My use of LJ remains disorganised; in conjunction with the long sets of day shifts and night shifts I work, it's far too easy for me to wake up, have a quick check of my Friends list, open five-to-fifteen interesting-looking comments pages without commenting to them, come back after work and add several more, then there's BBC News and all the other sites I check. Repeat for four or five days and, bang, suddenly I have 50 or 100 extra tabs to deal with. Sometimes I can make an attempt to clear dozens of them during the time I have off between sets of shifts, but it relies on me being in the right mood and real-life matters of housekeeping (or, dare I say it, leisure) not getting in the way. Plus, when the application you use most is a web browser, having to deal with a browser with dozens-to-grosses of tabs open is slow and wearing - yet I don't feel comfortable screaming and killing them all in a giant act of tabicide en masse, so to speak.
All too often it means that I end up replying to your posts, or even my posts, weeks or months after you've made them, simply because I've had the tab open that long. Now it may annoy the heck out of you to receive these long-delayed replies; if it does, this would be a good time to shout up. On the other hand, there are a good number of old posts I look at and think "Yeah, I sort of have something to say, but it's nothing particularly special, and the post is very old by now and the moment has passed... skip it." If you do receive a long-delayed reply, please take it as some sort of compliment that I think you'll not be driven crazy by a "better late than never" comment from me. It also tends to be the people who write the most by volume and by number of interesting posts - the ones whose blogs I most enjoy - who get disproportionately many late responses, simply because if you write a great post, I often want not to give you a less-than-thoughtful response.
This also knocks on into my posting practice; unless something really grabs me and I want to make a time-critical post, it's far too easy for me just to make a note, plus possibly a URL or two, to get around to later in a file I have called lj_temp.txt. Currently this is 2,441 lines long, with half a dozen quarter-written LJ posts, plus probably fifty or a hundred one-word pointers for things I vaguely want to post about at some point. It also includes all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with LJ; as this is the one text file I deal with most frequently, it's the best place to store things if I want to find them again quickly.
I like posting about "what I'm thinking about" rather than "what I'm doing", largely because so much of the time, what I'm doing is neither terribly interesting nor too far from routine. Conversely, I don't like posting about journalling, even though it seems to take up a disappointingly substantial proportion of what I post; if I'm thinking about journalling - and if I'm posting about it, then I am thinking about it - then I'm not getting on with the rest of my life. This meta-posting does not add to the sum of non-transient human knowledge in a way that my other posts might, possibly, on a good day.
It is traditional to grouse about the way LiveJournal has been run, particularly since the purchase by SUP last December. Whisper it very quietly, but other than the massive misstep with the removal of Basic accounts in March, and the horrible, horrible removal of some interests from being filtered, the new owners have otherwise been far from objectionable by virtue of all the changes they have made being for the better, at their best, and easy to ignore, at their worst.
Nevertheless, because LiveJournal is increasingly corporate, and because it is capable of massive blunders like those two, it is not cool. You might recall "No Content Day" back in March as a response to the removal of Basic accounts. Some people considered it "slacktivism" (a lovely neologism!) but in
Shortly after the announcement of the removal of Basic accounts, synecdochic made this very interesting post about a putative journalling service that might come into existence some day, stressing how hypothetical the speculation was in a very knowing fashion. synecdochic openly admits to having been a LJ staff member in the past, clearly knows her onions technically and has a good grasp of the challenges of making such a service scaleable and thus financially stable in the long term. (Incidentally, I note that the intended owner/operator of Scribblit has recently found it all too much before the site got out of beta.) synecdochic also hints that an announcement, of unstated nature, might be coming this week. Watch that space.
Trying to head off some criticism at the pass, assuming that synecdochic is who I think she is, she is part of the LJ establishment who has been responsible for implementing some extremely unpopular decisions in the past. She implies passim that she has not necessarily agreed with all the policies that she has had to implement in the past, though this has not stopped her implementing them. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see what policies she (and her co-workers...) might choose to implement in the future when she does have a greater degree of agency and can take more aggressive decisions regarding the desirable extent of backwards compatibility.
The question of how you should regard someone who knows the failings of a policy but nevertheless implements it is an open one, and I have done some dishonest things to web site users in the past that I've hated doing by virtue of "I was only following orders". This is a matter of a grey scale - as has been pointed out elsewhere, an extreme application of this pings Godwin's Law - but I am definitely more on the side of the jobsworths than most. And yet...
The strangest thing about the LiveJournal Advisory Board election is the way that it has made me feel socially conservative like very few - if, possibly, any - things ever have done in the past. I am not used to feeling that someone, or some sense of humour, or some sense of values, is as instinctively and innately worth opposing as I felt about that election. I'm not used to having those sorts of feelings and I don't feel comfortable having them. Perhaps I'm just growing old.
Should a new journalling site ever come to fruition that seems to sufficiently meet the description "LJ done properly", I would give serious consideration to moving across, especially as I perceive some degree of will among movers and shakers to moving across that I haven't perceived before with other projects. I do agree with this point by bateleur that the value of LJ is in the interaction tools and I have made the point myself that Metcalfe's law points us all in the direction of staying on one site rather than spreading ourselves out to the four winds. However, this development has tantalising prospects: genuinely interesting (i.e., not Vox) new functionality, owners who might bring back the spirit of when-it-was-cool-before-I-joined-it LiveJournal in the site's development and policies, better-than-OpenID interaction with other sites and maybe, just maybe, a userbase which doesn't make ohnotheydidnt about as representative a community (and, thus, sense of humour) of the site as anything else.
It's interesting to follow non-LJ blogs and compare them to LJ ones. The non-LJ ones seem to be missing those things that I think I would miss if mine were a non-LJ blog less than I thought they would do. Syndicated feeds aren't perfect, sometimes by accident and sometimes by design, but they work adequately for most purposes. OpenID is gaining wider acceptance; I've seen criticism of the system in the past, but am afraid that I am not yet convinced against the system's utility. (I am very probably far closer to not understanding the criticism properly than I am to understanding the criticism properly and regarding it as a price worth paying. Sadly it will probably take me suffering a loss of some sort through use of OpenID to make the point clear to me.)
Similarly, this criticism of increased online social connection is interesting, though sadly does not spell out the potential abuses it rails against clearly enough to immediately convince me that this is a practical problem rather than just a theoretical one.
At the risk of barking up the wrong tree, I wonder whether it's worth drawing a parallel to the question of circumstances under which freedom of speech, or more specifically publication, can reasonably be considered not to be in the public interest. Again, I may be being more confused than usual here, but it has been suggested that even though the traditional caste system in Japan has long been outlawed, there are still some black market publications which permit someone unethical to take a prejudiced opinion on someone based solely on their name and place of origin. Is this an example of a possible undesirable consequence when information becomes too free? (Yeah, I think I've lost track of my point a bit here; I really don't understand the other point of view that I'm trying to take on board and am hoping that one of you who understands it better than I do will explain it to me.)
A part of the problem is that I (uneducatedly) subscribe to similar fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding WordPress and other installed-on-your-server blogging software as I do with regard to Linux; specifically, in the arms race of security vs. abuse, as a user you need to keep up-to-date in order to beat a considerable force who seek to misuse your resources, which requires proper understanding. With Windows, it's not so hard; keep applying the updates, stick on a firewall and anti-virus software and you're most of the way there. I'm prepared to suffer a lot of indignities and technical shortcomings; I am prepared to settle for "merely good enough", rather than the very best, and "merely good enough" in theory is perfectly adequate in practice. Just how consumptive of time, effort and emotion is it to keep a Linux installation or a WordPress installation up to date in practice?
In practice, I suspect that the status quo will prevail and I'll keep doing what I've long been doing; seldom can change be more convenient than maintaining the staus quo and I don't think this is one of those circumstances. In the past I've thought about starting something specific to talk about games without wearing a LiveJournal hat; the idea still appeals, but it all relies on me getting more serious about writing, and I'm not sure I can afford to make that a high priority at the moment. So here's to another six years!
Counting all the browsers on all the computers you consider yours, how many tabs (or windows) do you have open in total at this moment in time?
Counting all the browsers on all the computers you consider yours, roughly how many tabs (or windows) do you usually have open at any one time?
Counting all the browsers on all the computers you consider yours, what is the largest number of tabs (or windows) you have ever had open at any one time most likely to have been?
Any other comments? (If you type "ticky" in, does it become a tickybox?)
Because it's an even birthday, I permit myself to update this:
Top Commenters on jiggery_pokery's LiveJournal
(2,642 of my own comments excluded from rankings)
Total Commenters: 338 (238 not shown)
Total Comments: 8914
Report generated 09/06/2008 08:36:04 by scrapdog's LJ Comment Stats Wizard 1.7
Comparing this chart with the one from two years ago, I can try to work out who's been commenting most over the last two years.
|undyingking||All time: 129||Last two years: 59|
|imc||All time: 200||Last two years: 35|
|hedwig_snowy||All time: 103||Last two years: 35|
|meggitymeg||All time: 160||Last two years: 34|
|bateleur||All time: 259||Last two years: 31|
|ringbark||All time: 147||Last two years: 25|
|oldbloke||All time: 43||Last two years: 20|
|geekosaurus||All time: 33||Last two years: 19|
|oinomel71||All time: 70||Last two years: 18|
|sophie10||All time: 61||Last two years: 18|
|folk||All time: 34||Last two years: 17|
|frayer||All time: 70||Last two years: 17|
|addedentry||All time: 178||Last two years: 17|
|mr_babbage||All time: 64||Last two years: 16|
|bopeepsheep||All time: 88||Last two years: 16|
|hermorrine||All time: 114||Last two years: 14|
|songmonk||All time: 73||Last two years: 14|
|malachan||All time: 47||Last two years: 13|
|huskyteer||All time: 79||Last two years: 13|
|jvvw||All time: 50||Last two years: 12|
|elements||All time: 20||Last two years: ? 10+|
|rhysara||All time: 20||Last two years: ? 10+|
|2ndavemusic||All time: 102||Last two years: 10|
|zorac||All time: 77||Last two years: 9|
|lambertman||All time: 122||Last two years: 8|
|applez||All time: 84||Last two years: 8|
|radinden||All time: 54||Last two years: 8|
|brigbother||All time: 80||Last two years: 7|
|missingdonut||All time: 120||Last two years: 7|
|dr4b||All time: 35||Last two years: 7|
|gamps_garret||All time: 30||Last two years: 7|
|rialtus||All time: 74||Last two years: 7|
|foreverdirt||All time: 25||Last two years: 7|
|jumbach||All time: 93||Last two years: 6|
|beingjdc||All time: 65||Last two years: 6|
|quidditchmaster||All time: 59||Last two years: 5|
|trebro||All time: 24||Last two years: 5|
|heidi8||All time: 22||Last two years: 5|
|fruufoo||All time: 65||Last two years: 4|
|glissando||All time: 74||Last two years: 4|
|j4||All time: 40||Last two years: 4|
|owlman||All time: 19||Last two years: 4|
|irinaauthor||All time: 30||Last two years: 4|
|mewcenary||All time: 13||Last two years: ? 3+|
|allysonsedai||All time: 12||Last two years: ? 2+|
|elsalus||All time: 12||Last two years: ? 2+|
|mortari||All time: 11||Last two years: ? 1+|
|sundancekid||All time: 11||Last two years: ? 1+|
The uncertainty arises when people have moved from outside the overall top 100 to inside it. (For instance, could be that the likes of lathany and devjoe, among others, might make it onto the next list in the same way.) I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on name changes and the like. Nice to see second, fourth and ninth places (at least!) all unchanged from last time, but it's telling that the number of comments required to get into the top ten is so much lower than it was two years ago. I'm posting much less, obviously, and I may just be posting less to respond to. It's interesting to see who hasn't commented here even once in the last two years; sure, we know about some people stopping using their journals, but perhaps it's an indication of who still has me Friended but no longer reads me? ;-) Today is Defriending Amnesty Day; every day is Defriending Amnesty Day!