afp协议

tech2024-02-23 83

afp协议

How many of the top 100 American newspapers use RSS? If you guessed “all of them,” you’d be right. According to the 2008 Bivings Report, which looked at use of the Internet by America’s largest 100 newspapers, every single one used RSS. And there are plenty of good reasons why using RSS is a very good idea.

美国前100大报纸中有多少使用RSS？如果您猜到了“所有人”，那将是正确的。根据2008年Bivings报告，该报告查看了美国最大的100家报纸对互联网的使用情况，其中每一份都使用RSS。使用RSS是一个很好的主意有很多充分的理由。

So if every major newspaper in America is using RSS (and I’d guess most major papers worldwide that have a modern web presence do as well), why would the Agence France-Presse (AFP), one of the world’s three largest news agencies, decide to nix RSS feeds on their homepage?

因此，如果美国每个主要报纸都使用RSS(我猜想世界上大多数具有现代网络存在的主要报纸也都使用RSS)，为什么世界三大新闻社之一的法新社(AFP) ，决定在其首页上取消RSS Feed ？

There was no press release or official statement about the decision to pull RSS support from AFP.com, just confirmation that the AFP had indeed shut off its RSS feeds via a high level employee speaking to the NewsCred blog. However, this seemingly protectionist, walled garden tactic is not new for the AFP. In 2005 the news wire sued Google for linking to its stories using a headline and short excerpt. The AFP said that Google was using content without permission and infringing upon its copyrights.

没有关于决定从AFP.com撤回RSS支持的新闻稿或官方声明，只是确认AFP确实已经通过与NewsCred博客对话的高级员工关闭了RSS源。但是，这种看似保护主义的围墙花园策略对于法新社来说并不是新事物。 2005年，新闻通讯社起诉Google使用标题和简短摘录链接到其故事。法新社说，谷歌未经许可使用内容，并侵犯了其版权。

It would appear that the suit was less about protecting copyrights and more about trying to land a big new client; a couple of years later the AFP settled with Google by roping them into a syndication deal. In the long run, suing Google actually worked for the AFP — they probably make more money licensing their content than they do when Google sends them traffic to AFP.com.

诉讼似乎不是在保护版权，而是在争取新的大客户。几年后，法新社与Google 达成和解，将他们结成联合协议。从长远来看，起诉Google实际上为AFP工作-与Google向AFP.com发送访问量时相比，他们许可内容的收入可能更高。

When I started writing this post, I planned to argue that turning off RSS wouldn’t have the same positive long term effect that suing Google ended up having. However, after writing it out, I’m starting to come around. First, here’s why RSS makes sense for most content publishers:

当我开始写这篇文章时，我打算争论说，关闭RSS不会像起诉Google一样具有长期的积极影响。但是，写出来后，我开始走过来。首先，这就是RSS对于大多数内容发布者有意义的原因：

为什么RSS对用户有利 (Why RSS Is Good For Users)

It’s a lot easier to read multiple publications on a more regular basis when they’re delivered to you.

当将多个出版物发送给您时，更容易定期阅读它们。 Data and content delivered by RSS can be mashed up in a new and interesting ways that reveal previously unnoticed or inaccessible conclusions.

RSS传递的数据和内容可以以一种新的有趣的方式混合在一起，从而揭示以前未被注意或无法访问的结论。

为什么RSS对发布者有利 (Why RSS Is Good For Publishers)

Because RSS makes it easier for people to track multliple sources, casual readers who would likely only read your publication once in awhile or not visit at all will be more apt to become regular readers.

由于RSS使人们可以更轻松地跟踪多个来源，因此那些可能只偶尔阅读一次您的出版物或根本不访问您的偶然读者将更容易成为普通读者。 RSS enables mashups that expose your content in new and interesting ways, and will ultimately drive more traffic, readers, and brand recognition.

RSS使mashup能够以新颖有趣的方式公开您的内容，并最终带来更多的流量，读者和品牌知名度。

However, the AFP is in a different situation than most content publishers. They’re not in the business of selling their brand to consumers — they sell content to companies that sell to consumers. Because the AFP has paid syndication clients, full RSS feeds are out of the question — they’d put the AFP in direct competition with clients, and they’d force the company to utilize staff to monitor and track down unauthorized uses of their RSS feed, which would be an unnecessary cost.

但是，与大多数内容发布者相比，法新社的处境不同。他们不从事将品牌销售给消费者的业务，而是将内容出售给向消费者销售产品的公司。由于AFP已经向联合客户支付了费用，因此完全没有RSS提要-他们使AFP与客户直接竞争，他们迫使该公司动用员工来监视和跟踪未经授权使用其RSS提要的情况。，这将是不必要的费用。

The AFP is in the business of providing content to publishers that then offer it to consumers and mashup developers via RSS (such as those top 100 newspapers). AFP content is already available via RSS from AFP clients. Offering it free on their site is detrimental to their business and creates problems for their paying clients.

AFP的业务是向发布商提供内容，然后再通过RSS(例如，前100家报纸)将内容提供给消费者和mashup开发人员。 AFP内容已经可以从AFP客户端通过RSS获得。在他们的网站上免费提供它不利于他们的业务，并给付费客户带来麻烦。

It may seem like I’m arguing in favor of walled gardens — I’m not, though. I would sincerely hope that the AFP offers licenses to clients that allow them to republish content via RSS, including full text feeds — and then allows that content to be remixed down the line in any way possible. However, for the AFP itself, public RSS feeds are not necessary and actually don’t make much sense given the business they’re in.

似乎我在争辩围墙花园，但我不是。我衷心希望AFP向客户提供许可证，允许他们通过RSS重新发布内容(包括全文供稿)，然后允许以任何可能的方式在行下重新混合内容。但是，对于AFP本身来说，公共RSS提要不是必需的，并且考虑到它们所从事的业务，这实际上没有多大意义。

翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/it-was-a-good-idea-for-the-afp-to-turn-off-rss/

afp协议