Just a query

[den]

Would you call a comic published exclusively on Live Journal a webcomic?

Comments

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Yes. If it gets picked up by the Sydney Herald, though, you will no longer be able to use that exclusive nomenclature.

===|==============/ Level Head

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[beki.livejournal.com]

Sure, its on the web innit? You could call it a journal comic if you must I suppose.

[hendikins.livejournal.com]

Strictly speaking, I'd say yes.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Yes. LJ's archive system is just as good as Keenspot's.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Yes. Web=web=web.

[ngarewyrd.livejournal.com]

I'd have to go with everyone else

Yep

Sure, why not?

[freso]

Do you see any reason not to?

[makovette.livejournal.com]

It's a web comic in need of a proper home...

CYa!
Mako

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well... I asked the artist and a bunch of pedents jumped on me so I'll keep my mouth shut and hope Live Journal doesn't change its policy to All Your Content Are Belong To Us.

[makovette.livejournal.com]

Pedants or petards? ;-)

What ever makes the artist happy is what counts. I suppose I could lower my price for hosting more, maybe that would help ;-P

CYa!
Mako

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

I would.

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

Since they aren't called "Web-except-for-LJ-'cos-that's-just-not-cool-comics" I would have to agree with the majority on this one.

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

I was thinking more along the lines of "Journal Comic" or something. Not "Blog Comic." Blog Comics sounds like the name of a henchman.

"Blog! Take these heroes downstairs and throw them to the wallabies!"

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Just to be different, I'm going to say no.

Why, you ask?

Because snakes don't have armpits, that's why!

Have the best

-=TK

[klishnor.livejournal.com]

Engaging "Which Tyler"[1] mode, I would have to say no.

My reasoning is that a webcomic is totally open and accessible if you know the URL, whilst a journal such as the one you're thinking of requires you to not only know the name of the journal, but to be part of that journal group and to become a friend of the author. OK, none of these hurdles would stretch the jumping ability of any animal short of an elephant, but they do exist.

It would certainly qualify as an Internet comic, but the Internet isn't just the web.

[1] He led the Pedants revolt.

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

But lj is a Web site. There's nothing that says Web sites have to be open to the public - very many sites have protected areas. That doesn't mean they aren't Web sites. Anything served via http or https, using HTML or XHTML or similar, is a Web site by definition.

Now if it was distributed by email or on newsgroups then yes, it would be part of the Internet but not the Web, hence not a webcomic. But on websites? Sure it's a webcomic - however many hoops you have to jump through in order to access it.

(rest is a response to general comments)

Leaving aside the issue of silly restrictions, I don't think LJ is the best interface in the world for webcomics, but it's not too bad. It has a forward and back button, what more do you need? And I guess for those who do have LJ accounts it's convenient to read since you can friend it (although personally, I do read a comic based on lj - the excellent get_medieval - and haven't friended, but read via a bookmark).

[klishnor.livejournal.com]

> But lj is a Web site.

I accept that it uses an interface which is based on HTML, but then I have helped to write Intranets and front end applications which use the same conventions. They certainly aren't available in th Internet.

> There's nothing that says Web sites have to be open to the public - very
> many sites have protected areas. That doesn't mean they aren't Web sites.

Protected areas, yes, but LJ is a whole site with (some measure of) isolation from the web.

> Anything served via http or https, using HTML or XHTML or similar, is a
> Web site by definition.

> Now if it was distributed by email or on newsgroups then yes, it would be
> part of the Internet but not the Web, hence not a webcomic. But on
> websites? Sure it's a webcomic - however many hoops you have to jump
> through in order to access it.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. But that's fine, I disagree with a lot of my friends.

[philrancid.livejournal.com]

I'd say yes, but then i would have to hurt someone, and the effort involved with avoiding the trouble that would come of such actions has caused me to reconsider even posting a comment to this question.

[odiedragon.livejournal.com]

Yes, but an exceedinly annoying one that I wouldn't read, reguardless of content. Too hard to navigate.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I know of at least one that I like very much. :)

[haggis-bagpipes.livejournal.com]

I'll say No, because I feel like being different.

[annvole.livejournal.com]

I think their is a few catagories here: an LJ comic which is not "friended" is accessable to anybody on the internet so whould be an internet comic, but if it is friends only then it is an intranet comic. The same sort of thing happens with subscription comics (My fav is Digger on Graphics Smash) but here the line is blured by the typical practice of making the first few strips and/or the current strip available to anyone but for the rest you need to be logged on so it is both internet and intranet... it is easier to just say they are all webcomics but not all are free. (I am not sure about LJ comics that use a "community" to give them the ability to allow anyone who clicks the "join community" button just to give them the ability to ban some users ... not quite free)

I always have to qualify things... "yes" and "no" are just too infinitely finite.