Re: [OT] Grumbling about LJ (was Re: H Potter spells)

Jymn wrote:
In urp, Carl Inglis wrote:

And that is my *biggest* gripe with LJ - once it gets over 50
comments there's *no* sensible way to read the comments. I
tend to give up at that point.

And tracking discussions themselves is more of a pain than I can be
bothered with more often than not.

Though tracking discussions[1] is easier now that they've brought in the tracking feature (the pushpin symbol).

Which means there's a lot of probably very good content which
is missed. LJ isn't designed for discussion, debate and
conversation; it's designed for "me, me, me" and drive-by

And for immediacy, if you drive by a bit later, you've missed it.

Not really. Like Ggroups, at least with it being long-term web-based, the conversation's still there in 7+ years time ($circumstance permitting, obviously) or so, when you trip over the thread. The difference being between Ggroups and LJ is that I think with Ggroups (and lonnnnng retention newsserver - such as Pipex), some of the newbies who don't quite realise how it works can end up posting to threads years old; whereas with LJ, it tends to be more noticeable when the date is, and so less stuff is trawled up from years before.

I am wondering how the use of tags has influenced the posting in older entries on LJ, though I'm not sure the use of tags is widespread enough that it'd make much of a dent in the trying to find things stakes, iyswim.

Of course, the major difference between an ancient discussion being resurrected on Usenet, and a discussion being resurrected on LJ is that everyone reading the group is likely to get the new message on Usenet, whereas only those still subscribed to the thread will see that the discussion's been resurrected on LJ. I reckon that if LJ removed the limit on how many entries you can track, there'd be a marked increase in the continuation of older discussions.

Actually, that's an interesting point; usenet is based around
communities; LJ is based around individuals. (Both broad
statements, I know).

I'll add my (broad) agreement to the comments already posted.

I think I tried to disagree with you (both) ^up there^, but here, I (broadly) agree with you (both).


Unfortunately, they made a design choice way-back-when due to
having servers that really couldn't handle the level of
traffic, combined with
a lack of understanding of how people communicate, which
means we're stuck with it.

Room for a rival?

I don't know as anything LJesque'd actually be what I suspect you're aiming at though (yes, I'm conclusion jumping).

Though I have criticisms of lj, I have few ideas of a starting point
for a new tool.

I'll see what's been said further down thread. :)

[1] I did wonder how significant it was that I used conversations instead of discussions when I first typed that sentence out. </ponder>


wondering how quick she can knock this cider back without thinking "too cold! Too cold!"