the pitchfork feed keeps showing me the same review 3 times and i finally figured out why

they change the guid every time they edit the post fix a typo, new guid. update the score blurb, new guid. so my reader thinks its a brand new item. https://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#ltguidgt

guid is supposed to be permanent. thats literally the whole point of it. but sure. i dump everything into s

lol yeah thats the guid thing exactly. permanent identifier my foot. some readers let you dedupe by link url instead, so if they keep the article url the same when they edit you only get it once. worth checking if yours has that setting somewhere

also a feed that cant even keep its own ID straight is having an identity crisis. intellectual humor. i dont make the rules

i guess the guid changes every time some editor fixes a typo, which happens a lot apparently... switching dedupe to link url fixed it for me too, until they started adding tracking parameters to the urls. so now i get teh same review once per utm tag. progress...

lol yeah thats the guid thing exactly.

dedupe by url works right up until they bolt tracking parameters onto every link and theyre all "new" again... i set my reader to strip utm stuff for that reason, which helps until some site decides to move its whole archive to a new slug format. at this point i just accept seeing the same article three times a week

lol wait so was it the utm thing or something else?? i want to know the actual culprit!! i'm guessing they're updating the guid every time someone edits the review... a lot of feeds do that when they fix a typo or add a score and boom, your reader thinks it's a brand new post

i forgot i even subscribed to pitchfork's feed until i saw this thread, which says a lot about how many feeds i have going... somewhere around 400 now and half are astronomy blogs i never read lol speaking of which, the orionids peak in a couple weeks!! those are bits of halley's comet, the same one that got blamed for everything in 1910 when people bought "comet pills" to protect themselves from the tail gas... anyway yeah, three copies of the same review kind of fits pitchfork lol. i'd honestly take it if it was a review of something obscure like duster or the microphones, at least then i'd have an excuse to reread it

400 feeds is WILD. i went through mine last spring and like a third of them hadnt posted since 2019. one was a guy who blogged about every dinosaur statue along route 66, and his last post was about the big fiberglass brontosaurus getting repainted. then nothing. i still check it sometimes im not ok

anyway the astronomy ones are probably fine to keep, they barely post so theyre not hurting anybody. pitchfork posting the same review 3 times is way more annoying