Of course there is nothing morally wrong with having too many feeds–other than the gluttony and waste. Not willing to miss anything? 10 years ago, when we didn’t have blogs, were people walking around stupid unless they read 57 newpapers a day? Of course not. Blogs are supposed to make our lives EASIER not more inefficient.

How many of Robert’s (who was nice enough to comment) feeds are tech related? Is there even that much tech news?

To me, it’s nothing to be proud of having an overloaded and overlapping reader.

I go through my google reader at least once a month purging out the crap.

I myself are reading 578 blogfeeds, over the last 30 days I read 38.500 items. That brings me to the next point. You say you haven’t found 600 good websites. Maybe your interests differ from Robert and mine. If a feed starts getting redundant and derivative, unsubscribe, what do you think we do?

I think Robert is reading this many feeds because he ain’t willing to miss a news item.

I agree with you that, with the introduction of XML, RSS etc… (which should solve our information overload problem) the problem itself came bigger and bigger. The last year we produced more (partly) redundant info then books have been written the last 150 year. You’re the one that desides to add feeds to the feedreader, not the ones that are creating “news”.

For every blog there seems to be a target group, otherwise the’re doomed to die (sooner or later) The people who’re participating on the internet are behaving like they want to, they can be themselves, or they can create another identity for themselves. So, please stop educating those people. What’s wrong with what they”re doing, what’s wrong with reading so many feeds. Why do you want to call Robert an idiot (oh yeah, that makes me an idiot too ) I get your point, but think by yourself, who decided to add redundant articles, who decided to read all those blogs.