Thursday, January 31, 2013

Feed URLs for blog categories

This is a purely technical blog entry. Magnus Andersson asked me to create a feed with the climate articles only.

Google reader: string theory blogBlog posts on this blog are assigned several categories or labels – see "other texts on similar topics" beneath each post or the list of categories or labels in the right sidebar. This feature only appears in the widget-heavy, green template, not in the mobile one.

If you have a favorite category, you may find its feed at URLs such as records
The second URL was mentioned to show that spaces may be included in the URLs. If your browser happens to have problems with spaces, replace each with %20

(I couldn't add the period after the last sentence because it would be misleading.)

Your humble correspondent has created a Feedburner copy of the climate feed – in a new format – on a special URL.

The Feedburner climate feed URL is at
If you want another category to be put on Feedburner, let me know. The Feedburner version of the blog-wide Disqus comment feed has also been created.

I don't expect the number of subscribers to these feeds to reach a number similar to the number of subscribers for the main TRF feed which is about 17,000 right now (16,000 out of it is via Google Feedfetcher) so it may be a waste of time to preemptively prepare too many feeds.

Let me mention that in the right sidebar of the widget-heavy, green template, you find several colorful feed icons such as
Google reader: string theory blog Findory: one sentence from each article of this blog physics blog feed physics blog comment feed Lubos Motl Twitter
which link to assorted feeds with or without Google Reader (add right before the http URL of the feed), feeds for Disqus (whole blog), Twitter (whole blog: I am de facto not using Twitter for anything else aside from the automatic alerts to blog articles), and so on. Try to hover over the icons or click at them to see what they do.

If you don't know what feeds are and who is actually feeding whom by what, don't worry: the video above explains it.

Also, at the bottom of the Disqus comment section of each blog entry, there is a special "comment feed" for that article as well as "subscribe via e-mail" (try to click it, may be undone by another click on the same link). You will also subscribe to the feeds (or via e-mail?) if you star a discussion.


  1. Huff huff! I've developed a strong habit and hunger for consuming TRF-articles 'the natural way', and on my own, so I most certainly don't need to be forced to Feed on them!


  2. disqus_Nj3K4sP4mjFeb 3, 2013, 7:59:00 PM

    Hey Motl,
    Would it be possible to get such a feed for the physics cathegory? I'd be very interested in such a feed so that I wouldn't have manualy dig your nice physics posts out of the rest of the lunatic rants.
    Thank you.

  3. As this is a physics blog from the beginning to the end and all issues are discussed from a physics viewpoint, the "physics category" is the whole blog.

    I really don't know what is the character of the subset of posts that you prefer, why don't you try to localize the category or categories shared by the posts you like?

  4. disqus_Nj3K4sP4mjFeb 6, 2013, 9:47:00 AM

    First off, it's not true that everything in this blog is discussed from a physics viewpoint. You manage that in things like global warming, but not in things like policy. You can't help your own biases even if you don't recognize them.

    In any case, I meant things traditionally labeled as physics.

    Yes, I could try to localize such category, but that wouldn't give me a feed. I'm visiting this blog less and less because the physics/meaningless rants ratio is shrinking to the point where manually checking the website for updates is starting to be not worth my time.

  5. That's a great decision of yours. I don't even know what's your (nick)name but what I do know is that you are a giant pain in the ass.

  6. What would be the blog feed for the "string vacua and phenomenology" category?

    Thank you!

  7. I supposed it was self-evident from the other examples, but OK, for you: