Another blogger posted a poll, asking "how many posts/week" would be good (for that blog). One of the comments said that more than two/week felt like spam, even with RSS.
That got me thinking. Yesterday, I posted three times in one hour. Not long, provocative posts but still: three. Last week, I posted twice, while the week before nine times (and I'm stopping the count there). Is this too much? The purpose behind this blog wasn't necessarily to inform, or entertain, or enlighten - it was to serve as an outlet for miscellaneous musings and rants and whatnot and alleviate e-mail "spam" sent to various friends and colleagues.
You see, not every piece of writing is important and not every thought needs to be shared. Here, in blog format, you the reader choose to visit and read (or not). If I were to send you an e-mail, you'd probably feel obligated to at least open it, if not respond to it. Here, you don't have to respond and if you choose not to read, that's fine.
One could suggest that I've got nothing of import to say/share/post most of the time, that I don't need to have a blog because, after all, who am I? And one might be right. It might be better for me to have a private diary, recording these things for my own personal re-reading. It might also be better for me - for many of us - not to blog as often, not to rant as publically, not to "bother" the masses with all the mental clutterdumps that seem to be the majority of posts on blogs.
Perhaps I'll save my posts for the Really Big Stuff. Perhaps not. The commenter's point about blogpostspam is something to consider.