a few more LJ nuggets

Story: Linux Journal: How Not To Run A BusinessTotal Replies: 38
Author Content
tuxchick

Oct 06, 2007
5:31 PM EST
I know that astute LXer readers will dispute a direct cause-and-effect from the issues I've raised, LJ's declining circulation, and the failures of other projects by the same publisher. Declining quality of content is probably a larger factor, but I think it all springs from the same well of cluelessness.

Here are some interesting numbers:

http://lwn.net/2001/0712/a/lj-awards.php3 "...the monthly magazine Linux Journal, boasts a circulation of well over 100,000."

That's in 2001.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/advertising/demographics "Linux Journal's circulation features a strong paid subscriber base and newsstand distribution consisting of approximately 90,000 people."

That's current numbers.

Tux Magazine croaked, and LJ's attempted hostile takeover of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Gazette Linux Gazette failed.

Given the explosive growth of Linux since 2001, I'd say that LJ is not a "worldwide success" at all, as one commenter said, but barely hanging on. So, it's safe to say that ticking people off and abusing reader loyalty is a poor way to expand their circulation.

I really didn't intend to keep beating up on LJ, but some folks are keeping it alive. So there. :)
bigg

Oct 06, 2007
7:07 PM EST
Incompetence is seldom isolated to one area of a business. The way they handled Tux Magazine (I was a subscriber) was another example of incompetence, as you note above.

LJ has never appealed to me. I always had the impression that it was a magazine that people purchased mostly because it was the first Linux publication, not because it had great content. According to your statistics, I may not be alone in my assessment. I doubt converts from Windows XP find it worth the price.
jdixon

Oct 07, 2007
4:38 AM EST
> I doubt converts from Windows XP find it worth the price.

As far as I've ever been able to tell from the few copies I picked up from retail outlets, LJ has never been targeted at the desktop user. So I'd say you're correct.
shmget

Oct 07, 2007
8:09 AM EST
"I know that astute LXer readers will dispute a direct cause-and-effect from the issues I've raised" you bet... that even has a name: "Non causa pro causa Fallacy".

"Here are some interesting numbers:" Interesting links...

" Demographics

# Male: 97% # Female: 3% ...

Point in case that Carla lack standing to speak in the name of the 'readership', and that the whole 'business' argument is flawed.

You want a read sexist stuff? take a look at http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/relationships/never-tea... (it took me a couple of minute of googling to find)

You won't have to have a wild imagination or to distort the text beyond recognition to find something 'offensive' there... for instance: "That brings up the final torturous taunt: mocking our Manhood. It's easy for you to tease a man about his member since you don't have one, but on our list of priorities, it's just below breathing."

Yet, rightly so, no-one is making any fuss about it.

Or things like "I live with three guys. It's not anywhere near as bad as it sounds. Sure, the place gets to be a pigsty every now and then, but there is almost no bickering, versus living with as many girls...." from..... http://linuxchick.org/guys.html

(note that I personally do not find anything offensive with linuxchick's statement, but reading it with Carla's Chips on my shoulder, the analysis would become: men are all pigs and women are all bickering brats... Sure it is stupid, but just as stupid as saying that the aforementioned ad 'means' that women are good for nothing but giving blowjobs...)
jdixon

Oct 07, 2007
8:21 AM EST
> Point in case that Carla lack standing to speak in the name of the 'readership'

Now. perhaps. Until recently that was not true. However, where does her publishing of readership statistics qualify as "speaking in the name of the readership"?

> and that the whole 'business' argument is flawed.

Not that I would expect it to make any more sense than anything else you've posted, but it would be nice if you even attempted to explain how.

> Yet, rightly so, no-one is making any fuss about it.

Oh, and you have access to Cosmopolitan's mail to determine this?
tuxchick

Oct 07, 2007
8:33 AM EST
LOL. jdixon, don't try to have a sensible debate with nonsense. Responding to a string of random non-sequiturs is not worth the effort.
jdixon

Oct 07, 2007
9:14 AM EST
> ...don't try to have a sensible debate with nonsense.

Nonsense repeated often enough without opposition becomes taken for the truth, TC.

dinotrac

Oct 07, 2007
10:00 AM EST
>Nonsense repeated often enough without opposition becomes taken for the truth, TC.

No matter how inconvenient that may be.
bigg

Oct 07, 2007
10:31 AM EST
> Nonsense repeated often enough without opposition becomes taken for the truth, TC.

Unless someone is writing an 18-page essay on why 2+3=4 and why the sky is pink. I think it's obvious to most readers that logic is not shmget's strong suit. He (she) is just crying out for attention.
tuxchick

Oct 07, 2007
10:42 AM EST
Well OK. As one of my favorite Linux wildmen says, "All-Righty Then."
Scott_Ruecker

Oct 07, 2007
12:41 PM EST
By the way, Ken gets mentioned and there is a pic of the Tux500 car in Marcel's article about racing games in the most recent LJ.
jacog

Oct 07, 2007
10:16 PM EST
Allow me to take some of TC's stats, and combine them with shmuck's stats to make up a figure of my own...

According to TC: Circulation of LJ is 90000 According to schm: 3% of those are female... soooo...

3% of 90000 is 2700 women. Put 2700 people in a room and tell me they are too insignifact a number to worry about pissing off. My high school only had 900 students.

And a footnote.... his comment "Sure it is stupid, but just as stupid as saying that the aforementioned ad 'means' that women are good for nothing but giving blowjobs..." just makes it clear, he has no understanding at all about why the ad is offensive.

And he also seems to think that because he himself is not offended, nobody else should be either. That's a typical attitude of an immature brat. I am guessing he's no older than 16.
Bob_Robertson

Oct 08, 2007
4:09 AM EST
> Nonsense repeated often enough without opposition becomes taken for the truth, TC.

Wow! It got political without me even posting! :^)

But seriously, I _expect_ that sort of thing from Cosmo. If the ad ran there, would it have been "offensive"?

bigg

Oct 08, 2007
4:28 AM EST
> Put 2700 people in a room and tell me they are too insignifact a number to worry about pissing off.

That assumes all men like the picture. I didn't. In fact, I found it very offensive, the same way it is offensive when a stranger tells me a dirty joke. Just because I'm a white man doesn't mean I like garbage like that.
shmget

Oct 08, 2007
8:59 AM EST
jacog,

"And a footnote.... his comment "Sure it is stupid, but just as stupid as saying that the aforementioned ad 'means' that women are good for nothing but giving blowjobs..." just makes it clear, he has no understanding at all about why the ad is offensive."

That was a quote from Clara. [Carla Schroder | August 18, 2007 11:52 AM , ]http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/08/linux_journal_t...

[According to TC: [...[]According to schm: ] Again, do your homework. these numbers are from http://www.linuxjournal.com/advertising/demographics, which you should have noticed if you actually have read and understood what you comented about.

[3% of 90000 is 2700 women. Put 2700 people in a room and tell me they are too insignifact a number to worry about pissing off. My high school only had 900 students.] And your high school was 1 in 11,700 in the country [source: ]http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007361] in other words, pissing off every student of your high-school is roughly pissing off 1 student in every 10 high-school of america.... even if it was relevant to this conversation, It surely is insignificant.

"And he also seems to think that because he himself is not offended, nobody else should be either. That's a typical attitude of an immature brat. I am guessing he's no older than 16."

Isn't that cute. I think Carla's words are appropriate here:

"Spineful Living, lesson 7: Assumptions Make....

Even in my old age, it still surprises me how often people like to think they know everything about me, and feel free to say the most obnoxious things."



bigg: "That assumes all men like the picture. " Sure, that is a valid objection thanks. Of course that also assume that every female would be offended, and there is also ad-hoc evidences hat this is not true either.... And certainly, a well orchestrated libelous campaign, inventing words and meaning out of thin air, can be very effective considering the lack of attention and care witness here. Again it require a very high dose of twisted imagination to go from:

"Don't be mad, Our server won't go down on you either" to "[...] insulting men, by calling them losers who can't get girlfriends, and women, by portraying them as stupid bimbos,"

The whole argument is based on the premise that the former imply the second. And that's a leap of faith.

dinotrac

Oct 08, 2007
9:04 AM EST
Gosh, all of this idiocy over the number 2700?

That's like pissing into the wind.

Helpful hint: find and read the book Blue Ocean Strategies.

Or, failing that, find an old copy of Guts and read the part about Bob Lutz's reaction to the proposed Dodge Ram testing poorly with focus groups and why he greenlighted the (subsequently very successful) design anyway.

Sometimes the numbers that matter most are not the people you have, but the people you could have if you were just a little smarter.
bigg

Oct 08, 2007
9:15 AM EST
> Sure, that is a valid objection thanks. Of course that also assume that every female would be offended, and there is also ad-hoc evidences hat this is not true either....

So I guess you have come to the light on one of the reasons for the weakness of your argument when you say

Demographics

# Male: 97% # Female: 3%

{Wasting my time responding, I know, but it's either this or reading Digg...}
bigg

Oct 08, 2007
9:17 AM EST
> Sometimes the numbers that matter most are not the people you have, but the people you could have if you were just a little smarter.

True, but that sure doesn't support shmget's argument. It is an informed statement.
dinotrac

Oct 08, 2007
9:21 AM EST
>True, but that sure doesn't support shmget's argument. It is an informed statement.

Yeah, I know. I tried really hard to support the guy, but my brain cells kept kicking in.

jacog

Oct 08, 2007
9:25 AM EST
shm:

>> And your high school was 1 in 11,700 in the country

Wrong country. And we're talking about the readership of Linux Journal. My point was that 3% is a significant number.

But anyway, I won't waste any more time on you either... you are exactly the third dumbest person I have ever encountered online.
bigg

Oct 08, 2007
9:43 AM EST
> I tried really hard to support the guy

Your problem is that you're just too friendly.
dinotrac

Oct 08, 2007
9:46 AM EST
>Your problem is that you're just too friendly.

Everybody says that. My sweet nature is always getting me into trouble.
shmget

Oct 08, 2007
12:07 PM EST
"Wrong country. And we're talking about the readership of Linux Journal."

that's just incredible. You bring up your 'high school analogy' and then you complain about it being off topic ???

"My point was that 3% is a significant number." That may have been your point, but you haven't made it with your high school analogy. And no, no other analogy will do either. now matter how big the base, 3% is 3 per 100, and is below the noise level of most thing you measure, especially as far as 'opinions' goes. The 90K reference readership number is not even that precise. Have you ever heard of significant digits ? in the quoted web page, how many significant digit there are in the 90,000 announced... do you think it is 90000 +/- 1 ? In real life if would be amazing if that number was accurate to +/- 1000. And since it is self-reported for marketing purpose, it is very likely inflated by much more than that.

And BTW. there is absolutely no way that the 90K number would reflect any post-Carla period. There is no way that before the end of August, LJ could know with any serious precision how many paid reader they had for the month. All they can tell you is how many they printed. They cannot possibly know at that point how many will 'come-back' as unsold from the newsstands... Which means that, whatever conclusion you draw from these numbers, they would still tell you nothing about Carla's impact on the financial well-being of LJ.

">> Sometimes the numbers that matter most are not the people you have, but the people you could have if you were just a little smarter.

>True, but that sure doesn't support shmget's argument. It is an informed statement."

Of course... the Ads that LJ do NOT run would miraculously attract 'potential' readers... that where not attracted before the ad was _not_ run, but all the sudden somehow felt that LJ did not run a ad that would have offended them, and flock.... Spooky action at a distance eh ?

Furthermore, 3% is already twice the rate of women developers in Free Software (source: "Anne Østergaard, Women in Free Software, finding from FLOSSPOLS". I don't have handy reliable stats about the user's demographic landscape, but odds are good that LJ is in the ballpark.

[So I guess you have come to the light on one of the reasons for the weakness of your argument when you say

Demographics

# Male: 97% # Female: 3% ]

When I 'say' this, it is not an argument, but quoting a fact summited, in that case, by linuxchick.

You are then attributing to me a dumb argument by jacog. Where did you find me saying,writing or assuming that every women are offended and no man is ?

When I wrote "Sure, that is a valid objection thanks." I was sustaining you objection to jacog argument - which you were responding to (as the quote that preceded the response indicated). and thanking you for a welcomed attempt at a rational thought.
jdixon

Oct 08, 2007
2:43 PM EST
> ...You bring up your 'high school analogy' and then you complain about it being off topic...

You know, it would really help if you had some grasp of the language you are trying to argue with. What part of "wrong country" did you not understand?

The rest of your statements aren't worth bothering with. They do more to win the argument for your opposition than they do for you.
jacog

Oct 08, 2007
11:29 PM EST
It wasn't even an analogy... just a point of reference to show my own view on the number's significance.

Pfahrrrgh ... I am done with this thread... I am just getting pissed off now. His rational and emotional frame of reference is entirely based on his own gender, his own place of residence - probably his own race, his own income group etc. as well. In fact, he shows a complete inability to think how someone else might feel about a topic.

"I am not upset, neither should you be. I don't think offending more than 2000 people is so bad, neither should you."

Go play with your Action Man.
shmget

Oct 09, 2007
7:13 AM EST
jacob wrote: "I am guessing he's no older than 16" and "His rational and emotional frame of reference is entirely based on [...] his own income group[...]"

The pattern here is an Argumentum ad hominem Fallacy combined with few Argumenta ad populum Fallacies. [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#populum]. Of course "jacog" has absolutely no ideas about my gender, place of residence, race, age, income group, etc. Actually, as shown above, his tripping over his wild guesses every two posts.

jacob wrote: ["I am not upset, neither should you be. I don't think offending more than 2000 people is so bad, neither should you."

Go play with your Action Man. ]

you are inventing quotes. the text above that you put inside double-quote is you own invention and is not a quote. the form in this instance, is called a Strawman fallacy. I can play that game too: "I am upset, so you should be too. I think that 2000 is a big number regardless of the frame of reference and I don't believe in significant digits, confidence intervals nor statistical significance, neither should you".





jdixon

Oct 09, 2007
8:06 AM EST
> I am upset, so you should be too.

I'm not upset. The ad did not bother me at all, and I'm not a Linux Journal subscriber.

I don't care whether you're upset or not. Whether the ad bothers you or not, whether you choose to subscribe to LJ or not, and why you may do so are none of my concern.

What is my concern is your attacking people who are offended by the ad when all they are doing is voicing their concerns and requesting that other people who agree with them do likewise. Whether you like it or not, that's what responsible people do, and I won't stand by while you try to intimidate them into shutting up. Not that you have any hope of intimidating TC in any case, but...
dinotrac

Oct 09, 2007
8:48 AM EST
>What is my concern is your attacking people

My concern, jd, is that you're letting a self-absorbed, self-impressed, non-thinker ruin your day.

Don't let the cockroaches in the basement make you miss the view from the garden.
azerthoth

Oct 09, 2007
9:19 AM EST
Quoting:"I am upset, so you should be too. I think that 2000 is a big number regardless of the frame of reference and I don't believe in significant digits, confidence intervals nor statistical significance, neither should you"


Um, wasn't your first post in this thread an attempt at statistical analysis? In the other thread too is memory serves. I don't mind your having an opinion differing from nearly every other active poster at LXer, I do however wish you would at least try to be consistent.

Oh wait you were attributing that as a made up quote. I get it now. The reference was just worded poorly enough as to confuse.

I would like to point out though that your attempted analysis of 1 being not enough to make a large enough quorum for Carla to make a "we" statement was flawed from the start. Had you researched even a little bit you would have known that she had the support of many of the active members here at LXer and elsewhere prior to her postings. That sir is enough to deflate your argument from the start.

Currently you seem to be engaged in a regimen of expanding the statistical base of use until you reach a point that agrees with your position via numerical analysis. Much like a politician will poll a specific demographic to show support for his ideology, a more general and less specific base will show the exact opposite.

p.s. dino don't worry about me getting worked up here, I find this guy entertaining in an semi educated caveman sort of way. I'd like to see just how deep a hole he willing to dig for himself for entertainment value alone.
dinotrac

Oct 09, 2007
9:24 AM EST
> I'd like to see just how deep a hole he willing to dig for himself for entertainment value alone.

Just remember to throw some lime down into the pit. We must be sanitary.
tuxchick

Oct 09, 2007
9:37 AM EST
Remember you want quicklime, not dolomite lime. It's a common mistake, and amusing to anyone who is not downwind.
dinotrac

Oct 09, 2007
9:44 AM EST
>Remember you want quicklime, not dolomite lime. It's a common mistake, and amusing to anyone who is not downwind.

Good catch, though I don't know the difference, I'm sure I would see the difference in results.
azerthoth

Oct 09, 2007
9:58 AM EST
Correction:

To date shmget has been applying stochastic analysis not statistical.

Quoting: stochastic analysis 1. n. [Reservoir Characterization]

An analysis related to a process involving a randomly determined sequence of observations, each of which is considered as a sample of one element from a probability distribution.
jdixon

Oct 09, 2007
11:56 AM EST
> My concern, jd, is that you're letting a self-absorbed, self-impressed, non-thinker ruin your day.

Naw. A 160 mile round trip drive to reimage two machines, fix two minor user problems, and attempt to get some new software working on a machine (unsuccessfully, so far); while responding to 3 other phone calls from the office I just left is what ruins my day. He's minor.

Not that I'm complaining or anything. Just another normal day as a support tech.
shmget

Oct 09, 2007
12:01 PM EST
"Um, wasn't your first post in this thread an attempt at statistical analysis?" No.

"In the other thread too is memory serves." Memory does not serve you well, I'm afraid.

"I don't mind your having an opinion differing from nearly every other active poster at LXer" Me neither. Argumentum ad Numerum [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#numerum] is no comfort to me.

"The reference was just worded poorly enough as to confuse." which part of "you are inventing quotes[...]the form[..] is called a Strawman fallacy. **I can play that game too**:" did confuse you ?

[Had you researched even a little bit you would have known that she had the support of many of the active members here at LXer and elsewhere prior to her postings.]

the only number she offered was 30, as the number of signatures she collected for a petition to LJ. she also mentioned an untold number of 'others' that did not join her petition but complained solo. So, even if that was the only sticking point, that is still very far from the representativity she appear to claims.

[That sir is enough to deflate your argument from the start.] Even if she was actually representing a significant number of readers - in fact even more so, I would still argue that going from - Don't be mad, our server won't go down on you either - to - QSOL promise a blowjob for every purchase - is complete non-sens. And even if that egregious connection could be made, I would still defend the idea that thought polices are bad(tm), that anytime, anywhere, someone campaign to forbid/restrict/chill speech in the name of 'moral value', that lead to bad things, and the most immediate action I can take is to actually subscribe to LJ, which I did. and that is what, was the content of my first post.

Along the way there has been distraction like "3% of 90000 is 2700 women. Put 2700 people in a room and tell me they are too insignifact a number to worry about pissing off. My high school only had 900 students."

"Currently you seem to be engaged in a regimen of expanding the statistical base of use until you reach a point that agrees with your position via numerical analysis"

you are confusing me with linuxchicks:

"I know that astute LXer readers will dispute a direct cause-and-effect from the issues I've raised, LJ's declining circulation, and the failures of other projects by the same publisher." ... Here are some interesting numbers:"

even inventing a new one along the way: priusquam hoc ergo propter hoc. it happened before it therefore it happened because of it

"I find this guy entertaining in an semi educated caveman sort of way."

Again, Carla's words are appropriate here:

"Spineful Living, lesson 7: Assumptions Make....

Even in my old age, it still surprises me how often people like to think they know everything about me, and feel free to say the most obnoxious things."





tuxchick

Oct 09, 2007
1:10 PM EST
Aw geez, shmget, what's your point? Other than you enjoy cobbling together random non sequiturs and calling them rational arguments.

Trying to "prove" that something is offensive is entirely subjective; it's all bound up in history and experience. It's not a matter of proof anyway, as dino (I think) mentioned lo so many comments ago somewhere. The reality is what people believe and how they behave; in this case, noisily. A smart publisher wouldn't wait for a public fuss; smart businesspeople pay close attention to customer feedback.

You don't care about Linux Journal at all, just like all the other foamy-mouths ranting about "this is not offensive, get over it", who are all mad over the 30-word summaries on what's been written about this, and are expending considerable energy trying to prove me "wrong." That's a loser strategy. It's uninformed and boring. It's like two little kids locked in an endless "are too" "are not" "are too" "are not" "are too" "are not" cycle.

You're not doing very well as disproving my business case, either. I'm really not sure what you're saying- coherence helps, if you can find some. If you're saying that a single ad is supposed to reverse a 7-year decline, that kind of thinking just might make you a management candidate at LJ.
devnet

Oct 09, 2007
4:27 PM EST
On a side note TC, PCLinuxOS magazine now has a circulation of over 20 thousand :D
jacog

Oct 09, 2007
10:00 PM EST
shmget is like a well designed HID, his buttons are easy to push.

So... confession time... who here gets a kick out of seeing him all riled up? Or am I the only one behaving in an infantile manner... haha... ahem, ok... off to go play with my Action Man now... he has a dinner date with the Weebles.
dinotrac

Oct 10, 2007
3:11 AM EST
> Or am I the only one behaving in an infantile manner

You're the only one. The rest of us are engaged in a serious study of button-pushing and it's impact on the adolescent mind.

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!