Posted 12 July 2011 - 10:42 AM
Otherwise, it does seem a little more "stream"lined. (inside joke, literally).
Posted 12 July 2011 - 11:24 AM
To me, the breakthrough for Google+ is that it asks you to segment your content before posting. So, if I post a link to some film-related article, I can make it visible only to the people in my "film" circle. Whether they want to receive the link is up to them (depending on whether or not they've added me to one of their circles). Likewise, if I'm posting a link to something I've written, I can promote it by making it visible to everyone, even those who aren't members of Google+.
I'd love to make Google+ my place for hobby-related and impolite conversations (if family and coworkers follow me, I'll seldom give them access to my content), which would leave Facebook for small talk and baby pics.
Posted 12 July 2011 - 12:38 PM
Also, there's a part of me that's sad for the idea of facebook suffering, just because it's become such a part of my life. Like something about social networks seems to brush up against competition, because the goal is most connection-- for something to succeed and be useful to us, it's to our advantage to have everyone on the same page. I remember feeling this way when people were quitting myspace too, though, so... c'est la vie?
Posted 12 July 2011 - 01:00 PM
Don't you use Twitter already for this?
I got into Google+ early, and I'm still trying to figure out what to do with it. Like Darren said, I have too few friends that use it.
Posted 12 July 2011 - 01:18 PM
Posted 12 July 2011 - 01:51 PM
The point, ultimately, is that the world is moving online, and the fact that there is a company who shows enough respect to me as an individual to disseminate information as I see fit, is a very positive sign to me.
Posted 12 July 2011 - 03:46 PM
I have an overwhelming urge to "like" this.
Posted 12 July 2011 - 04:17 PM
Posted 14 July 2011 - 01:56 PM
Posted 14 July 2011 - 02:01 PM
Posted 15 July 2011 - 01:28 PM
Also, I found this very funny:
Posted 16 July 2011 - 04:21 PM
I could see this being a remarkably convenient way to cloud-task certain projects, as it essentially creates a better interface for group email discussions.
Now I just need friends.
Posted 17 July 2011 - 06:00 AM
Posted 17 July 2011 - 07:17 AM
Edited by SDG, 17 July 2011 - 07:18 AM.
Posted 20 July 2011 - 04:27 PM
Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:45 AM
This aired during the Thanksgiving football games. I guess that means Google+ is still a thing. I thought it had died already.
Edited by Tyler, 27 November 2011 - 09:46 AM.
Posted 27 November 2011 - 11:23 AM
: I guess that means Google+ is still a thing. I thought it had died already.
Heh. Did you see this article? A bunch of us posted it to our Facebook walls a few weeks ago (I don't know if anyone posted it to Google+, because, um, yeah, I almost never check my account there either):
- - -
Google+ Is Dead
The search behemoth might not realize it yet, but its chance to compete with Facebook has come and gone. . . .
The episode illustrated a persistent and likely fatal problem for Google’s effort to take on Facebook: There’s nothing to do on Google+, and every time someone figures out a possible use for it, Google turns out the lights. . . .
The real test of Google’s social network is what people do after they join. As far as anyone can tell, they aren’t doing a whole lot. Traffic-analysis firms have reported that Google+’s traffic has fallen precipitously from its early peak.* Even Google’s own executives seem to have gotten bored by the site. After several public posts in the summer, co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin dropped off the site in the fall; they only started posting once more when bloggers began pointing out their absence. Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chairman and former CEO, posted his first public message when Steve Jobs died. That was three months after the social network went live. . . .
Why am I so sure that Google+ can’t be saved? Because there’s no way to correct Google’s central failure. Back when companies were clamoring to create brand pages on the network—or users were looking to create profiles with pseudonyms, another phenomenon that Google shut down—the company ought to have acceded to its users’ wishes and accommodated them. If Google wasn’t ready for brand pages in the summer, it shouldn’t have launched Google+ until it was. And this advice goes more generally—by failing to offer people a reason to keep coming back to the site every day, Google+ made a bad first impression. And in the social-networking business, a bad first impression spells death. . . .
But a social network isn’t a product; it’s a place. Like a bar or a club, a social network needs a critical mass of people to be successful—the more people it attracts, the more people it attracts. Google couldn’t have possibly built every one of Facebook’s features into its new service when it launched, but to make up for its deficits, it ought to have let users experiment more freely with the site. That freewheeling attitude is precisely how Twitter—the only other social network to successfully take on Facebook in the last few years—got so big. When Twitter users invented ways to reply to one another or echo other people’s tweets, the service didn’t stop them—it embraced and extended their creativity. This attitude marked Twitter as a place whose hosts appreciated its users, and that attitude—and all the fun people were having—pushed people to stick with the site despite its many flaws (Twitter’s frequent downtime, for example). Google+, by contrast, never managed to translate its initial surge into lasting enthusiasm. And for that reason, it’s surely doomed.
Farhad Manjoo, Slate, November 8