lj_research: LJ geographical usage data as a percent of population

jofish22 (

jofish22) wrote in

lj_research,
@ 2005-04-20 14:13:00

LJ geographical usage data as a percent of population
The LiveJournal statistics page, as you may know, lists some data on the countries and states with the highest percentages of livejournals. I figured it might be interesting to throw in some population figures grabbed (pretty much at random) off the web, and here's the results. It's stunning that those figures are as high as they are. (Please! Check my math! I generally rounded down populations by about 1000 to make life easier, so I don't count that as a mistake)

That means nearly 5 percent of Massachusetts has a livejournal account. (Does this mean all those disaffected teens hanging around the Harvard Square T station are now at home writing blogs instead?)

Note we're also assuming here that LJ accounts are distinct people, which isn't an accurate assumption: it's relatively common for people to make new accounts as they go through lifestates, or to maintain different blogs for different public presentations of their identity (to friends, to workmates, to other subgroups.) But, with that provisio...

STATES      LJ Accts	Population   percent of population with LJ account
Mass.       276009      6175000      4.47%
Michigan    381845      9863000      3.87%
Florida     508773      15111000     3.37%
Washington  189316      5756000      3.29%
New Jersey  232755      8143000      2.86%
Arizona     131201      4778000      2.75%
New York    476129      18196000     2.62%
Virginia    174817      6872000      2.54%
California  823208      33145000     2.48%
Penn.       263420      12000000     2.20%
Georgia     147176      7788000      1.89%
Illinois    214786      12128000     1.77%
Ohio        196924      11256000     1.75%
Texas       346614      20044000     1.73%
N.Carolina  129291      7650000      1.69%
COUNTRIES			
USA         3454403     295000000    1.17%
Canada      240494      31000000     0.78%
Singapore   20293       4354000      0.47%
Australia   83949       19000000     0.44%
UK          187639      60000000     0.31%
New Zealand 12366       399300       0.31%
Finland     15616       5214000      0.30%
Israel      9693        6199000      0.16%
Netherlands 17692       16000000     0.11%
Russian Fed 155246      144400000    0.11%
Ukraine     17462       49500000     0.04%
Philippines 25755       81000000     0.03%
Germany     24962       82000000     0.03%
Spain       9661        40280000     0.02%
Japan       16185       127333000    0.01%

(Post a new comment)

	theorb 2005-04-20 11:27 am UTC (link)
	Another provision: A goodly number of accounts don't self-identifiy as being where they actually are, or don't do so at all. (I seem to recall hearing at some point, possibly from evan, that Japan is purticularly a purticularly likely target for that.) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	evan 2005-04-20 11:31 am UTC (link)
	For those that don't self-identify, it'd mean these estimates are actually too low -- there'd be more LJ accounts in a given state. I'd expect people not to pretend they live in, say, Michigan when they actually don't. But yes, the Japan reports are far higher than reality: think anime geeks. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	xaosenkosmos 2005-04-20 12:29 pm UTC (link)
	Okay, i'm curious: "purticularly": is it intentional misspelling, or just a phonetic spelling? For some reason, i don't think of people pronouncing that where you're from, which baffles me a bit. Further proof that there are far too many ling nerds on LJ. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	theorb 2005-04-20 12:36 pm UTC (link)
	I have both poor spelling and poor pronounciation. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

xaosenkosmos
2005-04-20 01:03 pm UTC (link)

Poor pronounciation isn't a "real" issue (you can say that you don't talk like a prestige-form English speaker, or that you have a speech impediment, but you can't really talk about "talking poorly" in linguistics).

Poor spelling, i'm afraid, is a real issue ;^)

I'll email you a couple of quick questions tonight, i'm curious why you pronounce it that way. The questions aren't really the kind of thing that belongs in a public LJ post, like "Where are your parents from?" and "Where all did you grow up?" and blahblahblah.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	evan 2005-04-20 01:37 pm UTC (link)
	Did you mean: *pronunciation* (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	xaosenkosmos 2005-04-20 01:50 pm UTC (link)
	Poor spelling, i'm afraid, is a real issue ;^) (You can take this as a "yes") (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	jeff_simpson 2005-04-21 10:39 am UTC (link)
	The person announcing names at my college graduation had an announcement at a class meeting. He basically told us "if you'd like to make sure I get your name right, fill out a PRONOUNCIATION card or record your name for me". You know it's a bad sign when the person who will be pronouncing names mispronounces pronunciate. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Mis? (Anonymous) 2005-05-19 11:24 am UTC (link)
	The whole point is that pronunciation is not a matter of correct vs. incorrect, else he would not need a pronunciation card, he would just use the linguistically "correct" pronunciation. His valid, but irregular, use of "pronounciation" well-illustrates this truth. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Mis?

jeff_simpson
2005-05-19 11:36 am UTC (link)

not to be nitpicky...(especially since this posting is almost a month old)

but where did you find that "pronounciation" is a valid pronunciation OR spelling of the word? (irregular or otherwise). Because it's slightly different from the expected root of the word, it's a common *error* in spelling/pronunciation, but that doesn't make it valid.

As for a person reading names, you'd like to believe that the person has a fairly firm grasp on the normal rules of pronunciation before trying to tackle the difficulties of hard-to-pronounce names. The cards are intended for the difficult names, but you have to wonder - if he can't pronounce normal words, maybe I should turn in a card for a name like "smith" or "johnson" even though they seem difficult to mess up.

But you posted as anonymous, so you'll never see this or respond to it anyway...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Mis? (Anonymous) 2005-05-19 12:51 pm UTC (link)
	where did you find that "pronounciation" is a valid pronunciation Lots of people, in my experience, pronounce it that way. QED. OR spelling of the word? I never said it was. You spelled it that way to convey the idea of its pronunciation, and I followed suit. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Mis?

jeff_simpson
2005-05-19 01:01 pm UTC (link)

So in your experience, if a lot of people do something wrong, that makes it valid? If you can show me a dictionary of any kind that shows that pronunciation as correct, I'll stop right there.

I know a lot of people who use the wrong your / you're and they're / their / there, does that make an incorrect usage of that valid? How about spelling definitely as "definately"? I know a lot of people who spell that one wrong.

Ore mabey it doenst mattre two you at all if peeple mispell and mispronownce evreything.

Just because the word "ain't" made it into the dictionary doesn't mean we have to drag the rest of our speech and writing down to that level.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Mis?
(Anonymous)
2005-05-20 02:16 pm UTC (link)

if a lot of people do something wrong

That's begging the question.

that makes it valid?

In language, yes, validity is determined by common usage.

If you can show me a dictionary of any kind that shows that pronunciation as correct, I'll stop right there.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not an exact science, but do some research into the OED process for determining which words and definitions to include, if you care to see how it works.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Mis?

jeff_simpson
2005-05-20 02:29 pm UTC (link)

I am fully aware of how it works, I'm just saying that the pronunciation of the word mentioned is NOT valid and has not been accepted into any dictionary of any kind, slang or otherwise. Maybe if people continue pronouncing it wrong for another 50 years, we'll decide that it's correct.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with "anonymous" over something that you clearly don't have any new information to add to. If it was just any word, I'm sure a slight difference in prounciation wouldn't change much, but the incorrect pronunciation actually suggests an incorrect spelling when you hear it, and that just makes everything worse (like when people say "prolly" instead of probably, "gunna" instead of going to, etc).

If you think it's correct, you go right ahead and talk that way. As for me, I'm going to stick to the accepted pronunciation and spelling of words so people don't look at me like I'm uneducated. If the OED decides to add pronounciation, I'll be the first to start praising it, I think it's retarded that the base word is "pronounce" and the O just dissapears when you add a suffix, but that's english for you - retarded or not, that's how it is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Mis? jeff_simpson 2005-05-20 02:31 pm UTC (link)
	and in the best form of irony, I made a typo and spelled that damn word wrong! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	hungerbound 2005-05-04 11:39 pm UTC (link)
	Totally randomly passing through... but I say "pruh-nun-see-ay-shun" It never occurred to me to say "pro-" (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	deadkytty9 2005-05-25 07:58 pm UTC (link)
	Me too. It's a schwa sound the way I say it. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	digitalemur 2005-04-20 11:44 am UTC (link)
	There are _always_ more disaffected teens to replace any who ditch the Harvard Square T Station to stay home and blog. And thank Zuul for that: they're amusing to watch. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	grahams 2005-04-21 09:50 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, the kids that left to use LJ were replaced by kids with $100 shoes begging for money, right? :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	xb95 2005-04-20 12:19 pm UTC (link)
	Wow, pretty crazy. Although I was in MA going to school and I know for a fact there are a lot of LJ users at my school. At my girlfriend's school, too. I wouldn't be surprised. (Reply to this)

	halfawake 2005-04-20 07:01 pm UTC (link)
	Just FYI: the stats page isn't there, it's linked to from the main page. I'm surprised that there aren't more people from California on LiveJournal, since we have Silicon Valley and all here. But I guess 823,208 people is a pretty large amount of people regardless. (Reply to this)

	janinedog 2005-04-20 07:18 pm UTC (link)
	Massachusetts (where I am right now) has a huge number of college students. Granted, I don't know what it's like relative to other states, but for a state that's relatively small, there are a whole lot of colleges. Which means a lot of people who will potentially have LiveJournals. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	angry_amy 2005-04-22 07:21 am UTC (link)
	and if you make that relative to the size of the state and the population of the state, thats a phenomenal number of accounts from MA alone. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	gabachi 2005-04-20 09:34 pm UTC (link)
	I had always kind of suspected that there were a whole lot of LJs in Michigan, now I know. (Reply to this)

	Broken link to stats page notpeter 2005-04-21 11:21 am UTC (link)
	The link to the stats page should be: http://www.livejournal.com/stats.bml instead of http://www.livejournal.com/statistics/ (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Broken link to stats page jofish22 2005-04-21 07:01 pm UTC (link)
	yar. done. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cannedanxiety87 2005-04-21 03:28 pm UTC (link)
	WOO go CALI! 2.48%!!!! (Reply to this)

	huh talking_sock 2005-04-21 04:44 pm UTC (link)
	And it's a small state. Oh yeah, but percentages take that into account. I've had too many pink drinks. Here's a more useful observation: And it's a largely rural state, despite Boston. Full of hippy artist farmers. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: huh angry_amy 2005-04-22 07:22 am UTC (link)
	and extremely leftist views. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: huh myparalysis 2005-04-26 01:35 pm UTC (link)
	only about 1/2 of massachusetts is rural. the other 1/2 are suburbs of boston. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: huh

teenagesellout
2005-05-04 11:44 am UTC (link)

I grew up in "rural" Mass (about 15 minutes from NH) and every. single. one. of my friends had an lj by college. It was the ultimate way to keep in touch with people and read about what they had been up to. We were not THAT rural. No cows walking around. Most of eastern Mass is very nice and full of excitement, it's when you go west when the excitement becomes fewer and further between.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	endquote 2005-04-22 09:33 am UTC (link)
	It would be interesting to see this done with major cities as well, but I'm guessing that's not possible with publicly available data. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	dpolicar 2005-05-09 10:54 pm UTC (link)
	I would expect the absolute numbers for cities to very closely mimic the states they are in. But that's just a guess. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Stats (Anonymous) 2005-05-03 05:46 am UTC (link)
	It would be more interesting to compare the Number of houselod computers to lj accts to see if you are tracking geographic or income differences (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Stats

7rin
2005-08-25 09:14 pm UTC (link)

Not necssarily going to work. As families split apart and join up with different dynamics, computers can be lost or gained. As an example, there's three of us in this house, and there's at least four computers running (including the server under the stairs). This isn't because we're even relatively high income (we're not even beyond UK Social help limits), but because my husband had two computers of his own before he moved in (rich single boy as he was, when the one broke and he'd've had to wait a couple of weeks to get it fixed, he bought a replacement tower), I had one bought for me out of a loan of my Mom, and we got a grant of enough money to buy my daughter one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

dizzydog
2005-05-04 08:35 pm UTC (link)

Now if only there were a way to figure out when multiple LJ's were all owned by the same person, to see if maybe Mass. has a larger concentration of multibloggers which drives up their percentage. Or see what the overall LJs/person ratio was, so you could scale the data to get a better feel for the percentages. I know in random LJ wandering I've seen people who have created 3, 4, even a dozen LJ's as they feyly danced from name to name depending on mood, or created different LJ's to categorize posts they make.

(Reply to this)

	statistics: active users with de-dup (Anonymous) 2005-06-17 11:36 am UTC (link)
	for online users, you have to account for duplicate accts to the same human (hard) and N-day "active" users (easy, also helps the dup issue). (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs