If you're a Livejournal user, you might want to read this:

[entelein]

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=news&itemid=63413

Just spreading the word. It looks like some of you spammy bastards might now find yourselves cut off prematurely.

Comments have been turned off on the post in question, by the way. It's quite the flame war over there.

Comments

[ozy-y2k.livejournal.com]

This whole controversy just freakin' kills me. I mean, who the hell actually believes that they're so damn interesting that they have more than three halfway decent worthwhile posts in them in the course of an average day, anyway? I think 3 per 24 hour period is just fine, in fact I think the limitation should be extended to paid users as well, and if you break the limit your punishment is that you are forced to IM with a 15-year old Chris Carrabba fan who will do nothing but quote lyrics at you until you break down and start sobbing uncontrollably.

Navel-gazy twits.

[entelein.livejournal.com]

I agree, generally speaking, with your points. However, despite the fact that they seem to have the right to implement this policy and all, it seems to be bad business in the method by which way they're doing it. There was very little notice at all.

I know that, for me, there are times when significant amounts of posts are almost necessary. I didn't slog through ALL the comments to that News post, but one of the points made was that there was one user who had posted upwards of 50 per day in the period of September 11th through the 15th, 2001. Many message boards that day were inundated, not just livejournal, as people tried to get information they couldn't get because they were confined to their workspace, or unable to make calls into New York City.

I understand your frustration, but I tend to refrain from defining what makes a good journal, or what constitutes whiny superfluous navel-gazing - I go on a case-by-case basis. ;) It just seems that, for what LiveJournal is, this sort of posting restriction seems to go against its very nature.

I've very rarely gone above 3 posts per day myself, and I have my own freaking domain, so whatever. But still. I can see why people would be riled over it.

[randomdreams.livejournal.com]

the few times (okay once) that I've posted more than three times in 24 hours, two of them could easily have been deleted with no perceptible loss to the world. In fact it might've actually been a good idea.

[eeyorerin]

It's interesting that comments don't count, so you could conceivably post three times and then add on to your posts in comments. Just sayin'. :)

Maybe this will have the added effect of moving people onto other services (since I'd imagine there will be a few people who take their ball and go home) which will improve service for those who stay. I mean, heck, if I don't like their policies, I'll start a journal somewhere else.

Part of me thinks "yeah, this is unfair," but another part of me thinks "hey, there are a lot of options out here, and no one's forcing you to keep posting on LiveJournal." Heck, the source is free -- if you have the Mad Skizzilz and the server access, you can even run your own LiveJournal server. (Yeah, I know Joe Average User couldn't do that).

I'm glad I'm not in the admin's position.

[wildsoda.livejournal.com]

There's apparently one out there called Blurty that's got the same structure (software?) as LiveJournal.

Also, the 3 posts per day were for free users. Paid users get a lot more, and if you're posting that much, why not drop them $25 a year to help them run their damn servers?

[eeyorerin]

Yeah, and there's DeadJournal and UJournal too. (We're probably installing LJ on one of the servers at my work, so that people in my department can use it with the courses they're teaching, so I ended up researching it.)

Me, I've got a paid account, but I can't imagine going over 3 posts a day anyways, just cause of how I tend to journal. (And everyone is like me, of course, for i am perfect. :)

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

I'm not too upset about it because it won't affect me-- I'm a paid user, and as you pointed out, the paid user limit is 20.

Someone pointed out that it states in the terms that they are subject to change without notice. So technically that's notice enough. However, I agree with you that even with that there, it's still effectively bad business not to give some advance notice. The letter of the contract isn't always the right thing to do-- both as in just what's ethical and as in what's going to keep people wanting to stay with your business.

[eeyorerin]

Oh, and as I was posting that last comment, they posted an update about it, which included a poll:

http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?journal=news&itemid=63562