Sorry, I am fresh, but I can still receive only 20 posts for each feed. (I am trying the online service.)

Thanks for implementing this; I appreciate it.

(I should point out though that sometimes 100 is still not enough. For instance, the weekly post numbers for PNAS in the last few weeks were 83, 110, 101, 89, and 94.)

We are happy to announce that we have improved our feed update procedures and The Old Reader should now be fetching up to 100 posts per feed at once. This should resolve any issues with scientific journals that get updated every so often with large number of posts.

This is an essential feature for me to continue using Old Reader.

I really like the Old Reader and have found no other satisfactory alternative to Google Reader, so this limitation is really disappointing since it makes the reader useless to me. I have to keep track of e.g. Nature on the side which is what I want to avoid by using a feed reader in the first place. It would be great to know if this will change or not? I assume it is a compute power limitation?

I agree. This is a terrible limitation. The main reason I used Google Reader was to keep track of journal articles. PNAS, Nature and Science specifically add all their articles in a batch, once a week (typically 70-120 articles), and if the Old Reader can't access them all I'd have to move away. Which is a shame because in all other respects it's an excellent service.

Definitely helpful. For example, Nature provides around 70 articles every Thursday in one batch but only 20 appear in the Reader. A lot of scientific journals publish more than 20 articles at a time, so this would make life much easier.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the info!

@Christian: you should not have any issues with your use case. When you subscribe to a new feed, we only parse first 20 posts, because most RSS feeds only contain 10-20 latest posts anyway. Additional posts are added to the feed as they are published, and we keep several hundred of latest posts for each active feed. We also keep liked/shared/commented posts indefinitely.

I agree. I often have massive backlogs (sometimes 200+ entries for some feeds with more activity) that I tend to sift through in larger sessions every now and then. Being able to keep only a fraction of these would be a dealbreaker for me.