I seem to be odd man out on this one (not surprising
). I've never had any trouble with either anthologies or single-author story collections... far from it. I greatly enjoy them, and no, they don't take me any longer than a novel of the same length. It's like a sampler as opposed to a box of a single type of chocolate... you get to stimulate different responses as you go along.
I'd say there's a lot more where the fate of the short story is concerned; partly because so many books now are padded out of all proportion, so that people are used to that flab and see it as comfortable, as opposed to the precision and leanness that is required for a good short story, where every word counts. (Yes, even with the "wordier" writers such as Lovecraft, etc.) Partly, also, because for people who want "a good book" to read as they unwind at the end of the day just before going to bed, the shorter types of tale often fall somewhere between... not long enough to just finish before they drop off (meaning that they either aren't quite ready to sleep and have to begin a new tale they may not finish) or so long that they just miss being short enough for the same purpose, and so structured that it's difficult to break it into incomplete form, as you can with the structure of a novel.
Nonetheless, from my understanding, story collections (not so much anthologies, but still to a fair degree) have always been difficult for publishers, which is why they were reluctant to do them unless they were by established writers who would already have a market. Still, the long anthologies have a great deal to offer, and while I'm by no means averse to shorter versions, I'd really hate to see the long anthologies (and/or collections) become a thing of the past, as several of my favorite books are of this nature, and I'm always encountering new ones to add to the list....
Oh, and on the vote... I'll qualify my response: with very rare exceptions, I don't read
almost all of them -- it's the whole enchilada for me.....