So are you saying that the problem is that you want everything to be in a single "river of news", but that this means that low volume feed items get lost? To me, this is more of an issue with social networking than RSS: with Reader, you can examine feeds separately if you want.
IMO, that's exactly why Reader exists - structure and creating personal consumption patterns. Social networking is useless for that, it's like recommending replacing a library with a disco pub. Disco pubs are fine places, lots of fun to be had there, but recommending it as a substitute for the library is crazy. RSS/Reader is completely different use case.
Ok, "personal consumption patterns" now means the authors I want to get updated about. A better analogy would be subscribing to see what an author publishes and subscribing to hear about what everyone is reading; sure, you get a lot of noise but is way more opening and less self-centered. And if you happen to like a lot of authors you get more focus in the ones that are more likely to be of your enjoyment because people like you are working as a quality filter.
I like self-centered. I don't want to read what everyone is reading, I want to read what interests me. If I'd want to know what everyone is reading, I can subscribe to one feed of "what everyone is reading". Why would I rely on "people like me" to be a filter if I have the best option - me - and I already have these filters set up in a way that suits me?
I of course do not refuse input of others - I read dozens of blogs. But I want to do it my way, not as a dump which mixes discussion on a national budget with pictures of somebody's half-eaten breakfast.
