|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/5/2008 6:22:26 AM
Posts: 2,
Visits: 4
|
|
I've got at least one feed (I think there are one or two others, but this one is high traffic so really obvious) for which the "read" status fails to sync. Others sync just fine.
The feed is at http://www.readynas.com/forum/rss.php. I'm running NetNewsWire 3.1.7 on a couple of Mac's, some under Tiger, some under Leopard. As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter which one I use to read the items - the others won't see the status change. I sync through NewsGator. Settings for this (and, as best I can recall, all my feeds - certainly for some that do sync read status correctly) for Refreshing, Persistence, etc., are set to "use defaults".
The failure to sync has been there for quite some time - months - but I can't be absolutely certain whether it ever sync's correctly.
-- Jerry
|
|
|
|
|
NewsGator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 6:23:45 PM
Posts: 1,090,
Visits: 2,039
|
|
It's possible you added it as a non-synced feed. Here's what to do:
1. Unsubscribe from the feed.
2. Subscribe again -- making sure the "Sync this feed" checkbox is checked.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/5/2008 6:22:26 AM
Posts: 2,
Visits: 4
|
|
I tried re-subscribing - making sure that "Sync this feed" was checked - as suggested in Brent Simmons's response. Mr. Simmons didn't indicated whether to do this only one machine, or on all of them. I did it only on one.
This didn't fix the problem, though in looking more closely now, I see that whatever the problem is, it's more subtle than simple failure to sync. I just went to my laptop - the one on which I re-subscribed the feed; made sure I had read everything in the feed; did a "Refresh All" (still nothing new in the feed); and then for good measure exited (with NetNewsReader telling me that it was uploading the "read" status). Then, on my iMac, I also did a "Refresh All" and exited.
Next, I went back and restarted NetNewsReader on both machines. Results:
- On the laptop, there are still no new items;
- On the iMac, there are 133 new items.
Now, what's strange here is that list of 133 new items on the iMac. The oldest is from September 28; the newest from October 2. There were perhaps 10 new items that I read as noted above; none of those show up. Whatever the 133 items in the September 28-October 2 period are, they are a fraction of what appeared in that feed during that period. I'm guessing, but given the traffic the feed usually sees, there would have likely been over 600 items in 5 days.
If I show the Read items as well, there's no obvious pattern to the ones that were not read. There's one large block of perhaps 50 items on October 1, but others are scattered here and there. There are no unread items at all - but a bunch of "read" ones - for September 30.
Since - this being early Sunday - there are relatively few new items at all, I can compare the two machines easily. It's clear that the problem is not unique to this one feed. For example, I just did a Refresh All on both machines. The BBC World News Service feed on the iMac show 19 unread items; on the laptop, there are 13. The difference is that there are 6 items from October 1 that show up as unread on the iMac but have been read on the laptop. Another feed, Daring Fireball, has 1 unread item on the laptop, and 2 on the iMac - this time, a holdover from September 30. In both of these cases, there have been many items - probably hundreds for BBC, maybe 20 for Daring Fireball - since September 30. For this particular span, I'm pretty certain I read all of the items on the laptop, none on the iMac.
A few feeds show the same number of items on both, but most show a difference. In all cases, I read on the laptop, and the iMac shows extra items going back several days. I have yet to see an example of something unread on the laptop but read on the iMac. From the way things look, this is not feed-specific: All items in all feeds seem to stand some chance of not having their "read" status propagated. How noticeable this is depends on the rate at which items accumulate in the feed. If it's fairly slow, the discrepancy will be small and not noticeable - it's difficult to be sure that you actually read an isolated item here and there -though the article age sometimes makes you wonder.... On high-traffic feeds, on the other hand, the sheer numbers make the problem stand out.
-- Jerry
|
|
|
|