16

Another possibility is to remove the <updated/> tags from youtube or other feeds with a plugin. I think this is what I will do. The constant date changes were a bit baffling, but now I know the reason, so thank you for explanation.

17

Yeah, factoring out the discussion over how “default” sorting works, which is irrelevant here, it’s broken that sorting by “feed date” means sorting by published date for RSS2 feeds and sorting by updated date for atom feeds. It should mean the same thing regardless of feed format.

18

It’s broken that the encoding format means seeing different resolution for DVDs vs Blu-Rays. It should display the same thing regardless of disc type.

Reducing to the lowest common denominator is a sure fire way to get the worst of all worlds.

19

That’s a stretch and you know it. The point of blu-Ray is exactly its higher fidelity over previous formats. Nowhere is it specified that <updated> dates should be compared against <published> dates, nor is there any expectation of that behavior from users.

The inconsistency is not only between RSS2 feeds and atom feeds, but also between atom feeds that specify <updated> and ones that do not.

20

rss doesn’t have an updated timestamp
at least read the spec before posting your amazing insights itt

this is called having a fallback

also best part is that you’re implying that feed generators actually know how to use all those feeds correctly which is far from the truth, the whole thing is mostly just guessing anyway (which is why we have batch dates to enforce order, because feed-provided data cannot be trusted)

21

I already knew that and that’s irrelevant to the point here. RSS lacking an updated time stamp doesn’t give meaning to a comparison between updated and published timestamp. If it does, please show me how.

We’re specifically talking about the case when the user explicitly chooses to trust potentially incorrect feed data. We’re not talking about default sorting. If I choose to sort by feed dates, It should be consistent to minimize confusion. The result of comparing published and updated dates has no meaning.

22

good luck adding updated timestamp to RSS

23

Again irrelevant to what’s being discussed here. RSS lacking an updated time stamp doesn’t give meaning to a comparison between updated and published timestamp. If it does, please show me how.

24

ok i think we’re done here, this looks like bona fide autism

you’ve already changed feed parser to use your timestamps now kindly fuck off and stop bothering me

25

Well at least I don’t have Tourette’s.image

26

i hope this mod sass was worth it :man_shrugging:

27

Where I’m confused is why you wouldn’t just use YouTube’s feed…

https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=<insert_channel_id_here>

I use that for several of my feeds, and see no issues with videos receiving comments mucking up the order.

28

I hope you’re not waiting for an answer…

29

I published a wiki article that details the sorting. I tried to be thorough but clear.

If it’s not straightforward enough I can clarify.

Wiki: Sorting

30

I’ve actually found the times used by YouTube to be very flakey. For example, Lani Arcade has a video posted on Nov 4, 2017 timestamped in TT-RSS as Nov 26, 2018 when it was last checked. I had never investigated the issue closely, but the feed’s published time is accurate. The video claims 2 comments with only one visible, yet the updated value keeps changing.

Since YouTube doesn’t make it clear there are RSS feeds, I’m not sure they care about their issue, and just resolved to ignore it since it’s minimally impacting. As feader pointed out, a plugin solves this if it really, really bothers someone. Just put the published value in updated and move along, unless you want to try to argue with YouTube to fix their shit.

Final Edit: I hate my post at this point, and since this is already a heated thread, I’m being overly cautious. Apologies for the moving target.

31

Your post is fine, I wouldn’t worry about it.

Not so much for the OP, but if others find this thread I would recommend against modifying the core. You can, but you’ll be forever maintaining a fork of TT-RSS (even if the above-mentioned file is rarely updated). I suggest using a plugin with either HOOK_FETCH_FEED, HOOK_FEED_FETCHED or HOOK_FEED_PARSED to modify the contents of the feed before TT-RSS works with it.

32

Why do you like reading things backwards?

33

very nice, thanks
i’ll link this in the FAQ

34

You hadn’t figured that out back at “impedance mismatch”?

35

well i thought this was a language issue :man_shrugging: but yeah kinda obvious