Very cool, if true

I don't really feel many people read LJ these days so it's not so much worth posting here.

From:

There still seem to be plenty of people reading - they just aren't writing as much, as far as I can tell.

Also, a bit of a viscous circle, as the less people write, the less read, and vice versa.

From:

randomchris.livejournal.com

I tend to use LJ for large updates and life dumps, but don't do so if I've already put the same stuff on Facebook, as I figure people will have seen it there.

From:

I almost certainly won't have done, as I rarely get to read Facebook, and it doesn't provide decent filtering tools, so I can't easily keep up with what the people I care about are doing.

From:

There are still a few readers but many many more on facebook. Google + hard to tell, I think that's dying.

From:

I get more unique hits here than I have friends on FB.

From:

Isn't that just because you don't use facebook that much though? Or perhaps it is a circle of friends thing.

I was a late holdout with facebook but eventually realised that despite LJ having been my primary social network for about six or seven years there just wasn't many people using it any more -- I can't remember when I started using Facebook -- less than a year ago I think and my Facebook friends list is larger than my LJ friends list (despite being more selective on Facebook).

Not that LJ is a bad thing at all -- just that if I do post here (which I almost never do) I'll link it from Facebook to get attention.

In a lot of ways I prefer LJ but it just doesn't have the user base among my circle of friends.

From:

I have, apparently, 309 friends on FB.

I am sometimes tempted to crosspost to there, but that would either mean doing it by hand, or living with it importing stuff that I might not want relatives stumbling over by accident.

From:

tysolna

I post here, and I am also on FB and now on G+.

There are people on FB that I would have lost touch with if not for FB. I occasionally throw in a one-sentence update along the lines of "Headache again" or "99% of all unicorns are virgins".

G+ is shiny and new and, like a new toy, wants to be played with. I also like the functionality of the circles, and have started a writing circle with friends who, again, are on FB and G+, but not on LJ, and that works very well indeed.
G+ reminds me more of tumblr than of Facebook, by the way.

From:

I like G+ quite a lot. If it wasn't for the name thing I'd be pretty happy with it.

(And happier again if they implemented threaded comments.)

From:

alitheapipkin.livejournal.com

I haven't filled in the poll because I still post around here. I do post on FB more but just odd snippets to keep up with people, whereas I witter on on here because it's a safer place for brain dumps.

I'm still resisting G+, I feel no need for a further social networking site and I have two different gmail accounts that I want to keep separate.

From:

red-phil.livejournal.com

Events are one of the main things I use Facebook for.
None of the other services have a decent tool for doing that (yet?).

Also Facebook has a wider group of contacts on it than LJ and more active contacts than G+.

From:

Of the people I friended on G+, now that the "WOO we're on G+ it's going to be fab" bit has passed, they're either ignoring it, reading but not posting or else using it like a Tumblr and just reblogging things from other people. Which is a shame, since I'd rather they used Tumblr for that since the interface is more customisable.

There's no point in doing the kind of things I do on FB on G+ since there aren't as many people and the event interface is the primary reason I went on to FB in the first place.

From:

artkouros.livejournal.com

I used to love LJ but now,

1) There are very few of the people I used to love to talk to left here

2) Numerous loss of service issues over the years

I'm not a fan of FB except for simple status updates and keeping up with family. I'm on G+, but it's just like FB as far as I can tell. I like blogger, but have no friends there.

From:

I suppose it's worth saying that, amongst my friends, far more of them post actual personal content (ie thoughts, opinions, daily updates as opposed to link/photo spam) on Facebook rather than LJ or G+. LJ/G+ are mostly photo/link spam for all but a couple of friends, and of the ones who do that kind of thing on FB, they also post actual personal content too.

From:

meaningrequired.livejournal.com

Facebook for me, is a collection of contacts, with intermittent updates to ensure I retain some level of familiarity.

Livejournal is where I share my feelings.

From:

The sites also have a reputation, which can put people off.

If I meet someone and get on with them, I might say "oh hey, add me on facebook" and they'll know what I mean. If I said "oh hey, add me on LJ" then that could seem overly personal, or they might still see LJ as what used to be a fairly commonly mentioned stereotype ie that it's a place for people to post angsty poetry and rambling screeds about their self-harm issues under a name like xXx_reznorfan666_xXx. Fair or unfair, it's certainly an image that it had. Having a G+ account is a bit nerdy at the moment, having a facebook is normal (these days), having a livejournal can still be seen as odd by some.

From:

I'd happily use a front-end that aggregated FB, G+ and LJ though.

From:

I hide the news feed items for any people that post crap or who have lives that don't interest me, and usually only browse status updates which makes it easy.

From:

Yes - this would make a difference. Some of mine do on FB, but most don't do much of that. At least not much in the way of information.

From:

alitheapipkin.livejournal.com

Yes this. The people I'm closer to on FB I usually share more personal stuff with in person or private messages/chat. Most of my FB contacts are old school friends who I have little in common with these days.

From:

Not at all related to this post but I was wandering around your website and happened across your post about stocks and how they work. I'm not at all sure the divident yield works how you think it does... or rather your technical description of the situation is correct but the conclusion that dividend yield is (or even should be) what drives investment is not so clear. Checkout the wikipedia article on it. In general people don't make money on the stock market through dividends and dividend yield is fairly low these days (compared to historically). The idea of buying stock in the hope of dividends is more historically important than currently important. Statistically it depends how you do the analysis. A naive analysis shows no correlation between dividend yield and stock price but the data can be tortured in various ways to get a relationship.

Interesting read though -- I was actually unaware of the comics collapse thing.

From:

Yes - there is, nowadays, much less correlation. Although there really ought to be, if the market was working efficiently.

The value of shares ought to be based on the expected return (dividend) and the expected profit on reselling the shares.

The first part of that is nice and stable (so long as the dividend is), the latter part has a positive feedback loop built in.

This means that the latter part can easily outweigh the first part, if the market is at all excitable. If the price goes up enough to cause short-term investors to jump in then that pushes the price up enough to attract more short-term investors, and so on, causing a bubble. Eventually the price becomes so overvalued based on the stable part (the actual return on investment) that it becomes clear that the price is going to have to drop. At which point the smartest investors drop out, the increase in value drops, making it less worthwhile for lesser investors, and then suddenly the price is being positively reinforced in a downward direction, because a dropping share is worth negative money.

What I would expect is that over time you would have a boom/bust cycle around a central value that is based on the dividend, because that's the only value that's at all stable over the long term. Without that there any value is based purely on random variation.

There's clearly some correlation, because companies performing badly see their share prices drop, and companies performing badly see their share prices rise.

If investors were forced to hold on to shares for a long period (say, three months) after buying them then the whole market would be massively different, of course. At the moment it's largely based on second-order properties of value, rather than on value itself.

From: