LiveJournal：警示故事

关注

翻译最新推荐文章于 2024-10-16 15:54:31 发布 560 阅读 AI 写同款· GEO 优化 ›

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.

阿文德·纳拉亚南，在得克萨斯大学奥斯汀大学的博士研究生，有很大的职位了他的LiveJournal左右博客有哪些可以为一次伟大的博客平台。纳拉亚南认为LiveJournal的错过了一个千载难逢的机会，成为互联网上的社交网站。 Narayanan似乎认为LiveJournal可以同时成为Facebook，WordPress和Twitter，但它犯了一个致命的错误，使它大失所望：它本来应该听用户的话。

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.

但是，让我们备份一下。据Narayanan所说，LiveJournal在本十年初所发源的社会思想终于开始在网络上实现。 Facebook经过重新设计，以强调其活动流作为对Twitter的回应，Google的Blogger在对Facebook的回应中添加了“关注”，而WordPress收购了Fyre来接受越来越流行的第三方评论系统，例如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.

Narayanan说，回到5年前，您会注意到LiveJournal具有所有这些杀手级功能。它也有超过其竞争对手的技术领先-它开发了现在无处不在的memcached内存缓存系统(其中Facebook是最大的用户)，以及日益普及的OpenID也来到LiveJournal的出来。按照2003年的标准，它拥有庞大的用户群，并且该站点具有开放的API，允许开发人员访问用户个人资料数据。所有使Facebook和Twitter等社交网络以及WordPress等平台今天变得如此特别的事物，LiveJournal成立于5年前。

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.

Hindsight始终为20/20，但是让LiveJournal成为企业联合的中心，允许用户导入外部供稿，并添加了类似Disqus的注释小部件，LJ可以巩固自己的地位，成为世界上顶级的社交网络，博客平台和Narayanan相信，整个网络的评论系统。他说，如果不是犯一个重大错误，这些事情是他们本可以做的：他们听取了用户的意见，并坚持“成为远离网络其余部分的孤岛的设计理念”，事实证明，灾难性地误入歧途。

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.

Narayanan详细介绍了2003年的LiveJournal用户给公司留下了深刻的印象，以及LiveJournal应该做的事情，但是教训很简单：有时您需要对用户说不。

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.

7月，我们写了有关视频网站Vimeo的消息，该网站决定拒绝并禁止该网站中的视频游戏电影时激怒了少数用户。有时您的用户是对的，而听取他们的意见是有益的，但有时却是不对的，而遵循少数派的意见或那些抵制变革的早期采用者的建议，会使您走错路。

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.

Facebook养成了惹恼用户的习惯，但在重大变化期间渡过了难关。他们向非大学用户开放该网站时就做到了。当他们添加新闻提要时，他们又做了一次。最近一次是他们将以饲料为中心的重新设计推广到整个工厂。在每种情况下，很少有人直言不讳地表示这种变化是多么可怕。在每种情况下，Facebook都坚守自己的立场，最终用户屈服并习惯了这种变化，有时甚至开始喜欢它。结果？ Facebook现在是世界上最大的社交网站，估值达到150亿美元。

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.)

正如我在7月指出的那样，我将在这里提及在2月的ReadWriteWeb上我提出了相反的观点。 (不过，在某种程度上，我认为这两种想法都可以调和-有时候让用户定义您的应用是可以的，有时是您不得不拒绝。有时候，棘手的部分是弄清楚何时说是，然后什么时候说不。