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

[raleighj.livejournal.com]

Actually, it doesn't have to be commentary, per se -- even just one sentence works for me. "Look at this cool article! ::hugs::" next to the link for "Cute Albino Panda Bears" works 50 times better than just the link. (Though, actually, I'd probably check out albino panda bears in either case... "Evil article! What the heck were these people thinking? ::headwall::" next to a link for "Gay Rights Law Struck Down" would be a better example).