HN

Need help?
<- Back
POSSE – Publish on your Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere

POSSE – Publish on your Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere

tosh

Comments (48)

  • rednafi
    I follow this religiously. The process of posting is manual but it works fairly well if your intention is good and you're not blog spamming in different forums.But I intentionally haven't added a comment section to my blog [1]. Mostly because I don't get paid to write there and addressing the comments - even the good ones - requires a ton of energy.Also, scaling the comment section is a pain. I had disqus integrated into my Hugo site but it became a mess when people started having actual discussion and the section got longer and longer.If the write ups are any useful, it generally appears here or reddit and I often link back those discussions in the articles. That's good enough for me.[1]: https://rednafi.com
  • tomhow
    Previously...Publish on your own site, syndicate elsewhere - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46468600 - Jan 2026 (248 comments)POSSE: Publish on your Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35636052 - April 2023 (70 comments)POSSE: Publish on your own site, syndicate elsewhere - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29115696 - Nov 2021 (43 comments)Publish on Your Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16663850 - March 2018 (26 comments)
  • nicbou
    I follow this approach. It's mostly because I want to own the land I build on.It works well, but it's hard to automate. In the end you must manually cross-post, and both the post and the discussion will vary by community. You end up being active in multiple different communities and still getting little traffic from the effort.It's not such a great way to drive traffic. On the other hand, it's a wonderful way to work in public.
  • taurusnoises
    As someone on the receiving end of POSSE, who is often on the multiple platforms people post to, this approach ends up feeling impersonal and spammy. I totally get the reasoning people have for doing it. But, to me, it's very "ship it" focused, rather than conversation focused. Maybe I'm just getting old.
  • merelysounds
    I do this, my site is in my profile description.However, I skip permashortlinks - I try to keep my regular links relevant and short. Also, I like seeing full links, they can often indicate what content awaits there - vs short links, which are more opaque.That's one more benefit of this workflow: it can be adjusted to fit one's personal preferences. I suppose others might prefer short links or maybe at some point I'll change my mind; with POSSE making these kind of changes is easy.
  • tfrancisl
    If I werent more critical, I would have read this as an astroturf by big tech sort of thing. Like "it's inevitable that big tech will win, and so therefore syndicate everywhere or you have lost the game." I dont really get what game we're playing though. Why do I care if my friend who only uses Facebook sees my blog posts? What do I get from that other than the feeling of a maybe-connection (much like their criticism of federated networks - youre hoping for a future where this works out for you.)I dont post on federated networks yet but I would rather share in my principles with those willing to listen than to throw up my hands and share my stuff everywhere.
  • janalsncm
    A cool feature for the small web would be:1. I like your blog and subscribe to its RSS2. I see new posts in my RSS reader with syndication links to (HN/reddit/twitter/etc).3. I can go to those places to talk about it.Low tech version is just linking to those discussions at the bottom of your post I guess.
  • matsemann
    I like when I read something, and it has links to the "main" discussion on HN/reddit/etc. Most blogs don't have a very active comment field, and if I'm reading it a few days late, it's nice to still be able to find other's thoughts on the matter.
  • cdrnsf
    I built a syndication service for my site, though it only supports Mastodon. Each supported type has a toggle to syndicate out and, on success, a timestamp is displayed to note when it was syndicated after which the toggle is also displayed.There's an RSS and JSON feed for each collection and a combined feed as well.
  • benwerd
    I love it when this shows up from time to time. Everyone should own their own content! And the indieweb community and its underlying philosophy are worth celebrating.If you haven't, you should try to get to a Homebrew Website Club. Go talk to people about making your own, weird spot on the web that truly represents you. It'll make you feel great about technology again, I promise.
  • tomaytotomato
    I've always liked this idea.However I am not sure about "perma-shortlinks", for discovery on other sites as the means of networking and discovering content. It seems clunky to maintain as it requires a human or some automation to curate/maintain the links. If a blog removes a link to another blog, then that pathway is closed.It would be cool if we could solve that with a "DNS for tags/topics" a - Domain Content Server (DCS) e.g.1. tomaytotomato.com ==> publishes to the DCS of topics (tech, java, travel)2. DCS adds domain to those topics3. Rating or evaluating of the content on website based on those tags (not sure the mechanics here, but it could be exploited or gamed)You could have several DCS for topics servers run by organisations or individuals.e.g. the Lobsters DNS for topics server would be really fussy about #tech or #computerscience blog posts, and would self select for more high brow stuffMeanwhile a more casual tech group would score content higher for Youtube content or Toms Hardware articles.This is just spit balling.
  • CrociDB
    I think it's funny that "POSSE" in Portuguese means "ownership". :)
  • ui301
    RSS is a refreshingly simple way (and thus, trustworthy) of taking back control over what we see in a world of algorithmic "curation" (i.e. mixing in ads and manipulation, and taking away things that would interest us).
  • MrOrelliOReilly
    I like the principle, but I also find that we software folk commonly mistake the creation of a website as the goal, rather than the production of "content" (e.g. blog posts). I spent years trying to publish a blog and continually getting derailed building the ultimate static website. Recently I switched to a Substack hosted on my own subdomain, and now I'm finally writing. At least I still own the subdomain.
  • OuterVale
    I follow the opposite with PESOS: Publish Elsewhere, Syndicate (to your) Own Site. Work really nicely as I've got some automation and systems in place that allow me to maintain a full firehose of all my posts and notable actions across the web on my own site. Then I can sort through them and reference them (which I do frequently) with ease. I do recommend.
  • sdoering
    Interesting that the article missed POSSE party by Justin Searls [1] in their tools section.[1]: https://github.com/searlsco/posse_party
  • maelito
    Strange to not see the "atproto" term on that page.
  • kleiba
    Nice that we have a name now for something that's pretty much standard and common practice. Not that we necessarily needed a name, but it's still nice to have one.
  • theshrike79
    I don't post stuff on a blog, but I do have replies to common arguments written down in Obsidian. I can just copy stuff from there, edit a bit and post.
  • jacknews
    Recommended stack for this? Wordpress?I can immediately some problems to do with content formats. Fro example, facebook lets you have a 'montage' of photos, but instagram only shows one. The music available is heavily restricted on different platforms. Video length limits are different. Etc.Does any software let you make a main post on your own site, but then render differently to the silos?
  • cubefox
    I wonder whether this actually works:> Q: Do we need to worry about search engines penalizing apparently duplicate posts?> A: That's why the POSSE copies SHOULD always link back to the originals. So that search engines can infer that the copies are just copies. Ideally POSSE copies on silos should use rel-canonical to link back to the originals, but even without explicit rel-canonical, the explicit link back to the original is a strong hint that it is an original.
  • leontloveless
    [dead]
  • aledevv
    [dead]
  • nclin_
    [flagged]
  • throwingcookies
    [flagged]