![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Was mostly indoors this weekend, due to the inclement weather. As such, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cheshcat and I got some much-needed spring cleaning done on Skullcrusher Mountain. Seems only appropriate to follow-up with some virtual spring cleaning here on LiveJournal.
As such, I have made some changes to my LJ friends list, removing about 20% of the active users on it. Since the act of "unfriending" -- such an awful word -- is so often taken personally, I would like to be quite clear that this is not an expression of anger or hostility towards anybody that was removed. The decision to remove some people was solely motivated by time (or a lack thereof) and the means of determining who to remove was done by a set of blind criteria.
I have a wide variety of goals in my life. Some big, some small. Some one-shots, some ongoing. One of those goals is to read everything new written by everyone on my LJ friends list. To keep this goal manageable, I have certain rules about who I add to said list. For instance, I only add people that I know in real life, or seem certain to meet in the very near future. Even so, from time to time -- about once a year -- I find that my friends list has grown too large for me to keep current on what everyone is writing. When that happens, it is time to pare the list down somewhat.
The last two times I did this, I made a simple request, asking readers to reply to a post. After two weeks, anyone who had not replied to either that post, or to any other post for approximately three months before it was presumed not to be reading my journal and was deleted. This method was moderately successful at paring down my list. However, there was one big flaw -- the majority of the people removed were infrequent LJ users who did not reply because they were not using LJ much at all. Removing said people did little to scale down the amount of text that accumulated on my friends page each day.
Thus, I decided that it was time to modify the method. Step one would be similar -- I reviewed all of my posts for the past three months. Anyone who had commented -- even once -- in that time would remain on my friends list. After all, I view one of LJ's main functions in my life as a social interaction tool for keeping in touch with people who are scattered across a wide geographic area. So if you're taking the time to interact with me, I want to welcome -- and reciprocate -- that interaction. More than half of my friends list passed the first criterion, which is a good thing.
Step two was designed to eliminate the flaw from the previous method. I reviewed the journals of anyone who had not commented in my LJ for the past three months. Anyone who had posted less than thirteen times would also not be removed from my friends list. After all, anyone who makes less than one post per week, on average, is not going to take much time to remain current on... and can easily be understood as somebody who is largely absent from LJ. Which explains the lack of interaction from them and makes me want to keep them onboard to greet them when they eventually re-surface. Two thirds of the people who had been tagged by step one were flagged as "inactive users" by step two.
The remaining people, who had been tagged as non-interactive (with me) in step one and as an active LJ user by step two were removed from my friends list. Doesn't mean I don't like them or am angry at them or whatever. Just means that I don't have time to read everything right now, and if I have to choose who not to read, I'd rather let go of people who post frequently but don't interact with me via this medium. There are plenty of real-life friends that I don't interact with on LJ and, likewise, I am more than happy to maintain friendships with people who are not choosing to interact with me here. Have I disclaimed this enough yet?
Anyway, there are the criteria; those removed were selected blindly using them. And if you've read this far, I should point out that I warned you before you looked behind the cut that this part would be boring!
If anyone feels slighted, please do feel free to leave a comment. I am screening all replies for privacy and I promise a response to every comment.
cheshcat and I got some much-needed spring cleaning done on Skullcrusher Mountain. Seems only appropriate to follow-up with some virtual spring cleaning here on LiveJournal.As such, I have made some changes to my LJ friends list, removing about 20% of the active users on it. Since the act of "unfriending" -- such an awful word -- is so often taken personally, I would like to be quite clear that this is not an expression of anger or hostility towards anybody that was removed. The decision to remove some people was solely motivated by time (or a lack thereof) and the means of determining who to remove was done by a set of blind criteria.
I have a wide variety of goals in my life. Some big, some small. Some one-shots, some ongoing. One of those goals is to read everything new written by everyone on my LJ friends list. To keep this goal manageable, I have certain rules about who I add to said list. For instance, I only add people that I know in real life, or seem certain to meet in the very near future. Even so, from time to time -- about once a year -- I find that my friends list has grown too large for me to keep current on what everyone is writing. When that happens, it is time to pare the list down somewhat.
The last two times I did this, I made a simple request, asking readers to reply to a post. After two weeks, anyone who had not replied to either that post, or to any other post for approximately three months before it was presumed not to be reading my journal and was deleted. This method was moderately successful at paring down my list. However, there was one big flaw -- the majority of the people removed were infrequent LJ users who did not reply because they were not using LJ much at all. Removing said people did little to scale down the amount of text that accumulated on my friends page each day.
Thus, I decided that it was time to modify the method. Step one would be similar -- I reviewed all of my posts for the past three months. Anyone who had commented -- even once -- in that time would remain on my friends list. After all, I view one of LJ's main functions in my life as a social interaction tool for keeping in touch with people who are scattered across a wide geographic area. So if you're taking the time to interact with me, I want to welcome -- and reciprocate -- that interaction. More than half of my friends list passed the first criterion, which is a good thing.
Step two was designed to eliminate the flaw from the previous method. I reviewed the journals of anyone who had not commented in my LJ for the past three months. Anyone who had posted less than thirteen times would also not be removed from my friends list. After all, anyone who makes less than one post per week, on average, is not going to take much time to remain current on... and can easily be understood as somebody who is largely absent from LJ. Which explains the lack of interaction from them and makes me want to keep them onboard to greet them when they eventually re-surface. Two thirds of the people who had been tagged by step one were flagged as "inactive users" by step two.
The remaining people, who had been tagged as non-interactive (with me) in step one and as an active LJ user by step two were removed from my friends list. Doesn't mean I don't like them or am angry at them or whatever. Just means that I don't have time to read everything right now, and if I have to choose who not to read, I'd rather let go of people who post frequently but don't interact with me via this medium. There are plenty of real-life friends that I don't interact with on LJ and, likewise, I am more than happy to maintain friendships with people who are not choosing to interact with me here. Have I disclaimed this enough yet?
Anyway, there are the criteria; those removed were selected blindly using them. And if you've read this far, I should point out that I warned you before you looked behind the cut that this part would be boring!
If anyone feels slighted, please do feel free to leave a comment. I am screening all replies for privacy and I promise a response to every comment.
Tags: