I did propose a solution - open them as you need them and close them when you're done.
That's not a solution, that's what we do already. That's what everyone does.
What really confuses me is you exclaiming that this is something you do like it is some grand achievement.
Let's use Slashdot as an example. So according to the description given they (and presumably you) open the main page. You then scroll through, reading and opening things in new tabs as you see fit, and then go to those new tabs and read those, correct? Except, by the time you've done this there have been all sorts of people who may have (or might not have) commented. By the time you get to the last Slashdot tab you opened you're quite late to the content and not viewing the more up-to-date conversation unless you refresh which is just silly because you could have saved yourself the effort and viewed each one, one at a time.
I'm really not getting it. You appear to be arguing, if I understand this correctly, that because an article might be slightly out of date by the time we get around to reading it, that we must - because somehow we know that we'll read it one day later - decide it would be better not to read it at all than to risk the chance we might have to hit the Refresh button to get the latest version.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm just letting you know that there's a better way that lets you interact with pages in a more timely fashion and with far less confusion than needing more tabs open than you can possibly read the titles for.
You haven't proposed one.
Thus far, your latest screed argues that we should do exactly what we're doing already (closing tabs once we're done with them), and that somehow what we're doing already is the worst thing ever because we might have to hit the Refresh button by the time we look at the tab.
One is not actually telling us there's a "better way", the other is simply criticizing us over something so obviously pathetic I can't even fathom why you'd bring it up.
Perhaps you have a strange definition of trolling?
It's borderline trolling because you're immediately launching into an attack without even trying to determine why someone is doing what they're doing. It's like "Look at those stupid people writing numbers and squiggly lines on chalkboards! Don't then know that if they want to exercise their arms dumbbells would build up their muscles far more quickly?"
"I open 400 browser tabs at once!" This is not a viable solution to a mere mortal.
Nobody has 400 browser tabs, the fact you feel the need to exaggerate already should tell you you're on the wrong path. As to your complaint that I accused you, you poor delicate flower, of trolling when you have no interest in how I work and just don't care, how many words have you devoted to this issue that you clearly (sarcasm) don't care about?
But that said, I come back to my original comment. Having multiple tabs open is, in reality, the only way to look at a constantly changing index page - of forums, news, whatever - and say "I'm interested in this, in this, in this" without risking those pages disappearing before I've had a chance to look at them. So what is the viable solution? I don't want to clutter up my bookmarks, and besides, right-click, add book mark, and create a name, would be infuriatingly annoying compared to middle-click.
So what is the "real" solution?
Because opening multiple tabs is that solution. In fact, it's probably the #1 reason tabs were invented. Otherwise could just have three windows open and tabs are overkill for that.
Should a different solution have been implemented instead? Possibly. tabs aren't perfect. But let's stop pretending that people who have more than three tabs open are doing something wrong.