Please do not use Feedburner service

I debunked this months ago here on Hacker News: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4215474" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4215474</a><p>Here's more info: <a href="http://support.google.com/feedburner/answer/79590?hl=en" rel="nofollow">http://support.google.com/feedburner/answer/79590?hl=en</a><p>The short version is that FeedBurner has a free feature called MyBrand which serves your feeds from a CNAME of your own domain. Then if you choose to leave FeedBurner, you still have full control of your feeds and permalinks. I set it up on my own domain years ago as feeds.mattcutts.com, for example.<p>I think this free feature of FeedBurner is one that everyone should use so that you keep feeds under your own control and served off your own domain.

Two minute search: <a href="http://www.wangarific.com/how-to-get-rid-of-feedproxy-links-in-your-rss-feed/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wangarific.com/how-to-get-rid-of-feedproxy-links-...</a><p>TL;DR: disable click tracking.

It seems weird that he uses blog-centric companies (TechCrunch, etc) as examples of companies that do, and non-blog-centric companies (GitHub, etc) as examples that don't.<p>TechCrunch/etc cares about the statistics FeedBurner offers since that is their core product, whereas GitHub/etc probably don't care that much.

Why? Just because every other time people gave complete control over their data and content it turned out be a bad idea and the the internet itself was invented to avoid this problem?<p>But it's different now, the companies involved are the ones I've read about since I was young and are therefore trustworthy and permanent. I know older people thought the same thing and turned out to be wrong every single time, but this time it's different. Why is it different? Uh ... I'll get back to you on that.

The same applies to all of the link shorteners too. I've often wondered how much of the web would break if TinyUrl and Bit.ly closed.

For a serious blogger, Feedburner is a great way to reduce the traffic on your server. Many RSS readers are poorly developed and will hammer your server for no reason. Jeff Atwood wrote a great article about this a while back: <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/reducing-your-websites-bandwidth-usage.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/reducing-your-websi...</a>

This is a bit of an old discussion.<p>I think it's a fair tradeoff for content-centric companies to have feedburner (now google) rewrite those links to get some very useful stats in return. This was already happening pre-acquisition and only got better afterwards.<p>Links get indexed quicker and get submitted to reader / google news for free.

Is there some kind of analytics service that google provides with this? If so, can you turn it off?

I've never seen this happen -- at least with CNAME'd feeds. Can anyone else confirm?

I prefer Feedburner links because all they do is redirect. I have no problems with the t.co redirect that Twitter has. It's the same thing.

By all means provide an RSS feed on your site. But Feedburner can help get your pages indexed in Google (and other search engines).

Does anyone have any experience with some FeedBurner competitors that they'd recommend? I'd be happy to pay.

Zero evidence, no credible reason not to use it. Suggesting that Google might sell feedburner to someone who then shuts it down is laughable.