I believe all scientific publishing should be open access, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem with scientific publishing - there just just too much

I believe all scientific publishing should be open access, but it doesn't address the fundamental problem with scientific publishing - there just just too much of it! Due to the well known pressures of academia, and of CV writers everywhere, we live in a world where many people (apparently) work on hundreds or thousands of papers; in a world of "minimum publishable work"; in a world where every Masters and PhD is expected to have published. And the vast majority of those papers are almost pointless, low quality, and/or almost content free! (I admit my own publications into that majority.) There is no way that any human is genuinely across all the literature of their field. And the situation is getting worse and worse, rapidly. I don't know how we'd do it, but perhaps we could move towards a situation where we have (say) "papers" and "notes" - where "papers" are very high quality and published only when something big and important comes up, and where "notes" are used to record everything else. Someone new to the field, or looking for anything important, need be familiar with (only) a few hundred papers; and all those "new technique", "minor variation", "new species", "confirmation", and "we did stuff" publications would be "notes". Of course, this would depend on a truly scathing response when anyone puts forward low quality "papers". PS. It was once that case that publications divided along similar lines as journal papers and conference papers. No longer seems so much the case.