Skip to main content

Google Reader Upgrade Dissappoints


Yet again, I find myself wishing I could say I like what Google has done with something, only to be forced into admitting: they disappoint me. Well, add one more to the list of things Google can't get right, even with an army of PhD holders and more money than you can shake a redwood forest at: Google Reader has gone from simple gold to contorted crap. The original version was a great excersize in simplicity in design that let me jump in, read, and get on with my life. The "upgrade" is a mess of a noisy interface for me to get lost in as my browser slows to a crawl with far more JavaScript than a simple reader needs, and even the occassional forgetting of everything I haven't read yet.

I was a little late in the Blogscene, which is a relative statement given that most of the world doesn't know what a blog is, despite the fact that most bloggers think otherwise. I started with my trusty KDE's Akregator, which is admirably usable, and then looked for a web-solution to use better from multiple boxes and a laptop, right around the time the first Google Reader was released. I jumped on board, and I loved it. Right off the bat you have your entire reading queue, waiting for you to read through one post at a time. Read, hit the j button, read, j, read, j, j (I skip things, a lot), j, j, j, read, j, read. If I had a backlog, I could just pick labels or subscriptions to read first and be on my way until I had time to read less important things. The key is it was simple. Most of the time, I only ever used a single button: the j. It was fast, showing just what I was reading and a few things coming up on the list. Thanks to (possibly accidental) details of the implementation, I could scrollwheel over the reading list and pre-load hundreds of articles, so that I could read them offline in my web-based reader! Again, best of all, it was simple. It did all this and it was clean, and simple. God, it was simple.

The new Reader is a beast. There is a busy tree of labels and subscriptions listed on the left, repeating my feeds for every label they are in. The unread counts are always inaccurate. It tries to show me everything I've read so far on the page, which adds up quickly. I can't mark anything as read without everything before it getting marked too, which means no holding things to read later. The javascript slows the page down and even locks up FireFox for a few moments when loading the next posts. it is not simple.

Google, use your many brains. I don't know how you could have messed this up so badly. It brings up an interesting question: is it OK to compete with yourself? They say that the new Reader meets the middle-ground between what everyone wants, but does that mean it doesnt actually fit what any one person wants? Re-release the original as Google Quick Reader or something.

I'm sorry. This post was badly written. Call it a rant. I just miss my reader.

Comments

k4ml said…
Interesting. I never use the old reader after a few try. I just don't like it so I stay with something simple such as feeds.reddit.com but right now, Google Reader has become my default.
Bob said…
Absolutely spot on!

I hate the way the new reader UI displays many stories on the same page and 'j' brings the next one to the top.

I reverted to the old UI immediately. I'll
be very annoyed if they remove it completely.

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

Announcing Feet, a Python Runner

I've been working on a problem that's bugged me for about as long as I've used Python and I want to announce my stab at a solution, finally!

I've been working on the problem of "How do i get this little thing I made to my friend so they can try it out?" Python is great. Python is especially a great language to get started in, when you
don't know a lot about software development, and probably don't even know a lot about computers in general.

Yes, Python has a lot of options for tackling some of these distribution problems for games and apps. Py2EXE was an early option, PyInstaller is very popular now, and PyOxide is an interesting recent entry. These can be great options, but they didn't fit the kind of use case and experience that made sense to me. I'd never really been about to put my finger on it, until earlier this year:

Python needs LÖVE.

LÖVE, also known as "Love 2D", is a game engine that makes it super easy to build small Lua…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…