LiveJournal: A Cautionary Tale

By Josh Catone
We teamed up with SiteGround
To bring you the latest from the web and tried-and-true hosting, recommended for designers and developers. SitePoint Readers Get Up To 65% OFF Now

Arvind Narayanan, a Ph.D candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, has a great post up on his LiveJournal blog about what could have been for the once great blogging platform. Narayanan thinks that LiveJournal missed a golden opportunity to become the social networking site on the Internet. Narayanan seems to think that LiveJournal could have been Facebook, WordPress, and Twitter all at once, but it fumbled the ball by making one fatal mistake: it listened to its users when it shouldn’t have.

But let’s back up. According to Narayanan, social ideas that LiveJournal helped to originate earlier this decade are finally starting to be implemented across the web. Facebook has redesigned to emphasize its activity streams as a response to Twitter, Google’s Blogger added “following” in response to Facebook, and WordPress acquired IntenseDebate to take on third party commenting systems that are rising in popularity, such as Disqus.

Go back 5 years ago, says Narayanan, and you’d notice that LiveJournal had all of those killer features. It also had a technical lead over its competitors — it developed the now ubiquitous memcached memory caching system (of which Facebook is largest user), and the growing in popularity OpenID also came out of LiveJournal. It had a huge user base by 2003 standards, and the site had an open API that allowed developer access to user profile data. All the things that make social networks like Facebook and Twitter and platforms like WordPress so special today, LiveJournal had the foundations of five years ago.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but had LiveJournal put syndication front-and-center, allowed users to import external feeds, and added a Disqus-like commenting widget, LJ could have cemented itself as the world’s top social network, blogging platform, and web-wide commenting system, Narayanan believes. And these were things that they would have done, he says, if not for making one major mistake: they listened to their users and stuck to a “design philosophy of being an island cut off from the rest of the Web,” that proved to be disastrously wrongheaded.

Narayanan goes into more detail about what the LiveJournal users of 2003 unfortunately impressed upon the company, and what LiveJournal should have done instead, but the lesson is simple: sometimes you need to say no to your users.

In July, we wrote about video site Vimeo who angered a vocal minority of its user base when it decided to say no and ban video game movies from the site. Sometimes your users are right, and listening to them is beneficial, but sometimes they’re not, and following the advice of a vocal minority or those early adopters that are resistant to change will lead you down the wrong path.

Facebook has made a habit of pissing off its users but riding out the storm during major changes. They did it when they opened the site to non-college users. They did it again when they added the News Feed. And most recently when they rolled out their feed-centric redesign to the entire site. In each instance, a very vocal minority put up a huge stink about how awful the change was. And in each instance, Facebook stuck to their guns and users eventually capitulated and got used to the change, and sometimes even began to love it. The result? Facebook is now the biggest social networking site in the world and is riding a $15 billion valuation.

As I noted in July, I will mention here that I argued an opposing view in February at ReadWriteWeb. (Though, to a certain extent, I think both ideas can be reconciled — there are times when letting your users define your app is okay, and other times when you have to say no. The tricky part is figuring out when to say yes and when to say no.)

We teamed up with SiteGround
To bring you the latest from the web and tried-and-true hosting, recommended for designers and developers. SitePoint Readers Get Up To 65% OFF Now
  • aj[fp]

    I have to agree with this article. I used to (well still do, I guess) run a very large social networking, multi-player MUD. Now while this had nothing on 3D games, is was extremely popular, and I too made the horrible decision of trying to please my users (and they were also normally just loud minority groups).

    Now, the game is for the most part dead and I am left to start from scratch. Sometimes it is indeed best to let your better decision be the factor which changes the way of your app, not a bunch of kids with no business sense.


  • S

    Perhaps. But Livejournal was a very different organization in 2003. That was before its sale to Six Apart, and later to SUP. When it was originally started it was funded only by subscriptions and run by volunteers – it was a site with an ideology, not a profit motive. In light of that, it was entirely proper for them to listen to their user-base. Witness the way that they freely gave their code away to copycat sites, each with their own niche. Comparing the original Livejornal, part of the free software movement, to Livejournal Inc. seems like a strange exercise to me.

  • Ex LiveJournal User

    As an early adopter of LiveJournal, I finally stopped using it about two years ago. The reason is because of the points you touched on. LiveJournal refused to open up and really morph itself in a social powerhouse. I felt restricted while other social sites were allowing portability and put the collaborative and community features in the open. LiveJournal had syndication, but it was really a hidden feature for a very long time. There was also limited ability to really build an identity attached to the blogs.

    While I agree that LiveJournal really started out as a volunteer-run community with no motivation for profit, it really did miss out on a huge opportunity. It’s funny this article was written because I was just thinking about this topic last week. I was thinking about what LiveJournal COULD have been. You are absolutely correct in stating LiveJournal had all these great features 5 years ago. They just never made it a priority to promote them, and really let users run with them. I think many people just saw LiveJournal as a restrictive “diary” style blogging platform, instead of a great social network. It was one of the originals.

    I also don’t think that SixApart really had any interest in bringing LiveJournal to maturity. They already had existing blogging platforms, and I feel, only acquired LiveJournal for the technology and development behind it. Once they were done picking it apart for their own services, they promptly sold it to SUP, who has now overrun LiveJournal with ads.

  • Anonymous

    you should always listen to your users. And perhaps not every site wants to be spam and adware-laden cow fodder. Maybe some places aren’t drive-thru windows on a virtual scale. I hate all of those other sites with a passion.