Refresh all feeds
There should be a "Refresh all feeds" button.
“Refresh all feeds” button can only work in a reasonable amount of time for users that have a very small number of feeds (10-15 at most). An additional requirement will be for RSS feeds that are refreshed to serve their XML files very quickly.
Please keep in mind that voting for this feature, you automatically vote for imposing a very low limit of feed count per user.
Kurt Reed commented
without this feature this product is almost useless
activate my facebook I'm unable to read all feeds
Anonymous - If you'd like to send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with more information about what app you downloaded as well as the address of the feed that is not updating, we can investigate further.
Downloaded "The old Reader last week. I've uploaded 3 feeds into the feeder. One of those feeds has two new stories and The Old Reader" has not picked up on it yet. Not sure if it's going to work.
10-15 feeds is fine. Allow user to specify 15 priority feeds that:
a) Will get updated automatically at least once an hour.
b) Can be all refreshed manually at the click of a button.
I've 20 x feeds; sometimes posts are over two hours old by the time they appear.
I'm also surprised how many people seem to expect a small team donating a service for the general good out of their own kindness being compared to the resources of a monolith like Google.
That said, I like the idea of a paid account option for fast updates, though it would be nice (if the load was feasable) for more than one person to chip in on a server. If a group of friends did it together maybe they could even keep the social aspects between them?
I also like the idea of each person getting maybe 3 to 5 (or some realistic number) of feeds they can select for quicker refresh, so i.e. that person with the bargain site of one-day deals could find those in time, but news and such could be viewed whenever at a slower update rate.
Personally I use it for webcomics, and I want to thank you guys so much for giving us such a well built alternative with Google throwing in the towel. Sure, it would be nice and all if magically the updates were as regular, but honestly I'm just glad there's an alternative that's as good as this one is. Thank you!!
Sebastian Krause commented
Generally I agree that you should try to increase the feed update frequency, but I also understand that this would put a really high load on the servers.
So I want to suggest a compromise: Don't just take the average interval between posts into account, but also the number of people subscribed to the feed. So if a feed is only updated every few weeks, but a very high number of users are subscribed to it, it should be fetched more than only once a day.
Ari Alho commented
Please speed up the refresh rate
Steven McKenzie commented
+1 this has my vote!
Erik Ensing commented
You stated that feeds update atleast once a day. First, this is WAY too slow, some of my feeds have posts up to 5 times a day and I don't wanna read them all at once. Second, I have seen feeds having delays of about 3 days when compared to Google Reader. It looks like I just have to manually hit the "Refresh" button, which is not what I want to waste my time on.
I just want to chime in that your site is unusable for me with the current refresh rate you have going. There are some feeds that need faster updates. You guys need to work on that
Glenn Morse commented
This isn't strictly related, but faster refresh rates is absolutely something I'd pay for in a "premium" account. I realize that you don't have the resources of Google to refresh everything every 2-3 minutes, but there can't be *that* many of hundreds of thousands of feeds active :) A 15-minute guarantee (or something) for premium would certainly push me over.
I don't understand why this would limit the number of feeds to 10 or 15. What are you defining as a "reasonable" amount of time?
This feature would not be needed if the updates were more frequent. Are the delays due to a lack of server capacity?
Stef W commented
A refresh folder would be sufficient.
Robert Rotariu commented
I don't like freebie users making such imperative demands for the free service they use and definitely comparing a handful of people with Google is utterly stupid, but I must ask something for my own peace of mind.
If you say a global refresh would work only for accounts with a small number of feeds, why not make a button for exactly that: a limited number of feeds.
The user selects the desired feeds (a persistent selection would be nice) and hits the "refresh all" button.
I might be missing something. Am I? If so, what?
Rick, you are either deliberately taking "once a day" figure out of context, or you have not read http://theoldreader.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/146275-how-often-are-feeds-updated-i-see-some-delays- carefully. Feeds are usually updated twice as often as their new post interval is, so "once a day" only applies to feeds that on average get less than 4 posts a week. Feeds that support pubsubhubbub (which all high-traffic feeds should aim to support) get updated almost instantly. A small number of feeds still have some fetching issues right now because of the insane rate we had to scale our infrastructure with, but this system works fine for the vast majority of feeds.
As we said previously, for a public service this feature can only work properly for accounts with small number of feeds. If there are heavy users who would like their feeds updated more often, we can discuss deploying a private version of The Old Reader on separate servers just for you. You will have to pay for this, and you will lose all the social features, but we can configure all your feeds to be updated as often as you wish.
Am I serious? I thought that was your goal, to be a viable replacement for GReader. Anyway, updating feeds once a day makes some feeds less than useful. For instance, the TechBargains feed often lists bargains that are 1 day only. By the time the feed is updated, the bargain will be gone. I understand that I can't "demand" features and I appreciate that you are doing this with no budget. I'm just saying that I will be forced to go to another reader if I can't get timely updates. I really like your implementation. The other readers out there seem to be intent on providing magazine like formats which do not allow quick review of the feeds.
Rick, are you serious? Google is multi-billion-dollar corporation with thousands of engineers and millions of servers, and even they found operating Reader so expensive that they decided to close it. Do you really think it's fair to demand "at least" the same performance from three people who do this on their spare time with no budget?