Interesting and relevant post here: An Apology To My RSS Readers – But I Had To Do It. (Updated)
It shows that what I suggested (in an earlier post somewhere) is true - i.e., that using Google Reader (or other feed aggregator) meant you could get an idea of a news/post item without going to the web page and without creating any ad-clicks (monetisation). So it is a potential commercial loss - unless you get the user to visit the page - though it is probably great from the user's perspective, of course.
I find it interesting how so many (who do
know better) keep trying to refer to RSS as "creaky" and "outdated" when what they're really trying to do is justify abandoning something quite useful and easy to implement
which thousands have found good use for.
I'm glad to see the article brought up the issue of unauthorized content scraping however. That is a serious issue which will eventually put much of what's worth reading on the web out of business if it continues. At least as far as the smaller self-supporting content providers, who try to provide their readers with an experience that goes a basic blog, are concerned. And unfortunately, full text RSS feeds do
make it very easy to scrape. There are even horror stories of scrapers filing DMCA takedown notices against the original
content creators as a preemptive strike when confronted.
A real problem with no easy solution I'm afraid.
But implying that RSS is "outdated" or "ancient" or somehow in need of abandonment because it "doesn't work" (as some are saying) is more than a little disingenuous. If RSS isn't practical or 'working' any more, it's not for technical reasons. It's for commercial ones.