?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
26 March 2009 @ 06:49 pm
LiveJournal: Rejection is Good for the Soul  
It's amazing (at least to me) that so many LJ communities have membership requirements demanding that applicants have a significant comment-to-post ratio and a substantial posting history within their own journals, otherwise face being rejected for failing to meet their arbitrary criteria.

Considering the amount of crap minutia some people post to their journals, is someone really less of a participatory netizen for not posting until they feel they have something worthwhile to say? Or should their flist be treated to daily updates about their morning Dunkin' Donuts ritual just to raise their posting history count?

I enjoy fandom and its various offshoots. But there's a lot of information out there to read and digest, and much of it of greater value and far more importance than discussing the latest fannish kerfluffle.

So, while my comment-to-post ratio and my journal posting history are very low, I do remain comforted by the aphorism: Better to be thought a fool, then to hit post and prove it.
 
 
 
Bounce!partly_bouncy on March 27th, 2009 01:12 am (UTC)
What communities? :( And people have time to keep track of that stuff? I run a community and I'm just too lazy.
(Screened comment)
Bounce!partly_bouncy on March 27th, 2009 02:21 am (UTC)
Why can't they just make the community FLocked? :/ And if they are that paranoid, maybe it is a clue that, you know, you're doing something wrong.
Dinpikdinpik on April 2nd, 2009 05:57 pm (UTC)
All right, that's just stupid. Even if you're a community dedicated to scarfing down copyrighted material. Are people supposed to open up their flocked posts to the community mods' perusal?
Dash O'Pepperpfeffermuse on April 4th, 2009 12:59 am (UTC)
It's actually the other way around. They go through your public posts and "suggest" that you flock certain ones. Of course, they never say which specif ones you should flock; so, you're kind of left with a "you know which ones we're talking about" response.