I think this really needs to be addressed. If a publisher opts out of being cached, then Newsblur should simply fallback on loading the page in an iFrame.
That way, the publisher still gets his ads loaded, and we still get easy/fast reading of our feeds. Allowing a publisher to reduce functionality of your paid client/service, IMHO, is unacceptable when there are simple workarounds that would make all parties happy.
From my reading of the FAQ, the reason the publishers are allowed to disable this is because the “original page” view does not actually load the original page, it loads a cached copy from Newsblur. According to the FAQ this is for “speed,” although I would not call that a positive of Newsblur right now.
This is why publishers disable it - the same reason some publishers remove their google cache. You may *see* the page the same, but your not hitting their servers - hitting their ad servers, upping their page view counts, etc. Of course they would disable this - any site that is already truncating RSS items of course wants the hit from your visit.
Which is why I have a problem with the way Newsblur handles this - why not actually frame the page? That way publishers can’t say no.
Or a mix of both. Keep the current system where the “Original Story” is a Newsblur cache, and if a publisher requests you stop caching, then make the “Original Story” a straight frame. Newsblur gets a cache, Publisher gets there hits if they want and I get my easy reading either way.
Thoughts?