guardians_song (guardians_song) wrote,
guardians_song
guardians_song

Something's BADLY off about LJ's Social Capital calculations.

Social Capital is an indicator that reflects the influence of a specific user or community on LiveJournal. Social Capital is intended to identify how active and influential a user or community is. Each account's Social Capital is based on many different criteria, including the number of users who have added the journal or community to their Friends list, and various other activity throughout the site: how old and active the account is, do they leave comments in other journals and communities, how often do they log in, and many other factors that differentiate real users from bot accounts.

Except... ah... I have Social Capital 11. Here are my stats.
  • 1,907 journal entries
  • 5,850 comments posted
  • 4,590 comments received
  • Friend of 61 [most of them gone from LJ]
Here is the almighty kippurbird :
  • 2,050 journal entries
  • 13,594 comments posted
  • 26,393 comments received
  • Friend of 201
Kippurbird has LESS THAN 10 SOCIAL CAPITAL.
Oh, and as far as the age? Kippurbird's account was created in 2003, mine in 2007.

What in BLAZES is going on here? What sort of insane formula could possibly give me more Social Capital than Kippurbird?

Meanwhile, a_sporking_rat  (who is hilarious), has the following stats for a rating of 14 Social Capital:
Her journal was created less than a year ago.

There's something badly wrong here. Why can't LJ make its own social-status formula work in any sensible way?
This entry is mirrored at http://guardians-song.dreamwidth.org/118984.html. Comment wherever you like. Just remind me to get off the internet and do my homework.
Tags: darn you lj, livejournal, rant, thoughts
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

  • 2 comments