Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:56, 19 December 2004

Information on LJ introducing posting limits? --asilvahalo

There aren't any posting limits just now. I'll add the information when they go into actual effect for longer than just a day ;-) -- Timwi 15:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Important Milestones Missing

I took these off of the article as they looked just a tad unprofessional and they belong back here Xoder 15:25, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Friends list, security settings
• Friends view
• User pictures

Frank the Goat

Who's gonna edit or delete the nonsense? --Sam Francis

For one, why is it nonsense? For two, you're more than welcome to, though others may revert, so it's useful to justify your deletion here. --Golbez 22:13, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense it may be, but its nonsense the people who run LJ have incorporated into their business. Please note Frank's Home Page, and his (albiet unofficial) Journal. — Xoder|✆ 02:38, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the main part I object to, which is "Although most people think that goats are incapable of using a computer or human emotion, Frank proves skeptics wrong." It just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- Sam Francis

I hope I'm not alone in calling that sentence nonsense. --Sam Francis

you are not alone... there is so much detailed unneccearry crap in there... who cares when LJ hired their first employee etc. that's by far the most useless article I've seen on wikipedia so far.

Just for the joy of recursion:

Four million accounts

I was unable to find any announcement of when LJ reached 4 million accounts, but if anyone does it'd be a nice addition to the timeline. It happened somewhere around or before August 2004, I guess, so that's quite the exponential growth :) --Spug 15:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other Sites

Have removed a large list of other sites running off the LJ code, as Misplaced Pages is not a web directory, and the list was getting somewhat out of hand, IMO. I'd suggest that any site which is significant enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article could be added back, but we should probably keep them out otherwise. For the record, the list was:

• AboutMyLife
• Blurty
• Caleida
• CrazyLife
• DeadJournal
• GreatestJournal
• InsaneJournal
• JournalFen
• NeedlessPanic
• Plogs.net

Rho 06:46, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Controversy section

First off, the disclaimer:

I used to be a member of the LJ abuse team, but left the team a few months ago. As such, I almost certainly have some bias in this issue. So I'm not making much in the way of edits here just yet.

From its support group LiveJournal created an Abuse team

I've removed this as simply not true. When the abuse team was originally created, it worked entirely independantly of support. It was only later that the two were integrated.

As the critics had suspected, the policy document was indeed much stricter than what was suggested as acceptable by the Terms of Service.

I disagree with this bit as well. Personally, I think that the ToS are incredibly strict, and the actual policies less strict. Should we try to elaborate on both viewpoints here, or should we just provide links to the two documents and let the readers decide for themselves?

• link, because it's the policy doc statements that are rubbing everyone. SchmuckyTheCat 00:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I've edited this section to try to make it more even handed. My intention is to say that people compared the two, different people came to different conclusions, and to give both links for any curious reader. I've done my best not to over-emphasise my POV. Rho 01:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

some believe that these users are abandoning LiveJournal for other blogging sites.

Who believes this?

This has exacerbated the opinion held by some that LiveJournal is a fine host for teenage diaries and social networking

And who holds these opinions?

Whether these Terms of Service and their enforcement by the Abuse team will affect LiveJournal revenue remains to be seen.

And this just seems to be entirely meaningless in terms of actual content.

If someone from "the other side" of this argument, or a neutral, could try to address some of these points, then that would be good. Otherwise I'll give it a go myself. Rho 12:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• i removed that thing about revenue, i don't know anyone who thinks controversy has anything to do with revenue. the things about not being a serious site has been brought up in lj_biz from media articles, it's a valid statement.

SchmuckyTheCat 00:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Oh, I'm not trying to say that it isn't a valid statement. In fact, I probably agree with it myself. I'm just saying that without any sort of cite it doesn't read well. I had a brief look through lj_biz and couldn't see anything like that. If you could find some sort of supporting link, then that would be fantastic. Rho 01:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I feel the final paragraph of the Controversy section really does need to be sourced somehow. I'm uncomfortable with the statement that "some believe that these users are abandoning LiveJournal for other blogging sites," mainly because I don't know who these "some" are or what their personal ties to the controversy are. I also don't know what proof we have that any notable portion of the userbase has left. LiveJournal's userbase continues to grow, and I have to believe that the people saying users are leaving are users with axes to grind against Abuse. Unless it can be sourced, perhaps that should be changed to "a small group of users" or something similar to indicate that this is certainly a minority opinion, and not one that's being broadcast with any great frequency.

Additionally, I think the wording "these users" should be changed to "a few users" or something similar if we're going to keep that line, because of course the users that have been banned are going elsewhere, seeing as they can't stay on LiveJournal. I think the line is supposed to indicate that users untouched by the Abuse controversy are leaving as a result of what they're seeing, but it doesn't read that way as of now.

Also, maybe this is just a misunderstanding on my part, but was it not always the intention to have the "leaked" policy document made public once feedback had been given on it by Abuse and Support team members? This article makes it seem as though it was some super-secret memo only for privileged eyes, when in all actuality I believe it was supposed to be made public only a short time after it was "leaked." Beginning 01:56, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)