Relax Planet Drupal feed item frequency requirements

Feeds are required to have posts created in the past three months and three weeks because older articles are not even added to Planet Drupal and posts are automatically discarded after three months and three weeks.

Without those requirements, somebody could ask to add a feed with articles that will never appear on Planet Drupal, or somebody could ask to add a no longer active feed without adding new articles. In neither those cases the feeds should be added.

Thanks for a fast reply, but my proposal does cover this aspect:

... at least one post created within the last three months.

Your feed must have three posts already and at least one post created within the last three months means a feed could be asked to be added to Planet Drupal in June and have an article created on March and two articles older than three months and three weeks, which would also mean that, after three weeks, no article would be visible on Planet Drupal.

Sure, but I don't see that as a problem. It's up to the blogger to keep producing articles, and get shown at the top of Planet Drupal. Also, in reality, it's the first page which is important, and the exposure of getting shown at the top. The number of users who proceed to page 2, 3, and 4 are probably not many, is my assumption ...

For what I recall, 10 articles from the same feed have never appeared on the first page.
If it happens because a site publishes 12 different articles in a week, I do not see that as a problem because we should incentivate good articles on Planet Drupal, or Planet Drupal will "die."
If it happens because an issue on how a feed is generated from a site, single articles can be removed, or the feed can be suspended until the issue is resolved. There is no need to put a limit that is then valid for every feed on Planet Drupal.

A limit basing on how many articles from the same feed appears on the first page of https://www.drupal.org/planet → , https://www.drupal.org/planeta → , or https://www.drupal.org/planet/chinese → makes less sense.

What should article's authors do before publishing an article? Check https://www.drupal.org/planet → and wait somebody else publish an article?
What should be done when there are more than 10 articles from the same feed on the first page of Planet Drupal or any regional variant?

Just to weigh in, I think this discussion arises from my requirement to be featured on Drupal Planet, see https://www.drupal.org/project/content/issues/3505650 📌 Add idiazroncero.com to Planet Drupal Active

The issue here is that my way of blogging about Drupal is to write 1/2 posts a year, but these posts are very thorough and detailed (usually coming from DrupalCon or Camp presentations). My latest post, for example, is a 15+ minutes deep dive on Drupal placeholders. I intend to keep it that way as it is my preferred way to contribute to the Drupal community, and I prefer long, detailed content over smaller formats (which of couse I also find useful and interesting).

I am nevertheless not in compliance with Planet Drupal rules, as this is the only post on the last three months. I think we can agree that it is a pity that high-quality, low-frequency posters are left behind by the rules as they stand right now.

As they are right now; Planet Drupal requirements seem to focus on just frequency.

Thanks for sharing @idiaz.roncero, I have thought about adding use cases to the Issue Summary, and your comment gave me the push to do it.

I am nevertheless not in compliance with Planet Drupal rules, as this is the only post on the last three months.

Actually, there are two articles posted on October, 2024.

The requirements are not all about frequency, but how much articles would be visible in the feed once added to Planet Drupal, and which of them are appropriate for Planet Drupal. Then, the requirements say that a feed no longer updated is removed.

Also, as a side note, the status of 📌 Add idiazroncero.com to Planet Drupal Active is not yet Fixed, but not because any requirement for the post frequency.

The requirements are not all about frequency, but how much articles would be visible in the feed once added to Planet Drupal [...]

As an end user, I don't care too much about that. As an end user, it's the front page that really matters, so this shouldn't be the foundation for a evaluation, in my opinion.

Have you seen the three use cases I have in the Issue summary? Perhpa we can use use those as foundation for evaluation criteria?

None of those cases are about relaxing feed item frequency requirements, which actually are not even present in the Planet Drupal requirements. In fact, none of the requirements says there must be a new article every X days/months.

It feels like you are derailing the aim of the issue.

No, it's this issue that is asking to remove something the Planet Drupal guidelines do not require.

The Planet Drupal feed item frequency requirements are a bit limiting, since not everyone posts very frequently.

May you point out where the requirements say there must be a new article every X months/days?

Maybe I worded it wrongly and maybe frequency is not the correct word?

Anyway, my point is to relax the current requirements, which requires more and recent content ("two posts" and "past 30 days") to allow older and less content to qualify for acceptance ("one post" and "last three months").

Two articles are already a compromise between the reviewers need, who would at least need three articles to be able to understand which type of articles the feed is going to publish, and the people who post articles, who asked for less articles to be necessary for a feed to be added. Since that is the reached compromise, that would not be touched.

The requirements do not say that those two articles must be created in the past 30 days, but that they should be (preferably) created in the past 30 days or in the past three months and three weeks.

The reason to prefer articles created in the past 30 days are at least two:

• There is plenty of time to review the feed before the articles are no longer visible on Planet Drupal because they are removed from the Aggregator module, or they are not even added from the Aggregator module
• Articles created in the past 30 days (and not three months ago) show the intention to keep adding new articles

Ideally, there should be something similar to https://www.drupal.org/project/coding_standards → for a situation such as this, to democratically let the community decide, if a proposal to change Planet Drupal rules should be adopted.

Moving it to the "Coding Standards" issue queue doesn't seem quite right, but as a middle way, supporters could share if they support the proposal?

So adding this in the Issue Summary :)

Supporters of the proposal

1. https://www.drupal.org/u/ → {userid} (yyyy-mm-dd they added support)
2. https://www.drupal.org/u/ → {userid} (yyyy-mm-dd they added support)
3. https://www.drupal.org/u/ → {userid} (yyyy-mm-dd they added support)

Having now taken a closer look at the history of the requirements page, I now realize that the frequency rule used be even more short and precise than my proposal, and that it has ballooned during multiple revisions from August 2024, going forward.

So my proposal is simply to restore the wording to what it was on June 11 2024 https://www.drupal.org/node/453640/revisions/13598004/view: →

2. Your feed must have at least two posts already so we can evaluate the content and make sure it is appropriate for the Planet.
3. Your feed must pass source code validation [...]

I have updated the issue Summary.

@avpaderno, why did you delete my Issue Summary update, and reverted to an old version?

Operations 30 Jun 2025 at 23:25 CEST by avpaderno
Copy of the revision from 29 Jun 2025 at 21:39 CEST.

I updated the Issue Summary to the below, but you removed it last night. This is not a great situation to say the least, because it makes it look like you are covering your tracks ...

Problem/Motivation

New Planet Drupal feed item frequency requirements → were added 7 Aug 2024 (and expanded going forward) that are fairly limiting, since not everyone posts very frequently:

2. Your feed must have at least two posts already, created (preferably) the past 30 days or in the past three months and three weeks. This allows to evaluate the content, make sure it is appropriate for Planet Drupal, make sure the feed has sufficiently recent content, and show the feed is kept updated with new articles. (The Aggregator module discards articles older than three months and three weeks.)

3. Your feed must pass source code validation [...]

The original wording 11 June 2024, where there is no time period limit:

2. Your feed must have at least two posts already so we can evaluate the content and make sure it is appropriate for the Planet.

3. Your feed must pass source code validation [...]

From https://www.drupal.org/node/453640/revisions/13598004/view →

Steps to reproduce

Review an application for Planet Drupal, see that the content is great but fails the current feed item requirements, starting August 2024 (and then expanded to the current wording).

Proposed resolution

Based on these use cases, revert the requirements to June 2024 wording:

• As a user of Planet Drupal, I want to read rich and interesting articles, deep dives into Drupal, as well as shorter, more shallow articles. It's nice to have a variety of article styles, something deep, and something short.

• As an applicant for Planet Drupal inclusion, being an author of rich and interesting articles about Drupal, I want to be able to meet the requirements, even if I don't publish very often, yet with articles of very high quality.

• As a an applicant for Planet Drupal inclusion, I want to be able to read the Planet Drupal requirements and immediately understand them.

Proposal:

Restore the wording to what it was on 11 June 2024 → .

From:

2. Your feed must have at least two posts already, created (preferably) the past 30 days or in the past three months and three weeks. This allows to evaluate the content, make sure it is appropriate for Planet Drupal, make sure the feed has sufficiently recent content, and show the feed is kept updated with new articles. (The Aggregator module discards articles older than three months and three weeks.)

To:

2. Your feed must have at least two posts already so we can evaluate the content and make sure it is appropriate for the Planet.

Supporters of the proposal

1. https://www.drupal.org/u/ressa → (2025-06-29)
2. https://www.drupal.org/u/ → {userid} (yyyy-mm-dd they added support)
3. https://www.drupal.org/u/ → {userid} (yyyy-mm-dd they added support)

Remaining tasks

User interface changes

API changes

Data model changes

There should not need to explain that: An issue topic cannot be changed after 16 comments; if you changed your mind, a new issue needs to be open and the old one closed.

Also, I did not delete anything: I reverted the issue summary to the previous revising, which is not hiding anything, since revisions are visible to everybody with an account on drupal.org.

Let's stop accusing people; let's focus on the topic.

It seems to me like you just made another rule. Where is it written that "The Issue Summary cannot be revised after 16 comments"?

And I didn't change my mind, or take the issue in a new direction: I realized that the original wording a year ago June 2024 was perfect, so I refined the Issue Summary to reflect that, making minor adjustments.

You changed what the issue summary said, making all the posted comments "non sense." Why should there be a comment saying "Feeds are required to have posts created in the past three months and three weeks because older articles are not even added to Planet Drupal and posts are automatically discarded after three months and three weeks." for an issue that does not ask to remove that requirement?

It is not a rule I invented: It is common sense.

I am sorry if you take this as an accusation, but looking at this objectively, facts are being distorted, and this is what happened:

• My Issue Summary update was deleted
• My Issue Summary update was a minor adjustment, and the proposal more or less the same, comparing the two versions →

It would help with some outside input, and luckily we have another person in the issue :)

@idiaz.roncero what do you think? Do you also think that my Issue Summary update changed the aim of the issue so much that a new issue is required?

Can we just sto doing false claims about what it has been done? No, nothing has been deleted: The View history tab has link to revert a previous revision.

Well, my update is certainly no longer in the issue Summary, so it has been deleted from the Issue Summary.

Anyway, I think you and me should refrain from posting here again, until another person takes a look at this.

I hope @idiaz.roncero -- or someone else -- can take a look at this issue, and check if my Issue Summary update changed the aim of the issue so much that a new issue is required.

Still, Why did you delete my Issue Summary update? is asking why I did something I did not do.
If at least the question were Why was the issue summary reverted? it would not have been an accusation.

Also, Postponed is the wrong status, as that would mean "Please ignore this issue for the forthcoming future."

You changed the issue summary to suggest a change in the guidelines to

2. Your feed must have three posts already, so we can evaluate the content, and at least one post created within the last three months.

The review I reverted suggested a change in the guidelines to:

2. Your feed must have at least two posts already so we can evaluate the content and make sure it is appropriate for the Planet.

Also, the following sentences have different meanings.

It's also quite wordy, and I think the text can be tightened up, since the important parts may get glossed over.

Restore the wording to what it was on 11 June 2024.

Did the edit change the meaning of the issue? Yes, it did.

Please, we need to cool down, both of us. Let's have someone else look it over, all right?

Furthermore, in this issue queue, there is no requirement for a task / feature request to have at least three supporters; there is no need for the issue summary to show who supports the proposed change.

My intention with this issue was basically just to get more blog posts on Planet Drupal, but has sadly taken a negative direction, so I am closing it.