That was prompted by the brand-spanking-new LJ homepage that was just announced, which shows your "ranking" in the social capital metric on it -- and said that I was #199 in the rankings. Which is, I confess, a tad startling (I post erratically enough that I wouldn't have expected to be in the top 1000), so I went and took a dig at the rest of the list. It seems to be real, although I still have no clear sense of what it *means*. But for giggles, here are the other journals I recognize in a quick skim of the top 500:
#4.
seanan_mcguire#7.
james_nicoll#9.
girlgeniuscomic#27.
filkertom#36.
autopope#62.
siderea#95.
ginmar#223.
lyonesse#224.
woodwardiocom#227.
usernamenumber#282.
ceceliatan#318.
rigel#323.
teddywolf#342.
plumtreeblossomReally, the most disconcerting part is that I've *met* the majority of those folks, and a few are old friends of mine. And while a part of me has a little ego-boo squee of being relatively high up in a very long (400k) list, mostly I suspect it reflects the gradual loss of ground as folks abandon LJ to Facebook. (Plus, I note that a number of the folks that I would expect to be high up don't show in the ratings at all, presumably because they've turned the feature off in the privacy settings --
siderea was the only one I specifically searched for who showed up.) So there's a definite "big fish in small pond" sensation to it...
Error: This account is not listed in LiveJournal's ratings system
There's an explicit setting for this whole Ratings thing on the Privacy Settings page. I suspect that may be opt-in, which I approve of, but would explain why so many people apparently don't show up in the listing. (I don't remember turning it on, but my memory is infamously bad, and it's the sort of thing I do tend to enable -- I live relatively publicly...)
Although I am amused that, in the past 24 hours ranking, I'm now all the way up at 22 -- that one clearly varies *enormously* day-to-day, since I think I was around 600-something yesterday.
(And that does suggest that the "small pond" really is fairly small these days, sadly. This has been a mildly active conversation, but #22 for the day, across the whole site?)