Y'know what would be nice?

[conuly]

If, instead of having to buy a full paid account just for, say, 10 userpics, you could buy each benefit individually. The entire package would be cheaper, but if all you wanted was the ability to make polls, you could buy that, or if you just wanted the extra userpics, you could buy that, and another fee would allow you to buy fancy customization options. No use spending extra money on features you won't use. And you'd have to buy the WHOLE THING to get priority server speed. That's fair.

Comments

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Yes!! I don't care about all of the other features -- I have my own webspace, I can even write my own blog, the only reason I'm even *on* LJ is because that's where everybody else is right now... The only thing I want is the ability to use more than three measly userpics, but I can't justify buying a "paid" account, they're out of my price range.

I'd also like to see userpics be a fixed image, not variable code, so I could block certain ones. (Some of my LJ friends have a userpic that is either obnoxiously ugly/annoying or moves in a way that bothers my eyes.)

Chances are that people buy the whole account often enough just to get the pics, though, that it's the real reason that LJ doesn't let people just pay for extra pics. :-p

[conuly]

Probably. I think I'll suggest this to them anyway.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

It's been suggested before. Remember that every payment costs a little percentage to process-- and it's not a flat %. A $1.00 transaction to pay for userpics, for instance, might cost $.50 just to process, counting bank and c.c. fees (or paypal fees), plus staff time. Not to mention the nightmare of supporting all the "I meant to order userpics-- why did I get embedding instead?"

I think it makes sense to have paid features and unpaid features; if you go a la carte with 3 million users, you get into a logistical hassle that will never untangle. Plus, the paid accounts are inexpensive enough that you can pay for it and just figure it cost you $2.50/month to have 15 userpics, if that's the feature you care about.

[conuly]

Well, um, yeah, but... NYAH! Stop having good replies! That's no fair! Whine, whine whine.

Okay, I'm done now. :) Thanks, that actually does make sense. Even if I don't like it.

[push-the-limits.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's like the store I work at not taking debit or credit cards because of the bank fees. It pisses off a lot of people, (usually the ones that are too dumb to read the sign on the door) but most everyone doesn't mind, because it DOES keep our prices down. We're the cheapest in the valley.

I like having all of the paid features, so I'd just buy the whole thing. I don't think $25/year is bad, that's like, $2.08/month. I usually just fork it over with my tax return, along with everything else I pay for once a year.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

It'd be nice but brad has more or less gone on record as saying the programmers are too lazy to figure out the logistics of all that.

Me personally all I would want is the 50 user pics and polls. I could really care less about everything else^_~

[conuly]

Hush, you, allow me to hope one of them is ambitious.

[deceptica]

I also got my paid account mainly to get more userpics, but once I had it it was also fun to play around with other paid features I hadn't really cared about before. So, um, yeah. :-P

Since we're already suggesting things, it would be cool if the userpics weren't so dependent on their keywords. I mean, if I want to completely replace one of my pics (also in the older posts), I have to use the same keywords, even if they have nothing to do with the new pic.

Another thought/suggestion :)

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

A suggestion I'd like to make, though not icon-based... :)

It would be wonderful if we could have more colors, or perhaps even backgrounds, to use in identifying friends on our Flist... The ability to choose the color by color directly instead of by name, and do so directly alongside friends via drop-down boxes in the "Edit Friends" page would also be really cool. (It would be so cool that I'm tempted to see if I can code it myself, to be honest...)

If we could use backgrounds, to save LJ's bandwidth they could be hosted on the user's private ISP/server/etc. and just use a dialog box to tell the LJ code where the image is at. No added strain on LJ, but a huge improvement in feature. Especially for people like me that rely heavily on colors to recognize people's posts (and have a lot more friends than available colors)... :)

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Yes!! I don't care about all of the other features -- I have my own webspace, I can even write my own blog, the only reason I'm even *on* LJ is because that's where everybody else is right now... The only thing I want is the ability to use more than three measly userpics, but I can't justify buying a "paid" account, they're out of my price range.

I'd also like to see userpics be a fixed image, not variable code, so I could block certain ones. (Some of my LJ friends have a userpic that is either obnoxiously ugly/annoying or moves in a way that bothers my eyes.)

Chances are that people buy the whole account often enough just to get the pics, though, that it's the real reason that LJ doesn't let people just pay for extra pics. :-p

[conuly]

Probably. I think I'll suggest this to them anyway.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

It's been suggested before. Remember that every payment costs a little percentage to process-- and it's not a flat %. A $1.00 transaction to pay for userpics, for instance, might cost $.50 just to process, counting bank and c.c. fees (or paypal fees), plus staff time. Not to mention the nightmare of supporting all the "I meant to order userpics-- why did I get embedding instead?"

I think it makes sense to have paid features and unpaid features; if you go a la carte with 3 million users, you get into a logistical hassle that will never untangle. Plus, the paid accounts are inexpensive enough that you can pay for it and just figure it cost you $2.50/month to have 15 userpics, if that's the feature you care about.

[conuly]

Well, um, yeah, but... NYAH! Stop having good replies! That's no fair! Whine, whine whine.

Okay, I'm done now. :) Thanks, that actually does make sense. Even if I don't like it.

[push-the-limits.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's like the store I work at not taking debit or credit cards because of the bank fees. It pisses off a lot of people, (usually the ones that are too dumb to read the sign on the door) but most everyone doesn't mind, because it DOES keep our prices down. We're the cheapest in the valley.

I like having all of the paid features, so I'd just buy the whole thing. I don't think $25/year is bad, that's like, $2.08/month. I usually just fork it over with my tax return, along with everything else I pay for once a year.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

It'd be nice but brad has more or less gone on record as saying the programmers are too lazy to figure out the logistics of all that.

Me personally all I would want is the 50 user pics and polls. I could really care less about everything else^_~

[conuly]

Hush, you, allow me to hope one of them is ambitious.

[deceptica]

I also got my paid account mainly to get more userpics, but once I had it it was also fun to play around with other paid features I hadn't really cared about before. So, um, yeah. :-P

Since we're already suggesting things, it would be cool if the userpics weren't so dependent on their keywords. I mean, if I want to completely replace one of my pics (also in the older posts), I have to use the same keywords, even if they have nothing to do with the new pic.

Another thought/suggestion :)

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

A suggestion I'd like to make, though not icon-based... :)

It would be wonderful if we could have more colors, or perhaps even backgrounds, to use in identifying friends on our Flist... The ability to choose the color by color directly instead of by name, and do so directly alongside friends via drop-down boxes in the "Edit Friends" page would also be really cool. (It would be so cool that I'm tempted to see if I can code it myself, to be honest...)

If we could use backgrounds, to save LJ's bandwidth they could be hosted on the user's private ISP/server/etc. and just use a dialog box to tell the LJ code where the image is at. No added strain on LJ, but a huge improvement in feature. Especially for people like me that rely heavily on colors to recognize people's posts (and have a lot more friends than available colors)... :)