Net-works
In a recent post, entrippy noted that the number of comments were down on his LiveJournal, and those of his friends. I am new at this, so there maybe LiveJournal specific reasons for this I haven’t cottoned onto yet.
But I could see some networking reasons why it might be so. LiveJournal is a network on the Net, which is itself a network. In fact, it is a network on the Web on the Internet. A network in a network in a network!
Networks are the classic instance of economies of scale. Typically, each extra person is cheaper to add than the one before. Hence their tendency to monopoly (since a bigger network can always undercut a smaller one, usually by enough to overwhelm the advantages of having alternative networks to choose from). As long as there are not congestion issues, the more people that are on a network, the greater the benefit for everyone (phones are good because almost everyone is connected; roads can get you just about anywhere if you have a car or motorbike but public transport is more restricted, and so on). LiveJournal certainly works like that.
The multiplication of LiveJournals for a particular network of friends might result in lower posts at individual journals as more and more people connected to the friendship-network get involved and people’s time gets spread over more Journals. It may be an odd sort of congestion issue - not people getting jammed up, but rather getting spread thin. Conversely, however, there are more people able to post comments as fellow Journal users. Which factor is stronger will just depend.
And fluctuate back and forth. LiveJournal is a communication network. Lines of interaction can get exhausted, novelty can wear off, people can get diverted. There are lots of reasons for usage to fluctuate. These can then feed off each other - less to say, less posts, less to react to at a specific place, etc. One would expect usage to fluctuate back and forth.
But I could see some networking reasons why it might be so. LiveJournal is a network on the Net, which is itself a network. In fact, it is a network on the Web on the Internet. A network in a network in a network!
Networks are the classic instance of economies of scale. Typically, each extra person is cheaper to add than the one before. Hence their tendency to monopoly (since a bigger network can always undercut a smaller one, usually by enough to overwhelm the advantages of having alternative networks to choose from). As long as there are not congestion issues, the more people that are on a network, the greater the benefit for everyone (phones are good because almost everyone is connected; roads can get you just about anywhere if you have a car or motorbike but public transport is more restricted, and so on). LiveJournal certainly works like that.
The multiplication of LiveJournals for a particular network of friends might result in lower posts at individual journals as more and more people connected to the friendship-network get involved and people’s time gets spread over more Journals. It may be an odd sort of congestion issue - not people getting jammed up, but rather getting spread thin. Conversely, however, there are more people able to post comments as fellow Journal users. Which factor is stronger will just depend.
And fluctuate back and forth. LiveJournal is a communication network. Lines of interaction can get exhausted, novelty can wear off, people can get diverted. There are lots of reasons for usage to fluctuate. These can then feed off each other - less to say, less posts, less to react to at a specific place, etc. One would expect usage to fluctuate back and forth.