Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Social Networks News Technology

Google Is Introducing the +1 Button 218

Posted by CmdrTaco from the where-have-i-heard-that-before dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It seems Google refuses to give up and is trying to push once again its way into the social space by introducing a new feature called +1, which basically has the same functionality as the Facebook 'Like' button (share recommended content with other people)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Is Introducing the +1 Button More

Google Is Introducing the +1 Button

Comments Filter:

  • Please have a -1 Button (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dayze!Confused ( 717774 ) <slashdot.orgNO@SPAMohyonghao.com> on Thursday March 31, 2011 @12:16PM (#35678890) Homepage Journal

    I know everybody just has those times they wish that they could either just "Acknowledge" that they've read the comment and care, such as a friend getting sick or being dumped or getting into a car crash, or wish that they could state that they do not like a comment, maybe they could introduce a "Wrong" button also.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thebra ( 707939 )

      I know everybody just has those times they wish that they could either just "Acknowledge" that they've read the comment and care, such as a friend getting sick or being dumped or getting into a car crash, or wish that they could state that they do not like a comment, maybe they could introduce a "Wrong" button also.

      And a thumb up / thumb down combination. "Just got in a car wreck and I'm ok but my friend broke their leg."

    • (Or down, if you prefer).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      No. Everywhere negative voting is introduced, it becomes a tool for trolling and political manipulation.

      It would, however, be nice to know how many people viewed the item, along with how many are willing to support it with a click. But that's not reasonable when there are 90 items per page and just loading the page doesn't imply reading all 90 items.

  • I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suso ( 153703 ) * on Thursday March 31, 2011 @12:17PM (#35678900) Journal

    What is the point of having a positive without a negative? Are they just trying to "keep things positive?" What if a Facebook page for the KKK had 300 likes? Isn't that be misleading when you can't compare it to anything?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thebra ( 707939 )

      What is the point of having a positive without a negative? Are they just trying to "keep things positive?" What if a Facebook page for the KKK had 300 likes? Isn't that be misleading when you can't compare it to anything?

      It's like when my kids watch Barney. Barney teaches kids that the world is perfect and nothing bad happens.

    • That's an awesome idea! what the world needs is a social networking site that is the opposite of facebook. Instead of liking posts, your only course of action is to dislike posts. i would call it assbook.

      • i would call it assbook.

        Too late, according to Google, there's already a Facebook page for that: Assbook [facebook.com]. The domain is for sale though...

    • What happens when the NAACP Facebook page has 30,000 dislikes?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      The KKK used to have 4 million members. Now it has 5 thousand. I can compare those and infer what happened in between.

      The KKK also used to run candidates for office. How many won? People voted "DO NOT LIKE" by voting "LIKE" for the alternative.

      Dislike buttons are tools of the trolls.

      • ..because every real world entity and url has a unique, diametrically opposed dual that we can vote for?

        Quick, name the opposites for amoeba, square, triangle, pink, Harley-Davidson, cnn.com and conservation of angular momentum.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by blair1q ( 305137 )

          If it didn't, what good would a -1 button be? By clicking -1 you are voting for the unique, diametrically opposed dual of the +1. Unless you don't really mean -1, but some smaller negative number. But if that's what you mean, then -1 would overcount your vote, and we can't have that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by blair1q ( 305137 )

          amoeba = -appealing microbe
          square = -cool
          triangle = -triangular hole
          pink = -blue
          Harley-Davidson = -(affordable*quality) + dirtbag (Note 1)
          cnn.com = -clue
          conservation of angular momentum = -cartoon physics

          Notes:
          1 - this is debateable; if you ask those who own one, they will postulate "-riceburner" and refuse to show their work, but they are suffering from dogmatic myopia and depleted credit limit, and don't seem to know that Europe and Victory exist

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by FleaPlus ( 6935 )

      What is the point of having a positive without a negative? Are they just trying to "keep things positive?" What if a Facebook page for the KKK had 300 likes? Isn't that be misleading when you can't compare it to anything?

      Fewer potential lawsuits.

  • 'Pure Infotech' (Score:5, Informative)

    by improfane ( 855034 ) * on Thursday March 31, 2011 @12:18PM (#35678906) Journal

    For a site that claims to offer pure information technology and then spams you with popovers to subscribe. Junk website waste of bandwidth.

    For the real source, try google themselves [google.com].

    • Went to site, it turned grey and popped up a message asking me to "like" it on Facebook. Closed tab.

  • Good one guys, but I saw that coming from a mile away! Oh wait...it's March 31st.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suso ( 153703 ) *

      Oh wait...it's March 31st.

      Not in Japan.

    • Good one guys, but I saw that coming from a mile away!
      Oh wait...it's March 31st.

      Not in Australia, Slashdot says your posting was at Fri 01 Apr 02:18AM, and the story was posted at Fri 01 Apr 02:12AM
      Previous years have taught me not to trust anything on here until the 1st April is nowhere on the planet.
      Even RTFA's can be dangerous this time of the year.

  • I didn't see anything in the article, but how will they be able to keep someone from promoting their own service or website just to draw in consumers?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zerth ( 26112 )

      Supposedly this only considers pluses from people in your contact list who also has a google account.

      I'd much rather have something like Amazon's "other people with similar account habits as you clicked this link". Wider net of recommendations while still eliminating spammers(unless the spammer is remarkably similar to you, in which case is it really spam?).

      • I guess it was this line that made me think everyone would be able to see:

        The idea is, when you +1 something, you are publicly giving your stamp of approval

      • Except Amazon's "similar habits" occasionally introduces something from completely left field, such as that I'm looking at a fantasy novel and there's a twelve pack of baby bottles among the "other recommended products." So it's not perfect, either.

  • Obligatory.

  • And1 [wikipedia.org]
  • Unless it includes both like and hate, the numbers mean nothing.

    A continuum would be even better:

    +3 I want to have your baby! / +2 love / +1 like / 0 meh / -1 dislike / -2 hate / -3 GODWIN FTW / -4 Belongs on idle.slashdot.org

    • Everybody thinks continuums and scales are better, that's an intuitive inclination toward a range of choices, but the reality was revealed [blogspot.com] through YouTube: most people either rated things 5/5 or 1/5. That's why they replaced the scale with up/down.
      • That's because choosing anything other than 5 or 1, regardless of what you think the true value should be, weighs your vote less. Really, you're driving the average towards whatever you think it should be as hard as you can. You can write down formal game-theoretic models for this, but I don't think they really offer any more insight.

    • I was just thinking about a meh button so I searched for it and found your post.

      +1 for the meh (move along) option.

    • No, a continuum just doesn't work in practice. people vote the minimum if they think something currently has too high of a rating, or the highest if they think it is too low, in order to have the most "impact" on the score.

      This is why I always thought they should explicitly phrase things like "This movie currently has a score of 7.3, do you think this is overrated, underrated, or just right?" to more clearly align things with how people think.

  • Only your friends see your +1 (Score:3, Informative)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday March 31, 2011 @12:30PM (#35679060) Homepage
    As stated IN THE ARTICLE, when you +1 something, only your contacts see it. So, if all your friends +1 something about the KKK, then you see it as highly ranked. But the rest of the world does not know how racists your friends are. When you +1 Obama = not a citizen, only your friends know see this and realize that they know a bunch of birther fools. Similarly, if you +1 GWB = failure, then only your friends see this and realize that they know you a bunch of commie fools.

    • Re:Only your friends see your +1 (Score:4, Informative)

      by macbutch ( 827717 ) <mark.butcher@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday March 31, 2011 @01:30PM (#35679750)

      Mmmm, yeah, except Google themselves say:

      +1’ing is a public action. Anyone on the web can potentially see that you’ve +1’d content when they’re searching on Google or viewing content you’ve +1’d. For this reason, you should only +1 pages when you’re comfortable sharing your recommendation with the world."

      Your +1’s may appear to anyone who sees the pages you’ve +1’d. However, we'll try to display your +1’s to people (specifically those in your social connections) who would find them most useful.

      https://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?answer=1186915 [google.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rmcd ( 53236 ) *

        Thank you for quoting this. I saw this yesterday and was trying to square it with the google video in TFA that suggests that only your contacts will see your +1s. After they got keel-hauled for Buzz, I can't believe that Google is introducing this without being completely explicit about the control you have (or don't) over who sees your recommendations.

        If I could select a group of contacts who would see my +1s, I would use it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      How can they know I'm a commie fool when I hate GWB for his misuse of the word "nuclear"? And his all-hat-and-no-cattle Texanism? And his membership in the GOP?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      "So, if all your friends +1 something about the KKK, then you see it as highly ranked. But the rest of the world does not know how racists your friends are"

      Wow, way to use data to imply what may not even be there.

      Maybe It's a search of a funny picture from a clansman doing something stupid(er)? What if it's a historic photo from 1930?
      really, you don't have to be racist to search on the clan.

  • Check out today's animated logo celebrating the 200th birthday of Robert Bunsen.

  • So, does Rusty get residuals? (Score:3)

    by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Thursday March 31, 2011 @12:35PM (#35679146) Journal

    The idea was pioneered on K5 about 12 years ago...

  • Google doesn't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sharonlives ( 832553 ) on Thursday March 31, 2011 @12:43PM (#35679204)
    Why can't Google understand that I simply do not want to broadcast my searches to the world? I have been trusting Google with that information. If they want to use my click-throughs as part of their search algorithms, that's fine. But why do they want me to attach my name to it? Google keeps trying to go social and that goes against all the trust we put in Google's privacy policies.

    • Re:Google doesn't get it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rary ( 566291 ) on Thursday March 31, 2011 @02:38PM (#35680586)

      Why can't Google understand that I simply do not want to broadcast my searches to the world? I have been trusting Google with that information. If they want to use my click-throughs as part of their search algorithms, that's fine. But why do they want me to attach my name to it? Google keeps trying to go social and that goes against all the trust we put in Google's privacy policies.

      Actually, they do get it. That's why you have to go out of your way to opt in to this by creating a public profile, and then clicking the "+1" button where applicable. The rest of us, who have no interest in it, can continue to use Search the way we always have.

      • Why can't Google understand that I simply do not want to broadcast my searches to the world? I have been trusting Google with that information. If they want to use my click-throughs as part of their search algorithms, that's fine. But why do they want me to attach my name to it? Google keeps trying to go social and that goes against all the trust we put in Google's privacy policies.

        Actually, they do get it. That's why you have to go out of your way to opt in to this by creating a public profile, and then clicking the "+1" button where applicable. The rest of us, who have no interest in it, can continue to use Search the way we always have.

        Also, if you'd like to go further, you can opt out of all Google tracking. See the Google privacy tools page: http://www.google.com/privacy/tools.html [google.com]

      • Actually it's not quite that easy. Once your browser loads the button, the website and your IP goes into Google's log. From there on it's just a matter of connecting the dots.
        However for Firefox with Adblock Plus there is a list to prevent loading of "social" buttons: http://www.fanboy.co.nz/ [fanboy.co.nz]
        Note that Google Chrome's ad-blocking only hides content but still loads it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Then don't use the +1.

      Is that so damn difficult?

      Personally, I like having a +1 So I can share search info with my friends.

      I mean real friends, not Facebook friends.

    • So I guess you don't realize that they already see your click throughs with your name attached to it if you're logged into a Google account eh?

      They don't need the +1 button to see what you click, they already know unless you browse with javascript disabled on Googles network of sites, and they know your account unless you always use Google search when you aren't logged in/sending cookies.

      The button just gives you a way to confirm and share that confirmation with your contacts, but Google probably knew befor

  • Maybe because I'm not on FB, don't have a Twitter account etc, but I cannot see the benefit from a Social point of view of this.
    As a 'search ranking' type tool though - without the need for an account etc - I could see the benefit in people being able to give a +1 to say that it was a good result for their search parameters, but a system like that would just end up being hijacked by script kiddies pushing their web pages up the list one way or another.

    • From the Google site it seems as you really only see your friends '+1' so unless all your friends are spam-bots, i don't see how this will game their searches at all

    • The "social" value of this is that the service provider (in this case Google) is able to implement a way for their users to declare their preferences in multiple subjects, which is a form of declared-strategy surveying. By this, the service provider is able to harvest more personal information from their users and therefore draw their profile more accurately than before, which in turn lets them better target ads and, as a consequence, earn more money.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Fastolfe ( 1470 )

      Social networks allow people to express a social connection with someone else. If you participated in such a social network, and clicked +1 on a link in a Google search result, and one of your social connections did a search that happened to display that same link, they would see that you +1'd it (and therefore recommend it), making it more likely that your "friend" will pay closer attention to it than other results on the page.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      It's social because now people can know your opinion on things, whereas before...uh...

  • I thought Google's algorithms were supposed to decide which results were the best and put those at the top. I thought the "+1" was supposed to be a link to a site from another authoritative site. Is this an admission that this mechanism doesn't work? That it's been hopelessly gamed by spammers?

    Who is going to bother, after going to a site from Google and finding it useful, to return to the search result page in order to click the "+1" button?

    Also, why is Google still using Flash simply to serve up a movie?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Animats ( 122034 )

      I thought Google's algorithms were supposed to decide which results were the best and put those at the top. I thought the "+1" was supposed to be a link to a site from another authoritative site. Is this an admission that this mechanism doesn't work? That it's been hopelessly gamed by spammers?

      Basically, yes.

      It's surprising that Google did this, after their disastrous experience with counting Yelp and CitySearch recommendations to compute ratings in Google Places. Last October, Google merged Places results from the previously independent Google Maps system into main web search results. Google Places ranking is based on location and recommendations, both of which can be easily faked and spammed. Within a month, we were seeing SEO firms advertising "Guaranteed first page listings or your money [youtube.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lee1 ( 219161 )

        Good summary of recent Google issues.

        I don't see the "mark as spam" widget anymore; it is still there for some people?

        I guess it won't be all that easy to spam the +1 deal by making phony Google accounts, because, if I understand correctly, I only see the results from people whose email addresses are in my contact list. Anyway, I won't see the +1 dealies because I never made an account "profile" and I don't expect to any time soon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      Also, why is Google still using Flash simply to serve up a movie?

      Which version of which web browser are you using? If IE 9, which codecs do you have installed?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Fastolfe ( 1470 )

      I think that the idea of what pages are "better" is frequently subjective. People pay attention to the recommendations of their friends, and this is a way of letting you express those recommendations directly in Google search results, and affect the results of your friends. IMO, this seems completely orthogonal to the issue of search spam, except that both relate to search quality.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lee1 ( 219161 )
        I'm skeptical about the utility of this kind of thing in general. The last thing I googled for was the name of the guy who discovered a closed-form expression for an integer's partition number, and links to his papers. Not a good target for spammers, so the good results were at the top. How would the votes of my friends enhance this experience? I suppose it might help if a number of my contacts were searching, fairly recently, for the same thing I am, and in addition that their judgements about what is a us

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Fastolfe ( 1470 )

          It's easy to come up with specific cases/searches that this won't be useful for. (Porn would be a whole class of its own.) For someone that doesn't participate in social networks, only performs very targeted searches, and is never influenced by the recommendations of people in his or her social circles, it doesn't sound like this feature is going to provide that person much value. I rather suspect, though, that people in this category are a minority. Lots of people participate in social networks. Lots

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lee1 ( 219161 )
            OK, you have a point in that my example was bad for this. But how about another recent search that I did: where to buy an internal notebook drive. Not that obscure. Suppose one of my contacts recently bought such an item and had a good experience, so +1ed the vendor's site. Is that useful for me? What if the site she +1ed is actually a terrible vendor, but she happened to luck out? What if next week she finds that the seller overcharged her credit card, or sold her a grey-market product that she can't retur

  • . . . the "Hell, YES!" button.

  • This would be extremely useful in increasing the quality of search results if people could '+1' search results anonymously. Instead, Google's using this EXACTLY like the "Like" button on Facebook, which relies on having friends on Google already to be useful.

    I think it's the right idea, but wrong implementation. Then again, I'm not a creative.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rary ( 566291 )

      This would be extremely useful in increasing the quality of search results if people could '+1' search results anonymously. Instead, Google's using this EXACTLY like the "Like" button on Facebook, which relies on having friends on Google already to be useful.

      If it were implemented in a public way, it would be useless, and nothing but another avenue for gaming search results. It's useful precisely because it is influenced primarily by people who are most likely to have interests similar to your own.

  • Google changed its logo to an unreadable collection of chemisty glassware glyphs to honor a guy who invented a liquid candle, but they never once changed it in February to honor Black History Month?

    What. The. Fuck?

  • They really ought too. We know where +1 came from.

  • slashdot moderation.

  • What if the majority doesn't share my interests? Will this feature make the search actually worse for me?

    What does a +1 indicate?

    • Someone found a site and just liked it as a website.
    • This site fit their search term that was similar to mine.
    • This site is useless but fit a search term that looked similar to mine.
    • This site has what I was looking for.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close