Anyone up for a metadiscussion forum about LiveJournal?
Tim Skirvin is proposing soc.web.blog.livejournal.
Users and topics regarding the LiveJournal service and software package.
RATIONALE: soc.web.blog.livejournal
The last several years have seen the rise in popularity of blogs, a new
style of online forum where an individual or group discusses topics
important to them in a last-in, first-out interface. One of the most
popular of these blogs is LiveJournal, which has had over 11 million
journals and communities created since 1999, and sees over 250,000 posts
per day.
For all of LiveJournal's success, there is presently no good place to
discuss the service as a whole. Many discussions are spread out across
dozens of individual journals, such as 'lj_dev' and 'suggestions'; but
just finding these communities can be difficult, let alone actually using
them, and long-term discussions are difficult due to limitations of the
software involved. Meta-discussions of the service have taken part on
Usenet since the site's inception.
This proposal offers a centralized location to discuss Livejournal - its
benefits, its limitations, and its role in the Internet.
CHARTER:
soc.web.blog.livejournal is for the discussion of both the centralized
LiveJournal service and the software behind it. Some sample discussion
topics:
* What new features have been introduced lately, and how do they
influence my journal?
* What do I get for paying for a Paid Account?
* Who uses LiveJournal, and how does this compare to other blogging
services, and/or the Internet as a whole?
* How does running a local copy of the software differ from using the
main service?
* Can you wrap an NNTP interface around LiveJournal; if so, how?
* What kinds of anti-spam features does LiveJournal use?
* How well does LiveJournal's security model work?
* How well does the OpenID system work?
* How do memes spread over LiveJournal, compared to other sites?
soc.web.blog.livejournal is unmoderated. The standard litany of abusive
post types are banned - binaries, HTML postings, spam, chain letters,
etc. Pointers to news articles, blogs, etc. on this topic are welcome but
are required to comply with fair use standards.
PROCEDURE:
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups and participate in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups
in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the
best method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups as well.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
PROPONENT:
Tim Skirvin ...@killfile.org>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2006-09-06 1st RFD submitted
Here's a link to what I, as my sockpuppet V. Cordero, had to say about the idea when it was first proposed.
The most relevant excerpts about what I think this proposal would mean for LJ are as follows:
Massive bitchfests from disgruntled users with responses from happy
costumers, and representatives of the sites monitoring the discussions.
Sounds like a recipe for...ongoing self-baiting trolls and flamewars.
Hey, that's already a first step to socializing the webbies to USENET!
...
Competition, anyone? The USENET group might work as a site in exile
for banned users from a forum. That could make for interesting
rivalries, including raids by loyalists to the web board on the
dissidents. I've seen it happen.
In other news, I'm now an award-winning USENET troll.
Users and topics regarding the LiveJournal service and software package.
RATIONALE: soc.web.blog.livejournal
The last several years have seen the rise in popularity of blogs, a new
style of online forum where an individual or group discusses topics
important to them in a last-in, first-out interface. One of the most
popular of these blogs is LiveJournal, which has had over 11 million
journals and communities created since 1999, and sees over 250,000 posts
per day.
For all of LiveJournal's success, there is presently no good place to
discuss the service as a whole. Many discussions are spread out across
dozens of individual journals, such as 'lj_dev' and 'suggestions'; but
just finding these communities can be difficult, let alone actually using
them, and long-term discussions are difficult due to limitations of the
software involved. Meta-discussions of the service have taken part on
Usenet since the site's inception.
This proposal offers a centralized location to discuss Livejournal - its
benefits, its limitations, and its role in the Internet.
CHARTER:
soc.web.blog.livejournal is for the discussion of both the centralized
LiveJournal service and the software behind it. Some sample discussion
topics:
* What new features have been introduced lately, and how do they
influence my journal?
* What do I get for paying for a Paid Account?
* Who uses LiveJournal, and how does this compare to other blogging
services, and/or the Internet as a whole?
* How does running a local copy of the software differ from using the
main service?
* Can you wrap an NNTP interface around LiveJournal; if so, how?
* What kinds of anti-spam features does LiveJournal use?
* How well does LiveJournal's security model work?
* How well does the OpenID system work?
* How do memes spread over LiveJournal, compared to other sites?
soc.web.blog.livejournal is unmoderated. The standard litany of abusive
post types are banned - binaries, HTML postings, spam, chain letters,
etc. Pointers to news articles, blogs, etc. on this topic are welcome but
are required to comply with fair use standards.
PROCEDURE:
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups and participate in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups
in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as the
best method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups as well.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
PROPONENT:
Tim Skirvin ...@killfile.org>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2006-09-06 1st RFD submitted
Here's a link to what I, as my sockpuppet V. Cordero, had to say about the idea when it was first proposed.
The most relevant excerpts about what I think this proposal would mean for LJ are as follows:
Massive bitchfests from disgruntled users with responses from happy
costumers, and representatives of the sites monitoring the discussions.
Sounds like a recipe for...ongoing self-baiting trolls and flamewars.
Hey, that's already a first step to socializing the webbies to USENET!
...
Competition, anyone? The USENET group might work as a site in exile
for banned users from a forum. That could make for interesting
rivalries, including raids by loyalists to the web board on the
dissidents. I've seen it happen.
In other news, I'm now an award-winning USENET troll.