On IRC, it was suggested that if posting something was something that you would not be sure about talking to someone in the pub without them giving you a chance to shut up, then it should be put behind an lj-cut. I thought that this might be a sensible solution to the not-boring-people-with-revision thing, so I stuck them behind a cut. Discussion about what to do about people who didn't want to know about revision was clearly also something that the average reader wouldn't want to observe, so I stuck that behind a cut, too.
Now, looking back at the posts I've made in the past, I end up thinking that a goodly proportion of them should be behind cuts too, for containing games nargery, talking about boring 'today-I-did-this', for being unexplained rants.
And I start think to myself, why cut anything. Sure, if the post goes on for 2 pages, or it contains a picture that distorts the entire page, but otherwise?
When I read live-journal, what I do is scroll down my friends page, reading stuff as I find it. When I find a cut, I automatically open it, pretty much regardless of why it's supposed to be cutting stuff. [Admittedly, I'm a bit wary now with Emp's spleen pictures, but that's about it..]. All the LJ cut does is to make it more faff to read stuff that I would read anyway, forcing extra time to be spent openning windows here and there, destroying the narrative structure. Does it really serve a useful purpose?
In particular, if the post isn't interesting, I'm can't really see how sticking it behind a cut will really save the day. The casual reader will ignore the post anyway. The compulsive reader will read it regardless. It'll save a marginal amount of effort when re-skimming through posts, but is it really worth the initial cost?
On balance, I'm not sure that it is.
[Of course, since this is hidden behind a cut, I'm going to get a hugely biased set of readers ;)]