feliciakw: (Default)
feliciakw ([personal profile] feliciakw) wrote2011-07-31 09:17 am
Entry tags:

Do we need a secondary venue?

With the wonkiness of LJ in the past week, a lot of us have been really frustrated with not being able to post, to communicate with one another, to contact peeps we only contact through LJ.

It seems a viable alternative might be prudent.

I know several of my LJ peeps really have no interest in Dreamwidth. I've also seen it indicated that DW users don't want DW to be inundated by LJ users.

It occurs to me that there is another alternative.

Long before I was talked into joining LJ, I was active on a number of Yahoo Groups. For those unfamiliar with YahooGroups, they act in a very similar manner to an LJ comm. I'm not sure about posting vids, and photos are posted in a photo folder available to the group.

Groups can be open or moderated, membership required or not. I spent many, MANY hours on my YahooGroups list. Too many. It's simple, convenient, and serves most of the purposes we use LJ for.

If anyone is interested, let me know. Perhaps a couple of us could start a group and co-mod or something.

[identity profile] ficwriter1966.livejournal.com 2011-07-31 02:01 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm thinking that people's lack of interest in Dreamwidth is because there's literally nothing over there. I searched for SPN comms and found only 2 or 3 (and 1 was a slash comm). But if people went over there and built things up, it could be a nice place to hang out.

The elitist DW users who don't want us unwashed LJ-ers over there can seriously go scratch.

I was a member of several Yahoo groups about 6-7 years ago. I find it VERY annoying to use. Cluttered and difficult to keep up with. From my POV Dreamwidth is a much better option.

[identity profile] feliciakw.livejournal.com 2011-07-31 11:24 pm (UTC)(link)
Interesting. I actually found YahooGroups to be more concise and consolidated than LJ, because all the conversation took place on one board. My lists also had very strict rules about not top-posting, and cutting the extra from the previous post(s) and only quoting the portion you were responding to.