Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
The post in news has far too many comments for any sane person to go through... And since I'm feeling far too ill to actually get up and do something productive, I thought I'd explain the issue to people.
The first limit to be going live is post frequency, per 24 hour rolling window...

Free users: 3 posts (maybe 4 or 5?)
Early adopters: 10 posts
Paid/Perm Users: 20 posts

posts, not comments.
posts to communities count
our intention is not to be evil. we may change 3 to 4 or 5, depending on how things look after a couple of days.
some communities will be exempt from the count (lj_* site-related ones) and some (paid communities) will allow one free post/day that doesn't count toward your existing limit (but that's not done yet...we just thought of it)
The changes have been taken offline now, but I have a few things to say about it.

For starters, the LJ front page says:
You can update with short entries many times a day, or with long entries a few times a week... however you'd like to use it. It's free, it's fun, and it's easy to use!
Posting limits, especially one as low as 3 for 93% of users, totally go against the idea that one can update "many" times a day, and therefore conflict with the image that LJ has tried for years to cultivate.

Next... Before I got my paid account, back in good ol' 2000, I was updating perhaps ten times a day. When I got a job, that went down, but by the time I was online properly at uni, I was posting in excess of 20 posts a day for a time. Not that they were all public, not by a long shot, but that was never the point anyway. My point is that if I'd been limited back then, I doubt I would have found this whole thing so easy or fun to use - the whole point was the freedom it gave me.

Furthermore, I do feel a little dicked on by the fact that I paid $100 to get a permanent account here, given that I was paying for a certain service. Naturally, the TOS states quite clearly
MODIFICATIONS TO SERVICE reserves the right to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Service (or any part thereof) with or without notice at any time. You agree that shall not be liable to you or to any third party for any modification, suspension or discontinuance of the Service.
But that's more of a Get Out Of Jail Free card, and I'd much rather they didn't do anything to put them in jail in the first place, so to speak. They shouldn't have to hide behind such an article, because in imposing posting limits, they're changing the whole spirit of Livejournal. It started with invite codes, and if they'd given much back in that time, I might understand, but they haven't.

But Jamie, they do this for practically nothing, they're not obliged to give anything back to you

Bullshit. I paid $100 for my own account, after paying $75 on various accounts for myself, several hundred more on accounts for others, and generally being a contributor to LJ. I coded my Boxes on White style and donated that, I've participated in dev discussions, and most importantly, I've done everything I could to get other users onto LJ, through invite codes, plugging, and generally migrating a large chunk of my friends over to it. If LJ wants to screw me (and itself) over, that's the decision of the people that run it, but I didn't do anything to deserve that breaking of trust, or whatever you're going to call it.

Where's S2, the new style system? I remember when I went to the US two summers ago, and put off making a new LJ style back then because S2 was meant to be around the corner. Well we're still waiting, and no matter how close they promise it is, it's still 18 months too late. What about the trust metric that will remove the need for invite codes? Everybody screamed when those were brought in, and we were assured that they were already working on a solution. None of these have turned up. I'm paying for a service, and while I don't demand that it improves, I damn well don't expect it to get worse without any perks. Increasing server problems and restrictions, while the good stuff never comes. (Yes, I know the irony in complaining about server problems and then objecting to a solution like posting limits).

The problem is that the real attacks aren't going to be taking place over a 24 hour window. Surely a better rate limiter would be far more useful - a limit of 5 posts per hour for free users would surely stop somebody with a script, and if it didn't, well that's only 120 posts a day, surely the servers can handle that, and flag up the account for investigation by a human operator. It would stop kids bombing the site with hundreds of posts per minute, and wouldn't restrict anybody really.

But my main problem is that in the news post, Brad said (and I quote):
Okay... it's off. It's my birthday ... I don't need a flamewar today. The few minutes it was on though, it stopped a bunch of crap . I'll turn it on in a couple of days after I implement the community posting elements.
i.e., they started it running at the same time as they told us it existed. That's practically betrayal, business-wise. A company with integrity would have stated its intentions in advance, and given the users time to prepare and/or discuss the issue. This doesn't bode well for the company morals....

  • 1
>>Where's S2, the new style system?

Already in place since last month. There is a link to modify it. I've bookmarked it at home.

>>I'm paying for a service, and while I don't demand that it improves, I damn well don't expect it to get worse without any perks. Increasing server problems and restrictions, while the good stuff never comes.

Brad did stated many times that he spent most of his time trying to increase the speed of the server. He already spent monsy on 20+ web servers, more bandwidth, etc, totalling $30,000 per month.

Where does the bandwidth mostly go to? Free users, of course! 93% of free users are using the bandwidth while 5% of paid account use little of it.

So it make sense for Brad to put a limit on posting to increase the speed. I would be happy to see if he did not put any limit on paid account, just to free users.

Since he disabled the limit now, we'll wait and see what he will do in the next few days.

[S2] Already in place since last month

well, not really. You can't make your own styles yet, just modify system styles slightly. Hardly functional.
(It's at

But the fact is, S2 is already released and available for everyone to use. That's the point.

Allowing users to edit their S2 styles involves more coding work and from what I can see, only 2 programmers has the knowledge to do this.

Since their "top" to-do list is to make LJ stable & faster, user-editing S2 comes later. Which I understand & agrees.

Until I can make my own style with it, the whole thing seems rather pointless. I certainly wouldn't call what I see there functional by any means.

I entirely agree. The current incarnation of the S2 system is essentially useless. It offers no reason or incentive for anyone to 'upgrade' to it, other than to brag to others that "I've got an S2 layout!". The last I saw of it (S2), it couldn't even handle embedded background images.

So surely the free users should be more strongly encouraged to become paid users. More paid user perks = more paid users = more money. Anyway, it's not done to decrease bandwidth - bandwidth won't change, there'll still be the same number of refreshes, a similar number of comments... The only change will be in the number of posts being sent to the server, which is a tiny proportion of the bandwidth. This won't make the site faster by decreasing the posts, it'll just decrease the attacks, as Brad said. And like I pointed out, there are better ways of doing that.

As for me, I'd much rather have a crappy service with a few server errors now and again than one which is restricted. And I'm pretty sure people agree with me - 1500 comments on that post in News demonstrates that.

>>The only change will be in the number of posts being sent to the server, which is a tiny proportion of the bandwidth.

... but a large CPU usage on the database when there is a new post, editing post and deleting as someone pointed out in the 1,500 comments thread.

oh come on... have you ever run a sql database, a single entry being added to the database is NOTHING. Sure we're talking millions of entries, thats why we have many many many servers, with a CPU each. The actual adding of entries equates to very little unless there's somebody bombing the site to shit.

Have you seen the design of the LJ server?

Last time I checked, there is one SQL server and the rest of the servers are just a mirror of the SQL server, but to the group of users on each server (i.e. I'm on the Chief server) and the SQL data only appears on that server for each users. (I hope this make sense!)

I'm sure LJ has updated the design, but this is the last time I seen the design. (3 to 4 months ago?)

I wouldn't mind so much if it was a five post limit rather than three. And I think that's okay for the free users. I am a free user. I haven't paid anything. But putting a limit on people who have paid for something is just mean


I'll probably just use my blurty instead.

(Deleted comment)
Many users can't get paid accounts, and it's unfair to force them to do it just so that they can post a few more entries to their journal per day. This sort of limit is very much not what LJ is about.

As for the load on the servers - as far as I know, it's caused by morons who flood them, DoS style. There are better ways of dealing with those, like rate limits over a 10 minute period, etc.

I have always felt that the people making decisions like this within the LJ hierarchy act in a short-sighted manner. Rather than go for a proactive response to counteract any problems or perceived problems that they are encountering, they attempt to handle it in the laziest way possible.

I think that the main problem is that 'they' (ie - 'the people making decisions like this within the LJ hierarchy') haven't accepted the fact that rather than imposing limitations on their paid/free/permanent users, they should find ways to convert free users into paid/permanent users.


hey my name is steve.

hey there, I'm not a user on live journal but I would like to be, so could you invite me or something? My email is

Re: hey my name is steve.

Not a chance in hell

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account