About my LJ

[chrisvenus]

After a brief conversation on another LJ I decided to put up the following to try to help people understand my livejournal more. I'm not a believer in memes but I think it might be vaguely interesting for some people to note down what they think... And I think I might put this in my userifno too. Hopefully this will stop all those millions of users that aren't my friends from getting too upset. :)

I use my journal for: keeping track of what my friends are up to, relieveing bored moments at work with LJ conversations (usually on my friends' journals) and keeping a sporadic record of what I've been up to.

Being on my friends list means: That either I know you or you seem interesting enough that I want to read your journal. Being on my friends list doesn't necessarily mean I read what you say since I often skim read LJ.

Me being on your friends list means: I can read your most generically restricted posts and that you might let me read more private posts.

Not friending you after you friended me means: one of a few things. Firstly that your journal doesn't interest me. This is usually because there are too many "what kind of thing am I" quizzes. Alternatively it could be because I haven't worked out who you are so haven't added you to attempt to keep my friends list manageable. Lastly it could be just because I haven't bothered yet. Adding people to my friends list is a relatively rare occurence.

Friending you and not being friended back means: That I can't read what you write. I would generally assume that this is because you don't want me to read what you write. Or possibly that you haven't bothered to add me back and nothing more than that.

I make friends only posts because: They contain content that I don't want to be fully in the public domain. This might be work related or personal stuff. I very rarely use custom groups but occasionally I do to either contact an individual that I know is reading LJ but not necessarily e-mail or if something is *very* personal or possibly just me being bitchy.

Comments

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Friending you and not being friended back means: That I can't read what you write.

Why the disparity between this and your answer to the previous question? If you friend me and I don't friend you, are you just too paranoid to consider that it might be for one of the same reasons you didn't friend Bob back when he friended you?

For the record, I have never made a friends-locked post on LJ and never intend to, so to me it's quite odd that this is your default assumption.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Re-reading that post, it sounds very aggressive. Sorry, it isn't meant to be - I'm just curious.

[chrisvenus]

Not a problem. I didn't read it as particularly aggressive. Partly because I had intended to address the point in the post but forgot. :)

[chrisvenus]

I was intrigued by the disparity myself. I was thinking of genuine answers and that is what they are. The problem stems from the fact that I don't friend people whos journal I find uninteresting, etc. I should friend people that I am happy to read my stuff and use a default friends view but I haven't bothered to set it up yet so I don't. Hence the disparity I think. I probably should fix that though now I have nicely highlighted my hipocrisy. :)

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

It's dependent on viewpoint?

You don't know their reasoning/motivation, nor is it necessarally the same for each person in this category - all you can *know* is that you can't read their posts - whereas you can give an explanation of your own reasoning, because you're speaking from a position of knowledge.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

all you can *know* is that you can't read their posts

Part of my point was that you don't even know that, because you don't know whether there are any locked posts. So all you know is "if there are any locked posts, I can't read them".

But you know that about any journal - "if there are any posts locked in a way which excludes me, I can't read them".

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

You can if you can be bothered to compare number of posts on the calendar to posts visible to you - though it doesn't tell you how locked-down those non-visible posts are.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I didn't know that. So the calendar leaks information about people's locked posts, eh? Interesting...

[sea-of-flame.livejournal.com]

Solely that they exist, numerically-speaking - not the subject lines or to whom they are open (you can deduce that they're not open to you, but not whether they're private/custom/friends only)

[chrisvenus]

I've just realised that that should have provisos of "private stuff" rather than generic stuff. I was unfortuantely thinking in terms of the post that inspired me whcih was a private post...