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

[stagemanager.livejournal.com]

Three links per post I can handle. More than that, I skip to the next post (unless some particular word or concept catches my eye).

[jackshoegazer.livejournal.com]

I just scan them all for keywords of things I'm interested in. Not amount of them has caused the dreaded glaze.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I'd say that the idea you express in your edit is a good one. Link Sausage post, perhaps?

[ladyshrew.livejournal.com]

Put them in categories. And if you have a short blurb about them, do that. I'm a lot more likely to click if I think it "looks interesting."

And wtf does my keyboard keep switching to UK layout?! o_O

[conuly]

Go ahead :)

[stagemanager.livejournal.com]

In re: the edit; I think posting one link post each day would be great.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Um, no, I meant for *you* to make such a post.

[conuly]

Are you kidding me? What do you think all my massive posts of links are?

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Just as long as I know what they're about. Some days I'm all over reproductive rights -- some days if I think one more second about what is happening with them I will curl into a ball and cry, and would like to pass them over.

So I gotta know, especially if I am in a rush or not in a pleasant mood.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

On most (good) days when I have time, if it's a random assortment, I'll ignore more than two. If it's topics that I care about and/or can get involved in (animals, autism, etc.) then I'll read five or six.

I'm also much, much more likely to read if you've commented on them, because for me the whole point of being on LJ is input/interaction with neat people. (I have several news sites, so I can get dry info anywhere. :)

[dkmnow.livejournal.com]

Sausage gives me heartburn.

:-p

[polydad.livejournal.com]

I don't *always* do my homework, and its nice to have the latest links right there if I should happen to need 'em. You're the modern equivalent of the old-fashioned "clipping service." And thanks.

best,

Joel

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Actually, the links I most often read are the ones where you copied the text (with or without commentary) and lj-cut it. Part of the reason for that is because I like your page format a lot, and the newspapers' page formats very litte. I do read some of the other links as well, but fewer from the many-links-in-a-post posts.

However, from a purely aesthetic format, probably your suggestion would work a lot better. It's not like I can't read article links (just that I tend to read the lj-cutted ones instead), and it would mean less scrolling when looking to see what you've posted.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Adding to reply to your edit... I think that labeled sets would work -- perhaps use filters so people see what they want, too? (I've noticed a lot of my flist does this, and it is very helpful.)

It would be a bit more work for you, but it also would result in more people actually reading what you put up. (As it is, things do seem to get buried. I know that sometimes I see your link posts, mentally mark them as "get back to this later" then never do -- so even if they do contain something I care about, like the mother of the AS teen a while ago, since it's all a jumble I don't always follow through.)

Sorry for being so rambly...it's been two solid days of running medical errands with my mother after her lovely ER experience, and I am completely tired out. :-p

[conuly]

The problem with filters is that then my entries wouldn't be public.

Hm. Now, that's one way to use tags, if it could be possible... to filter on whose Friends lists the entries end up, without preventing anybody from seeing the entries once they visit your journal....

And don't be sorry. *hugs* I hope your mother is doing better.

[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.

[dkmnow.livejournal.com]

I'm glad for most of the articles you link to, when I read them. But I get overloaded very easily. On average, I can only handle 10-15 articles per day, and commondreams.org accounts for most of those.

When I post a link, I try to include a key quote or two. But then, posting anything at all slows me to a crawl. I rarely have the energy to do it. Likewise, when I see a long list of links, I just tend to shut down. Especially when I know I really should read them...

OTOH, redundancy seems to help. For example, when I've scanned the headlines at Common Dreams, and then check LJ and notice you linking to one of the same headlines, there's a far better than average chance that I'll actually get it read.

[strangelette.livejournal.com]

Actually whether or not I click on a link depends more on what I'm doing, how busy I am, or what kind of mood I'm in much more than it depends on how many you've posted or how many are in a post. I'm of the opinion that in your journal you should post in whatever format is most pleasing to you.

[dkmnow.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I'm much more likely to read an article behind a cut. I'm on dialup, as well as having a piddling 128MB of ROM. Most media sites are shamelessly gluttonous about bandwidth and memory.

I'd rather have unprotected sex with a dumpster than click on a Washington Post link.

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

It doesn't matter to me how many or how few links you post. I click on the ones that interest me, regardless of how many links you have posted in one day.

[xiggaroo.livejournal.com]

I second this.

[xxrosencrantzxx.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I only ever click on the ones you give an opinion on. It doesn't matter how many links are in an entry, if there's a synopsis, I'm 500 times more likely to look. A simple "link about abortion" tag or whatever never grabs my attention.


P.S. - I've read lots of awesome articles via your journal.

[feathered.livejournal.com]

I would find it much easier if they were all posted together rather than split up throughout the day. It sometimes annoys me ever so slightly that my friendslist is all your articles -- I have occassionally lost other peoples' posts within them. At the same time, I do read enough of your articles not to demand a filter or to filter you off my friendslist. Posting your links in one or two big posts a day would be a really neat way to solve my only issues with them, so I quite like the idea.

[concordantnexus.livejournal.com]

I'd prefer all the links in ONE post.

As it is, you're regularily managing to crowd out a 20 post section of friends' posts, which is kind of impressive giving how many people and comms I have on my f-list.

I've been meaning to mention it (haven't coz I don't want to offend you) but the crowding has almost made me defriend you on multiple occasions - I stick around however since every once in a while you post something that I find really useful, such as the permanent account sale by LJ.

[pne.livejournal.com]

As a rough guide, I'm less likely to click on links if there are more than two. I think. I haven't watched myself closely when I visit your journal.

I think the one-post-per-day,-categorised thing might work.

Mongoose.