Feedster Top 500: well, that’s some better I guess

At least the new iteration of the Feedster Top 500 list is somewhat better: they apparently had the good sense to take me off the list (I say apparently, because I couldn’t be bothered to look at every single page now that it’s annoyingly split up instead of being a single list, but I’m not down at the bottom where I was last time (oh, okay, I can hack URL query parameters to get it on one page, and I’m properly gone)).

However: #394 (and no, I don’t know why offset=392 brings up number 394, now stay on track) makes it look like the disambiguation is still, well, er, “beta!” There’s certainly nothing wrong with Open Access News, but what the hell is Mark Pilgrim doing over there on the left side, smirking about how he’s linked to his ancient scraped feed for it, from back in the days before Blogger had any feeds of any sort? It returns a 410 Gone, so if Feedster knows about it then it quite likely knows about it in a way that pisses Mark off mightily: don’t you have a picture of him spitting blood and flipping the viewer off, that would do better for linking as many people as you can to something that’s Gone. Gone. Gone.?

1 Comment

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2005-11-22 22:56:08

Last updated June 21, 2005, 11:06 am. Last checked November 22, 2005, 22:11 pm

Unless the 410 is brand new, that certainly seems like a case of just about five months too long to not accept a status code.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <del datetime="" cite=""> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <i> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <kbd> <li> <ol> <p> <pre> <q cite=""> <samp> <strong> <sub> <sup> <ul> in your comment.