Sorry; I phrased things very badly! I don't at all mean to imply that LJ cultivated spam--only that they may not have put much effort (or any effort, on a practical level) into stopping it, because the nuisance level wasn't high enough to drive off users, and the results included some details that might've been beneficial to them.
I absolutely *do not* believe LJ sought or in any way encouraged spam journals. I only think they might not have been diligent about seeking ways to avoid them, until they were blocked by Spamhaus. I strongly believe they've been motivated by apathy with a small side of greed--"How much would it cost us to fix this? Versus, wait, its giving how many hit counts per day? And it would cost what to stop?" (No, LJ, you cannot pitch the constant flyovers of the pigeons as "organic sunscreen.")
I don't think they sought spam. I think that, when people first started complaining (fairly soon after invite codes went away), they shrugged it off as "not really bothering anyone, and besides, hard to figure out how to code to stop" and when it grew to a level that (1) it was bothering people and (2) would be very expensive & difficult to code to stop, they looked for simple solutions, found none, and then looked for excuses not to fix it.
Excuse #1: Damn, that's a lot of work for nebulous benefit. "Better user satisfaction" is not a line item we can bring to the stockholders.
Excuse #2: It's not causing any *real* problems. I mean, so journals are full of spam ... who cares? They eat a little bit of server space and that's all. So people get the occasional spam comment ... tell 'em they can set their posts to not allow anon comments and those'll go away.
Excuse #3: Um... at least it's site activity? It brings visibility?
Which is both weak and rather ridiculous, but I've seen dumber ideas brought up in corporate meetings, on the theory that, "if it's hard to fix, redefine the problem as an advantage and maybe it won't be a problem anymore."
no subject
I absolutely *do not* believe LJ sought or in any way encouraged spam journals. I only think they might not have been diligent about seeking ways to avoid them, until they were blocked by Spamhaus. I strongly believe they've been motivated by apathy with a small side of greed--"How much would it cost us to fix this? Versus, wait, its giving how many hit counts per day? And it would cost what to stop?" (No, LJ, you cannot pitch the constant flyovers of the pigeons as "organic sunscreen.")
I don't think they sought spam. I think that, when people first started complaining (fairly soon after invite codes went away), they shrugged it off as "not really bothering anyone, and besides, hard to figure out how to code to stop" and when it grew to a level that (1) it was bothering people and (2) would be very expensive & difficult to code to stop, they looked for simple solutions, found none, and then looked for excuses not to fix it.
Excuse #1: Damn, that's a lot of work for nebulous benefit. "Better user satisfaction" is not a line item we can bring to the stockholders.
Excuse #2: It's not causing any *real* problems. I mean, so journals are full of spam ... who cares? They eat a little bit of server space and that's all. So people get the occasional spam comment ... tell 'em they can set their posts to not allow anon comments and those'll go away.
Excuse #3: Um... at least it's site activity? It brings visibility?
Which is both weak and rather ridiculous, but I've seen dumber ideas brought up in corporate meetings, on the theory that, "if it's hard to fix, redefine the problem as an advantage and maybe it won't be a problem anymore."