a few weeks or a month old? The > items shown as bold in Google Reader are not, strictly speaking, > "unread" items, but simply "new" items. They are no longer considered > new if you read them OR if they age long enough. Since most people > read most feeds frequently enough to not run into the second > condition, it's easy to start thinking of it in terms of "bold = > unread," which then leads to this confusion if, for instance, you go > on vacation for a month or something like that.
This is one of those tricky features that different people want to behave in different ways. Some folks would prefer to have their unread items fade out of view even earlier, simply because it reduces the pressure of keeping up with an insurmountable reading list, while others like you would rather maintain an "unread" state indefinitely. The design decision we made with Google Reader was to go with the concept of "new" rather than strictly "unread," but use a fairly generous interpretation of "new" (one month) so that most ordinary use cases wouldn't run into that limit. Ultimately, you're right, some sort of option in the settings would be the most flexible in terms of accommodating everyone. So that's a good feature request. :-)
> This is one of those tricky features that different people want to > behave in different ways. Some folks would prefer to have their unread > items fade out of view even earlier, simply because it reduces the > pressure of keeping up with an insurmountable reading list, while > others like you would rather maintain an "unread" state indefinitely. > The design decision we made with Google Reader was to go with the > concept of "new" rather than strictly "unread," but use a fairly > generous interpretation of "new" (one month) so that most ordinary use > cases wouldn't run into that limit. Ultimately, you're right, some > sort of option in the settings would be the most flexible in terms of > accommodating everyone. So that's a good feature request. :-)
Expiring old unread items _by default_ is a violation of this fundamental principle. It makes one more reluctant to trust Google Reader and increases stress and worry. Therefore, I also vote for making auto-expiration optional and _opt-in_. And I strongly urge that this take priority over any other planned features.
Thank you for a product that is otherwise very usable.
Enthusiastically seconded. I came back from two months away and had to use a temporary draft in Gmail to keep track of the dates I had read through in Reader until I caught up. One of Google's very few mistakes...
> Expiring old unread items _by default_ is a violation of this > fundamental principle. It makes one more reluctant to trust Google > Reader and increases stress and worry. Therefore, I also vote for > making auto-expiration optional and _opt-in_. And I strongly urge that > this take priority over any other planned features.
> Thank you for a product that is otherwise very usable.
another added opinion... looking forward to that new option..
meanwhile i must have my heavily updated feeds in newsgator !! you see
what you make me do ? :'(
(just moved a few...anyone knows if they do the same thing ? auto-
expiring? .. hope not)
> Enthusiastically seconded. I came back from two months away and had
> to use a temporary draft in Gmail to keep track of the dates I had
> read through in Reader until I caught up. One of Google's very few
> mistakes...
> On Oct 30, 10:47 am, David Regev wrote:
> > The User's Data Is Sacred.
> > Expiring old unread items _by default_ is a violation of this
> > fundamental principle. It makes one more reluctant to trust Google
> > Reader and increases stress and worry. Therefore, I also vote for
> > making auto-expiration optional and _opt-in_. And I strongly urge that
> > this take priority over any other planned features.
> > Thank you for a product that is otherwise very usable.
Coming back from holiday and having lots of feeds to catch up on was
bad enough,
Then when I thought I had finally caught up, I realised I'd missed a
whole load!
It wasn't fun trying to catch up with a load and not remembering where
I was up to etc.
> another added opinion... looking forward to that new option..
> meanwhile i must have my heavily updated feeds in newsgator !! you see
> what you make me do ? :'(
> (just moved a few...anyone knows if they do the same thing ? auto-
> expiring? .. hope not)
> On Oct 30, 8:58 pm, Voyagerfan5761 wrote:
> > Enthusiastically seconded. I came back from two months away and had
> > to use a temporary draft in Gmail to keep track of the dates I had
> > read through in Reader until I caught up. One of Google's very few
> > mistakes...
> > On Oct 30, 10:47 am, David Regev wrote:
> > > The User's Data Is Sacred.
> > > Expiring old unread items _by default_ is a violation of this
> > > fundamental principle. It makes one more reluctant to trust Google
> > > Reader and increases stress and worry. Therefore, I also vote for
> > > making auto-expiration optional and _opt-in_. And I strongly urge that
> > > this take priority over any other planned features.
> > > Thank you for a product that is otherwise very usable.- Hide quoted text -
I am jumping on the bandwagon here and Back David's comment
completely!
While the change to expire new items before they are read may have
been a nice option for a large number of users, it is ALWAYS
inappropriate to force a user to opt in to a setting change or feature
that deletes or alters user data in any fashion that is either
unrecoverable or requires a significant amount of manual effort to
restore. This is something that you should NEVER do with any feature.
If you absolutely insist on forcing people to know about a new feature
then even a pop-up notification would be better than what you did
here. I am now working to trudge back through thousands of entries in
several feeds to try and figure out where I last stopped reading them
and it is a cruel task task to force someone to do.
In the future always make something like this an option. Do not
replace the old method by default when it will cause people to loose
data. Then notify the users somehow of the new feature and OFFER the
change, don't force the change without notifying the user.
This is something of a cross-post, but the same thing applies to the
new automatic sharing. Again, new features like that should be opt-
in. A UPO wouldn't be out of place.
> I am jumping on the bandwagon here and Back David's comment
> completely!
> While the change to expire new items before they are read may have
> been a nice option for a large number of users, it is ALWAYS
> inappropriate to force a user to opt in to a setting change or feature
> that deletes or alters user data in any fashion that is either
> unrecoverable or requires a significant amount of manual effort to
> restore. This is something that you should NEVER do with any feature.
> If you absolutely insist on forcing people to know about a new feature
> then even a pop-up notification would be better than what you did
> here. I am now working to trudge back through thousands of entries in
> several feeds to try and figure out where I last stopped reading them
> and it is a cruel task task to force someone to do.
> In the future always make something like this an option. Do not
> replace the old method by default when it will cause people to loose
> data. Then notify the users somehow of the new feature and OFFER the
> change, don't force the change without notifying the user.
|
