.
Pyroclasm - Grin with cat attached — LiveJournal
Previous Entry Next Entry
Pyroclasm Feb. 6th, 2003 08:02 am
I don't know why bradfitz (& co) put up with this.

Anyone know if he's got an amazon wishlist?

Or possibly a fund for the heart bypass he's going to need soon.

$2.09 pcm is bloody cheap. And there's generally someone who'll handle the money for you if you can't yourself. Or in extreme cases buy you an account if you smile nicely at them ;)

Not that it's just the free users complaining, or that I'm trying to get at them. But that just seems (narrowly) the least rational complaint of a long list.

Personally I suspect the limits should be more like 5/20/25, as the objective is to clip abusers rather than impose a limit people are likely to hit, but the chances of getting that point through the firestorm are pretty much zero.

Thoughts?

From: emomisy
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 02:03 am (Link)
I doubt he has time to read all those...

I think its perfectly reasonable. The number of users has grown bigger than they ever expected, there are limited resources, it makes sense to ration them, and they have held off doing this for a long time.

Admittedly 5 posts for free users would be better, but he says it may increase to that anyway.

This has just given the beginnings of an idea though...
From: ghoti
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 04:58 am (Link)
Well, I'll not be upgrading to a paid account, because I spong ff my friends/lovers enough already.

I don't even know whether the thing about 'early adopters' means I'm a 3 post person or a 10 post person. What's an early adopter?
From: wechsler
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 05:14 am (Link)
Early adopters are people who used the code at the very earliest point, and there aren't that many of them. You're a free user.
From: ghoti
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 06:26 am (Link)
Thankyou, I'm a bit clueless. I thoutght it was probably something like that, but that there was an outside chance that 'before there was a referral system' was what was meant by early adopter.

From: hfnuala
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 07:22 am (Link)
I'm surprised he hasn't said fuck the lot of you and pulled the plug.

I suspect a lot of the people who are being so up in arms really have no idea of what the costs must be for lj. And for what is, really, nothing. I've paid 1) a year's paid account (25 dollars) plus 2) a pernament account (100 dollars) plus a few donations here and there. All told, I've probably given lj less than 200 dollars and I've got to use it for a year and a half and always found it reliable. No way could I have this level of service for 200 dollars a year if I took all my toys away and tried to set something up for myself. And I could have had it for free.

oh yeah

From: hfnuala
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 07:43 am (Link)
I'm not saying 200 dollars a year is nothing, just that it couldn't buy this just for me. I'm lucky to be relatively well off and I don't resent subsidising others. I just wish people would remember what a good deal it is.
From: wechsler
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 08:01 am (Link)
It costs me GBP120 per year for my share in a colo server; I could, given time, write code that runs on that server and does most of what LJ does.

At some point, as part of IP5, I will.

But I'll stick with LJ, because a) I've already paid for life usage and b) a single system will always be far better integrated than seperate and remote ones.

And the value of the time I'll have to put in to write this code will be rather more than the permanent account cost.
From: mrph
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 07:58 am (Link)
To be fair, unless you were reading it at 2AMish this morning, you missed the bits that were deserving of criticism. I have no objection to the post-limits, although I think they could possibly be a little higher (and I agree that there should be a way to pay for a higher limit, if you really want one).

But that post went up without the clarifications - making it unclear how comments and posts to communities counted - and the post limits were immediately switched on.

While I think the idea's workable, launching it that way is incredibly daft customer relations - especially as the first some people knew about it was when a post they were writing "when the switch was flipped" was rejected. If it's going to be based on a 24 hour rolling window, surely it's sense to provide at least 24 hours warning and a clear description of the changes?

Good points

From: wechsler
Date: February 6th, 2003 - 08:23 am (Link)
Which had escaped me in my early-morning state when I wrote this.
See also: http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=rho&itemid=153567
and my comment thereto.