Today I was reminded of why I don't take people off my reading or access lists after they haven't posted for X amount of time: it means I'll see it if/when someone comes back and posts again, which does happen.
So very much this! It was many years ago that I first saw someone saying they had "cleaned up" their reading list, deleting folk who hadn't posted in a long time, and I was confused, because at that point the only "friends" I had on LiveJournal (where we were at the time) were people I knew in real life, cared deeply about, and missed very much as they were in the states, and I was in Tasmania. No way was I willing to risk missing a once-in-forever "this is what I have been up to" post. Now I have a few people on my reading list that I haven't met in person, but they are friends of people I know in real life, and if I enjoyed reading their posts when they were actively posting, I will still enjoy it when they come back. Neither do I see any point in deleting the few I knew who are no longer alive. One never knows when one might like to go back and read their old posts...
Also, I suppose maybe I have different priorities, but if people aren't posting, what difference does removing them from one's reading list actually make? It doesn't change what posts are on the reading page. Cleaning that up, for me, would be about removing prolific posters whose posts I no longer enjoy reading.
I've removed people for other reasons, either no longer wanting to read what they said, or in a couple of cases no longer feeling comfortable sharing that much about my life with them. But there's no shortage of electrons, and it costs me nothing to have something visible to 100 people rather than 50. (I have a seed account here, but that would also be true if I was paying X amount per year, or of course if I was using a free account.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From:
This!
From:
Re: This!
From:
Re: This!