Scott Adams doesn't like blogging much anymore....
He said on November 26:
"Readership of The Dilbert Blog is growing rapidly, but at about the same rate people figure out how to use RSS feeds to get the content without the ads. So there’s no longer a correlation between how hard I work and the ad income I earn. It topped out at “trivial,” even while the audience grew to substantial."
I sympathise with Scott with regards to his concerns about earning an income - after all, every tradesman is entitled to a fair wage, and heaven knows I've had my own issues in recent times with regards to financial support for the online work that I do but, to be honest, I have to say that people moving to RSS to read content can only be a good thing, especially in the current threat environment of malicious advertisments and web site hackings. With RSS, we don't have to worry as much about such dangers.
Why do I say "as much"? Because I'm not 100% certain of the potential threat environment of RSS - it is something worth taking a closer look at.
Unfortunately, advertisements are slowly appearing in RSS feeds, but as far as I know they don't bring with them the risks associated with more traditional advertising.
So here's a question for those of you who use RSS - do you use it for convenience sake? How much of your preference for RSS comes from the fact that you can avoid so much advertising content? There are no pop-ups, few banner ads, we don't need to worry about being hit by an iframe hack or (I think) malicious banner advertisements. Note, that I am uncertain about the potential risk posed by advertisements in RSS feeds.