| Revision as of 12:31, 18 December 2004 editRho~enwiki (talk | contribs)503 edits Controversy section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:27, 19 December 2004 edit undoSchmuckyTheCat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,934 edits →Controversy sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| 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? | 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. ] 00:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :some believe that these users are abandoning LiveJournal for other blogging sites. | :some believe that these users are abandoning LiveJournal for other blogging sites. | ||
| Line 71: | Line 73: | ||
| 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. ] 12:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) | 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. ] 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. | |||
| ] 00:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:27, 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 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)
- 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)