Who's wrong? antenna or guardian?

[cos]

Late to the game, I had a similar reaction as ByteHamster. There is really no need at all mentioning AntennaPod when contacting a provider about their broken feed. Anything that might bring the recipients mind away from what is relevant will risk causing confusion. The usable bandwidth is limited, treat it as a sparse resource. A successful message likely needs to focus fully on the point needed to get across.

[keunes]

Any concrete change suggestions to the text I proposed above, @cos? For me mentioning the app you’re using (as a user) makes sense, and I feel in the text I suggested it is not ‘too much AntennaPod’.

[cos]

Oh yes, it does feel right to mention AntennaPod. If the aim however is to get the provider to act, I believe one does best in suppress expressing ones heart and instead limit the communication to what is strictly necessary.

I’ve attempted to edit what was already written here, with a few changes. Including the complete removal of any reference to AntennaPod, making it clear the sender is only representing him or herself, and an attempt at actually motivating why it is in the providers interest to care. This suggestion could probably use a few more rounds of editing by others.

Dear [insert feed provider],

I am an individual who encountered a technical error which I would like to
report regarding the feed for your podcast [insert title]. It appears that
for at least one episode two variants are incorrectly listed with the same
identifier.

You can observe the issue yourself by entering your feed's URL into a feed
validator, such as <https://validator.w3.org/feed> or
<https://www.castfeedvalidator.com>. Relevant deep links:
[w3.org validator](https://validator.w3.org/feed/check.cgi?url=[insert feed URL])
[castfeedvalidator](https://www.castfeedvalidator.com/?url=[insert feed URL]).

The faulty feed makes it impossible for software to distinguish the correct 
one. While this might work much of the time, it can also break things in
subtle ways. For example, it might lead to some subscribers listening to
the outdated version of any episode you have edited to include a correction,
or it might lead to decreased visibility in search engine results.

Apple is the entity who originally designed the podcast specifications now
adopted by the entire world. The relevant except from their document is
quoted below:

> Each episode in your podcast has a globally unique identifier (GUID).
> It's very important that each episode has a unique, alphanumeric GUID
> that never changes, even if an episode’s metadata, like title or
> enclosure URL, do change.

It would be great if you could address the issue. In case you need
additional information to resolve this, please let me know.

Kind regards,
[insert your name]

[loucasal]

I am seeing a more practical issue with the current message. I ran one of my problematic feeds through the linked feed validators, but neither reports the issue identified by AntennaPod (even though they do report other ones). Has anyone else had the same experience? Perhaps we should get rid of that paragraph if it doesn’t help users prove their point?