199?

[jducoeur]

I confess, I have paid precisely zero attention to the LiveJournal concept of "Social Capital" -- I didn't actually know what it meant until I looked it up just now.

That was prompted by the brand-spanking-new LJ homepage that was just announced, which shows your "ranking" in the social capital metric on it -- and said that I was #199 in the rankings. Which is, I confess, a tad startling (I post erratically enough that I wouldn't have expected to be in the top 1000), so I went and took a dig at the rest of the list. It seems to be real, although I still have no clear sense of what it *means*. But for giggles, here are the other journals I recognize in a quick skim of the top 500:

#4. seanan_mcguire
#7. james_nicoll
#9. girlgeniuscomic
#27. filkertom
#36. autopope
#62. siderea
#95. ginmar
#223. lyonesse
#224. woodwardiocom
#227. usernamenumber
#282. ceceliatan
#318. rigel
#323. teddywolf
#342. plumtreeblossom

Really, the most disconcerting part is that I've *met* the majority of those folks, and a few are old friends of mine. And while a part of me has a little ego-boo squee of being relatively high up in a very long (400k) list, mostly I suspect it reflects the gradual loss of ground as folks abandon LJ to Facebook. (Plus, I note that a number of the folks that I would expect to be high up don't show in the ratings at all, presumably because they've turned the feature off in the privacy settings -- siderea was the only one I specifically searched for who showed up.) So there's a definite "big fish in small pond" sensation to it...

Comments

[keshwyn]

You don't read ursulav? Pity... She's a hoot. :-)

[etherial.livejournal.com]

So is jimhines.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Huh. 7? Really?

[jducoeur]

Your quotability is mighty. (IIRC, my quotefile has items from you from back in the Usenet days...)

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Because, what LJ really needed was a way to make the popularity contest explicit. :/

[jducoeur]

Yep. I have to assume that part of the motivation for this feature is to give people an artificial reason to post and comment more here, instead of over on FB...

[johno.livejournal.com]

No rating for me.


Error: This account is not listed in LiveJournal's ratings system

[jducoeur]

Yeah, there's a lot of that -- of the three friends I looked up (because I think their journals are interesting and meaty), two weren't listed.

There's an explicit setting for this whole Ratings thing on the Privacy Settings page. I suspect that may be opt-in, which I approve of, but would explain why so many people apparently don't show up in the listing. (I don't remember turning it on, but my memory is infamously bad, and it's the sort of thing I do tend to enable -- I live relatively publicly...)

[crschmidt.livejournal.com]

I have definitely never opted in specifically, and the box is checked for me. (I am #18979 in the rankings, apparently.)

[keshwyn]

I'm not checked in ratings, and I suspect I haven't been for a long time, but I'm still listed. It's possible commenting on *other* people's journals bumps one's rating, even if one has opted out.

[kiya]

I suspect the fact that you're up to 195 as of this reading may be related to james_nicoll linking to you.

[jducoeur]

Actually, it looks like a little day-to-day jiggle in the rankings is normal -- it may be nothing more than the fact that I posted something and people responded to it.

Although I am amused that, in the past 24 hours ranking, I'm now all the way up at 22 -- that one clearly varies *enormously* day-to-day, since I think I was around 600-something yesterday.

(And that does suggest that the "small pond" really is fairly small these days, sadly. This has been a mildly active conversation, but #22 for the day, across the whole site?)

[dragonazure.livejournal.com]

Here's a boost for you, but my own account won't register as I have the privacy feature set to not include me in any rankings. :P