I wish they had been good reasons but I have to side with Steve Rubel.  He seems to get what communication in a dynamic medium is all about better than Pamela Seiple.

That seems very ironic to me.

Disagree. Basing a decision like that on the belief that the +1 button is a "game-changer" is borderline preposterous.

Ok I didn't make it through the whole story, but did he miss Google's recent authorship post  making it an option to link profiles of an author across the web??

Steve seems to be talking about the general move by Google to consider social signals and cites the plus 1 button only as an example.

He seems to have thought things through and I guess it depends on what he's trying to achive http://www.steverubel.me/post/6070334427/why-i-adopted-a-scorched-earth-policy-dismantled-two

To me he could have at least tried to take the value of the old posts:

"With just two clicks of a mouse I rid the web of literally thousands of blog posts, some of which I am proud of - others less so - and redirected the URLs to the new site."

He seems to have 301 redirected all pages to the http://www.steverubel.me url.

Wow. I used to think Steve Rubel was intelligent. What a crazy messed up thing to do.

Well deleting blog posts that are already indexed and getting traffic could be a bad move, especially when bigger websites tend to do better than smaller ones due to stronger internal linking because of more pages.

But you have to consider your readers, Archiving your blog posts seems a better idea.

And I seriously worry about the +1 button, if it really affects rankings, you know people will eventually sell you 1000 +1 hits. Not sure I like the idea.

Still I'm in agreement with Matt McGee, I don't think the +1 is going to be a game changer.