>If you have unread items going back for more than a year, chances are you are adding more to the list than you are removing.
I think you're missing the point and stuck in the use case of these tools as simple bookmarks or reading lists.
I have little reason to remove anything, ever. It's all being stored for free/negligible cost. I can reference it whenever and wherever I like.
>In the case that you need that knowledge again, you just dig it up on google (if you can remember it).
Right, I can search Google's index how ever many billion pages, hoping that what I want still exists online and that I can remember something specific enough about it to filter the specific needle I want out of the world's largest haystack.
Alternatively, I can just search the store described above which holds point in time copies of the relatively tiny subset of things I've actually seen or at least found interesting in the past. I can use utterly generic, half remember descriptions like "database" and get just a few matches rather than the 764,000,000 of Google.
>Might not be true for you, but i am sure its pretty common behaviour.
That's fine, I understand how people might choose to use these service differently than I do.
This tangent started with mtgx claiming an inability to understand why anyone would care about longevity or keep years of data in such tools.
I think you're missing the point and stuck in the use case of these tools as simple bookmarks or reading lists.
I have little reason to remove anything, ever. It's all being stored for free/negligible cost. I can reference it whenever and wherever I like.
>In the case that you need that knowledge again, you just dig it up on google (if you can remember it).
Right, I can search Google's index how ever many billion pages, hoping that what I want still exists online and that I can remember something specific enough about it to filter the specific needle I want out of the world's largest haystack.
Alternatively, I can just search the store described above which holds point in time copies of the relatively tiny subset of things I've actually seen or at least found interesting in the past. I can use utterly generic, half remember descriptions like "database" and get just a few matches rather than the 764,000,000 of Google.
>Might not be true for you, but i am sure its pretty common behaviour.
That's fine, I understand how people might choose to use these service differently than I do.
This tangent started with mtgx claiming an inability to understand why anyone would care about longevity or keep years of data in such tools.
I'm trying to help with that understanding.