LJ dead or dying?
Mar. 11th, 2009 08:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I've noticed that most of my friends (and myself included) are much more interested in posting stuff to Facebook now. I think this is for several reasons:
1) Lots and lots of people are using it (stronger network).
2) The interface is easier to use - you can post links and photos and so forth with no HTML needed (LJ always makes you go through a couple gyrations to do stuff like that, FB makes it painless and prettier)
3) It's shorter attention span; less content, and updated much more frequently.
I don't think LJ can do anything about 1 and 3, but they could at least be trying to make their product slightly easier to use. All they have to do is replicate the Post Links and Post Photos features the way they have them set up on Facebook, and then make the Friends page smaller and more wall-like, the way Facebook does it. It's the interface, stupid!!
1) Lots and lots of people are using it (stronger network).
2) The interface is easier to use - you can post links and photos and so forth with no HTML needed (LJ always makes you go through a couple gyrations to do stuff like that, FB makes it painless and prettier)
3) It's shorter attention span; less content, and updated much more frequently.
I don't think LJ can do anything about 1 and 3, but they could at least be trying to make their product slightly easier to use. All they have to do is replicate the Post Links and Post Photos features the way they have them set up on Facebook, and then make the Friends page smaller and more wall-like, the way Facebook does it. It's the interface, stupid!!
no subject
on 2009-03-10 01:28 pm (UTC)Actually I have wordpress up and running now that I have my domain back and I really love it. So much more versatile than LJ.
no subject
on 2009-03-10 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 01:42 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 03:18 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 01:43 pm (UTC)I don't like having to check multiple times a day to catch stuff or find things that appear low on my page below things I've already read.
Similarly, while I agree that FB makes links and photo posting painless, I disagree that it is prettier. It's not ugly, but it's also not prettier.
no subject
on 2009-03-10 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 03:16 pm (UTC)And I think the interface is clunky and ugly. That may be partly because I'm not used to it, but I don't know that I'll bother using it enough to *get* used to it.
Like with google, I think it's a question of what your purpose is, and what features you value - for you, it does sound like facebook may provide more value.
no subject
on 2009-03-10 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 06:10 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2009-03-10 09:55 pm (UTC)Facebook annoys me in the same way that MySpace does with putting a ton of crap all over the page and only a small portion of the site is for what I want. When I'm reading my friends page on LJ there's now flashing images on one side and lists of links all over the place. Just my options at the top and the posts on the page. Simple.
no subject
on 2009-03-11 12:01 am (UTC)I do like the extended network of FB, but I have to watch my language!
no subject
on 2009-03-12 01:16 am (UTC)I can't filter like I can here, or not use my real name.
So, LJ is for personal real stuff. Facebook is for fluffy crap that I don't care if anyone reads.
I like to think that if social networking sites had personalities, Facebook would be the obnoxious cheerleader who brags about how many friends she has and has to tell all the details of her personal life and gossip to everyone.
LJ is for the more reserved loner type who prefers a smaller circle of friends and doesn't have to tell everyone everything all the time. Also, their privacy policies and filtering suck a lot less.