Okay...

[conuly]

I know I post a *lot* of links. In fact, that's the bulk of my posts. The more I read, the more I try to lump them together, but I'm afraid that the more I lump them together, the less likely any link will be read, and I'm not posting them entirely for my own edification. And I can't just comment on all of the links, my sarcasm sense would burn out fast.

So. Um. About how many links have to be in a post before your eyes glaze over and you click on none of them? This isn't a poll, just a question.

Edit: What about if I stored up most of my links every day, and posted them in one swell foop, in a post divided into neat categories like "Civil rights" and "Politics" and "Reproductive rights" and stuff like that? There'd still be a lot of links, but it'd be easier to find the ones you're interested in, and I'd still be reducing the sheer volume of posts I make every day.

Comments

[conuly]

I mostly only do that with articles where you have to be a member of the site to view them. The problem with those is that the more of them I have, the more entries I ultimately have to post, because there's a character limit for entries.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Right, that makes sense. What's more, probably the news sites would rather have people view their content on their pages, because they want you to see their ads.

I guess I wouldn't recommend copying more articles, then. My observations were more pure observations than suggestions anyway.