I have created an "RSS feed" plugin for the phpBB3. An illustrative
output is here: http://superforum.zive.cz/search.php?search_id=new&sr=posts&feed=rss and seems to be valid (checked by http://feedvalidator.org/).
Unfortunately, the Google Reader keeps ignoring the pubDate value and
the posts present the date of their last downloading, which is a big
problem for this feed. Is this possible to resolve?
In the Internet Explorer browser and several RSS readers I have been
using for testing, the date and time of publication display properly.
I'm sorry to hear you're having trouble getting your feed to appear
correctly in Google Reader. The problem might be that Google Reader
doesn't use the pubDate value; entires will appear in Reader with the
date and time they were first fetched. Reader will use a <guid> or a
<link> tag to determine if entries are unique posts or just updates to
older posts. I noticed your feed doesn't contain <guid> or <link>
tags. Adding one of these will most likely solve the problem of
entries appearing in the incorrect order, but unfortunately, you'll
have to live with the time and date being displayed as the first
'fetch' date. I hope this helps!
> but unfortunately, you'll
> have to live with the time and date being displayed as the first
> 'fetch' date.
Why not just fix the Reader instead of explaining everybody that it
does not use pubDate?
This is really confusing to see a bunch of republished (or added to
the Reader for the first time) feeds for the whole last year that are
shown by the Reader as if they were published a few hours ago.
You, guys, at Google like to emphasize that you automate as much
manual work as possible, and at the same time you force poor GR users
to manually open every feed entry just to find when it was *really*
published. :(
It would be great if Google Reader allowed the option to be able to
expose the published date of items as a resortable and displayable
column. While there is value in seeing the Added Date into your
system, the published date in the entry itself is more useful to me
when entries are entered into the system in batch mode.
> > but unfortunately, you'll
> > have to live with the time and date being displayed as the first
> > 'fetch' date.
> Why not just fix the Reader instead of explaining everybody that it
> does not use pubDate?
> This is really confusing to see a bunch of republished (or added to
> the Reader for the first time) feeds for the whole last year that are
> shown by the Reader as if they were published a few hours ago.
> You, guys, at Google like to emphasize that you automate as much
> manual work as possible, and at the same time you force poor GR users
> to manually open every feed entry just to find when it was *really*
> published. :(
> > but unfortunately, you'll
> > have to live with the time and date being displayed as the first
> > 'fetch' date.
> Why not just fix the Reader instead of explaining everybody that it
> does not use pubDate?
Well, I noticed that GR team recently introduced (if I had not missed
it before) a new feature -- when you hover mouse cursor over
date'n'time of a feed entry, a tooltip is displayed which contains
both received/shared/starred and the published time. Thanks for that!
While there is still room for improvement, this is definitely better
than nothing.
I know we should do our own research on RSS tags, but how about an
example of how to use the guid. I have copied RSS feeds given as
examples of a well formed feed from well respected sites only to have
the thing not pass validation. On we go around and around and around.
> > On Apr 14, 9:35 pm, Google Reader Guide wrote:
> > > but unfortunately, you'll
> > > have to live with the time and date being displayed as the first
> > > 'fetch' date.
> > Why not just fix the Reader instead of explaining everybody that it
> > does not use pubDate?
> Well, I noticed that GR team recently introduced (if I had not missed
> it before) a new feature -- when you hover mouse cursor over
> date'n'time of a feed entry, a tooltip is displayed which contains
> both received/shared/starred and the published time. Thanks for that!
> While there is still room for improvement, this is definitely better
> than nothing.
