?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Livejournal/McDonald's - Sauce1977 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Sauce1977

[ Userinfo | Sauce1977 Userinfo ]
[ Archive | Sauce1977 Archive ]

Livejournal/McDonald's [Aug. 11th, 2005|10:00 pm]
Sauce1977
[Tags|, , ]
[Special Music |I'm Lovin' It, badah bah bah bahhhhhh]



I noticed that LJ hit the 7 million mark in journals.

LJ has become a McJournal.

The quality as numbers increase decreases on average, but the chance of connection with fascinating people and their journals increase.

We shall see.

linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: joethecabdriver
2005-08-12 02:25 am (UTC)
how long will it take before they hit the 1 billion mark? What are the implications?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-12 02:35 am (UTC)
As long as they don't mail me plastic meat, then I'm okay.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hulagalinthesky
2005-08-12 12:31 pm (UTC)
I do a lot of random searching and reading of various journals looking for blogs with that certain je ne sais quois that makes me want to add them...and I have to say that 95% of them completely suck (in my opinion).

This would lead me to believe that if the volume of lousy journals is on the rise, the chance of connecting with some worth reading is on the decline.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-12 06:51 pm (UTC)

Oh No!

I just woke up, and now I spent some deep thought in stat theory in which I haven't cracked a book in a handful of years. Ow!

Actually, I flubbed.

Thanks for helping me catch that. The probability remains the same, like a coin flip. Only in this case, your probability is like 5 percent the entire time.

The probability could increase or decrease, depending upon your personal preferences, over time. It would be an odd statistical model, but if you decided that one of the 5 wasn't worth it, and that 4 percent drop would decrease the chances, over time, below 5 percent, since you're now lookin' for people based off only 4 of 100.

I was thinking, originally, of the friends one discovers on the blog. They tend to increase. Also, like if you're playing a slot machine, and you keep pullin' the lever and keep missing the jackpot, eventually, you'll hit it, despite the probability being the same no matter where you sit for the lever pull.

As for the quality decrease in numbers, that's an assumption that those who love blogs and are good at 'em probably got on the wagon at the beginning in greater numbers. Over time, as the popularity increases, you get a larger and more representative population, one which may or may not be that great with blogs, may not care for blogs but has one anyway, and a number of other reasons that make 'em not that good at bloggin.'

My head explode.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hulagalinthesky
2005-08-12 06:56 pm (UTC)

Re: Oh No!

Math hurts.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-12 07:07 pm (UTC)

Re: Oh No!

Like love!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hulagalinthesky
2005-08-12 07:09 pm (UTC)

Re: Oh No!

Indeed you are correct.

That which does not kill us only makes us stronger???
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-12 07:14 pm (UTC)

YES!

Hoo-ah!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: wlee
2005-08-12 08:35 pm (UTC)

MmmMMmMMMmmm.....

fascinating people.

MmmmMmmmm.

fascinating people.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-12 09:53 pm (UTC)

Re: MmmMMmMMMmmm.....

I always forget just how many of those are 'active.'

The number would be far less, I'd wager.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: acid_burn_007
2005-08-14 12:29 am (UTC)
McJournal indeed. *coughs* I'd like the #3, no drama please!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2005-08-14 09:21 am (UTC)
Fantastic!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)