Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

321 comments

Google+ (-1, Troll)

cgeys (2240696) | about 3 years ago | (#36711624)

Google did the same mistake here they've done several times earlier.. They published an unfinished product on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service. This included with the constant problems on Google+, not really offering anything new and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook really isn't doing good. It was hot for a few days when coming out of beta.. Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.

Re:Google+ (3, Informative)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 3 years ago | (#36711642)

Well its still an 'in work' product. So they made a mistake, good thing they didn't tout it as finished yet. Don't know about the rest of the allegations because I don't have an account.

It hasn't 'come out of beta', according to the page its : "in limited Field Trial" which I suppose means 'semi-open beta'.

Re:Google+ (-1)

Nationless (2123580) | about 3 years ago | (#36711770)

How long did Google mail stay in beta?

Just sounds like they're using "testing" titles to cover their asses when things inevitably go wrong. Like the websites of the 90%'s with their "under construction" signs.

If they launched it for the public they should be held responsible for what goes wrong. Plain and simple.

Re:Google+ (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711868)

But not everyone was allowed access. It was a limited release. When a MMO is in beta do you think the game developer should be "held responsible for what goes wrong".

Re:Google+ (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 3 years ago | (#36711876)

How long did Google mail stay in beta?

Quite a long time, but this isn't a beta like the late, fully-public beta of Google Mail, its like the very early, invite-only, restricted beta of Gmail.

Just sounds like they're using "testing" titles to cover their asses when things inevitably go wrong.

Uh, they aren't using to "cover their asses", they are admitting it was a mistake, apologizing for it, and explaining how it happened.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711890)

Except it's not launched for the public. I've probably had at least 70 people I friended express interest in Google+, and only a handful have been able to join.

Re:Google+ (5, Funny)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | about 3 years ago | (#36711928)

Don't forget that it's a free product that you can choose to use. I realize that may be hard for you to remember ever since you ascended to your throne.

Oh, would you mind gracing us with a link to your myriad of bug-free products?

Re:Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712106)

No, it's not free at all. You just don't pay with money, you pay with your information. Come back when they have an EULA that says "You as a member of Google+ own everything that you submit to us" (as it should be).

Re:Google+ (5, Informative)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about 3 years ago | (#36712278)

Google+ uses Google's standard terms of service which say "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit."

Pretty much exactly what you're asking for, minus the ability to claim ownership of other people's work just because you uploaded a copy.

Re:Google+ (0)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 3 years ago | (#36712320)

No, it's not free at all. You just don't pay with money, you pay with your information. Come back when they have an EULA that says "You as a member of Google+ own everything that you submit to us" (as it should be).

What if the information they gain simply isn't worth protecting or that the gains outweigh the cons? I personally couldn't care less if Google learns more about my shopping habits, for example, and it's something I would even just tell straight to them if they just asked me.

I personally feel you "privacy advocates" are just plain too paranoid.

Re:Google+ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712240)

Ah, the legions of people on their knees giving fellatio to Google. It is a beautiful thing.

Re:Google+ (2, Informative)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | about 3 years ago | (#36712012)

Held responsible how? You want a money-back guarantee?

Sometimes the ungrateful attitude of the entitled whiners around here takes me aback, despite years of reading it.

Re:Google+ (1)

houghi (78078) | about 3 years ago | (#36712110)

As I am not paying Google with my money, but with my privacy, I would love to have that privacy back.

Re:Google+ (2)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | about 3 years ago | (#36712178)

You aren't paying with your privacy, because your privacy has no value to anyone but you. You may have "paid" with information, but good luck trying to make that abstraction count for anything in the real world.

Of course, if you want to be impractical about things, you can bitch till the end of time. Doesn't make it mean anything, though.

Re:Google+ (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 3 years ago | (#36712354)

Buyer's remorse? I don't see anything of value exchanged in either direction.

Re:Google+ (2)

Imrik (148191) | about 3 years ago | (#36712198)

At least they admit that it's not ready unlike other companies that make you pay for the beta quality product.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711774)

It's actually pre-beta. This is what they're calling limited field trial, and they expect significant changes when it goes to beta testing.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711654)

Diaspore is the same. Haven't heard anything from them in a long time.

Re:Google+ (0, Redundant)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 years ago | (#36711662)

doubleclick managing our personal lives via google?

yeah, that will really be a hit.

(google is tolerated about as much as it can be, right now. don't push it, google. we don't buy the 'do no evil' BS line of yours. don't try to do more than you are able to. you look stupid trying, actually.)

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711696)

doubleclick managing our personal lives via google?

yeah, that will really be a hit.

(google is tolerated about as much as it can be, right now. don't push it, google. we don't buy the 'do no evil' BS line of yours. don't try to do more than you are able to. you look stupid trying, actually.)

You speak for a very small percentage of users.
Most of Google's users don't know what double-click is, only know about Google's successful and usable products and trust everyone with the $5 required to register a .com domain with their personal information.

Re:Google+ (-1, Redundant)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#36711700)

While I do agree that they shouldn't be pushing their luck, compared to its peers, Google is far less evil than the competition. That being said, they have benefited from an illegal monopoly and should be broken, just like any other monopoly that gets that way by violating antitrust laws.

Re:Google+ (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#36711750)

A monopoly? Over which commodity do they exercise a monopoly? Maybe it's a monopoly over their own algorithm, if they won't publish their search algorithms for Microsoft and others to use? Come on, stop working so hard to sound like a Microsoft Fanboi, alright?

Re:Google+ (5, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about 3 years ago | (#36711796)

*sigh* Monopolies aren't illegal. Please try to remember that.

Abusing your monopoly position, that is illegal. Google doesn't abuse their monopoly.

The reason for this distinction is that you can get yourself into (and remain in) a monopoly position without harming the public. But the majority of companies can't resist abusing that power if they obtain it, and need a smack-down or break-up. (usually because it's a slow process and they just creep into a behavior of abuse as they creep into the monopoly) Technically speaking, when you have a monopoly, you become a lot more efficient - advertising costs go down, you avoid "race to the bottom" games, the best employees in a field are concentrated and working together. In the end, customers can benefit from a company having a monopoly, it just requires the company's directors to take a strong high-road stance in the face of the temptation of greed you get operating in a democracy. ("do whatever it takes, be it illegal or immoral, to maximize profit")

Re:Google+ (-1, Offtopic)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 3 years ago | (#36711990)

it just requires the company's directors to take a strong high-road stance in the face of the temptation of greed you get operating in a democracy. ("do whatever it takes, be it illegal or immoral, to maximize profit")

"Democracy" is *not* a synonym for laissez-faire free-market capitalism, regardless of how many people (Americans primarily, it seems) believe otherwise.

Re:Google+ (1)

v1 (525388) | about 3 years ago | (#36712208)

Democracy requires capitalism. Capitalism encourages greed. Greed encourages corruption. That's why corruption becomes the #1 problem in any democracy. But here we can just stop to look at greed since corruption is off the topic of monopoly.

Re:Google+ (2)

nine-times (778537) | about 3 years ago | (#36712444)

That's not entirely true. You could have a democracy that is very socialist. Also, people confuse "Capitalism" as an economic system with "Capitalism" as a moral system. The economic system does not encourage greed. It's about economic freedom without a government dictating how you should spend/invest your money. This freedom allows you to be greedy or generous. Then there's "Capitalism" as a moral system, which is a more recent invention by rich people to justify their privilege. It's a variation on the "might makes right" mentality, claiming that wealth and economic success is the measure of virtue, and therefore anything done in the pursuit of wealth can't be bad.

Re:Google+ (1)

Serpents (1831432) | about 3 years ago | (#36712556)

The economic system does not encourage greed. It's about economic freedom without a government dictating how you should spend/invest your money. that's free market [wikipedia.org] and free market != capitalism [fff.org]

Re:Google+ (2)

adelgado (1113833) | about 3 years ago | (#36712446)

Democracy requires capitalism.[citation needed]

FTFY.

Re:Google+ (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 3 years ago | (#36712494)

Democracy does not require capitalism. To say otherwise is completely illogical. For example, true Communism would work best in a democracy.

Re:Google+ (2)

stephathome (1862868) | about 3 years ago | (#36712500)

I'm pretty sure corruption is a major problem in most economic and political systems.

Re:Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711714)

No they haven't released it yet. Now go collect your check from Facebook and astroturf elsewhere.

Re:Google+ (3, Interesting)

jbernardo (1014507) | about 3 years ago | (#36711724)

Wow... So much hatred towards google+, despite it starting to shape up as a great product! Have you even used it, or are you just a facebook "relationship manager"? If you'd use it, you'd see it is very polished, circles are thousand times better than anything fb has, hangouts are cool... And above all, google seems to care about its users, unlike fb. Anyway, for a beta, it is surely very stable and fast. I didn't see any of those "constant problems" you speak of (did anyone see them, or only zuck?), and stating it has "even bigger privacy problems" than fb - can you say that with a straight face?

Re:Google+ (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 years ago | (#36711784)

I don't use FB (never have, never will) and just don't *approve* of google getting any more cosy with user info than they already are.

just that.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712104)

I'd suggest getting less cozy with that stick up your ass. I'd imagine you're tasting splinters by now.

Re:Google+ (0, Troll)

cgeys (2240696) | about 3 years ago | (#36711790)

Yes I have, in fact I have an account too. When you sign up they want you to give them permission to use your data anywhere in their advertising and analytics network. AdSense is on millions of websites. Their analytics code is even on more, here on slashdot too. Facebook might try to target marketing for you, but at least they only do that within Facebook. Google on the other will do that all over the internet and collect all kinds of personal statistics over the way. They have your name and all kinds of info where you browse and what you do. They also make your profile public by default and have said they will delete any Google profiles that are private by the end of month. Their definition of "privacy" is limiting what information your friends see.. not what they see, do or give out. And this seems to work really good for the slashdot crowd too.

Re:Google+ (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 3 years ago | (#36712586)

But, google doesn't lease that data out to third parties as FB does. Also, FB is expanding into other areas. FB encourages third party development, and exposes all of your personal data to those third parties, because your niece likes to play FarmVille, her information is tracked/shared with numerous third parties, and distributed to who knows where. Google, it just, well... Google. They aren't sharing their data, and yes, they collect more of it, this doesn't make them a bigger privacy breach, it only means they have more data to work from. IMHO the bigger breach is sharing privacy data with third parties, without consent.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712420)

I have accounts on both FB and G+. I think G+ needs to get Events (and somehow tie in availability using Google Calendar or something) and needs Groups that you can join and leave. Other than that, it seems pretty good. I guess it lacks a "killer feature" though that would make anyone use it over FB. Unless it gets something that will make people use it over using FB, it will probably languish, then die like Wave, Google Health, etc.

Re:Google+ (1)

Sepodati (746220) | about 3 years ago | (#36712488)

If there are none of those stupid fucking games on G+, I'd call that a killer feature.

Re:Google+ (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#36711726)

Ho-hum. Google has no shortage of servers, do they? In fact, I believe I've read articles about their ability to move a data center anywhere in the world, in an emergency. If some server somewhere is short of disk space, they can and will throw something in, and get it working again, real quick.

As for the beta stuff - yeah, it's beta. No one promised that it was going to work correctly, out of the box, first time around. It's been offered up as an experiment, and I'm experimenting. Die a slow death? Not likely, not real soon. I'll keep trialing this field trial of Google+ and when it comes out of trials, I'll probably keep on running it.

Meanwhile, you go on back to Facebook, and enjoy that heaping pile of fertilizer!

Oh - did you know that you can access Facebook via Google+ ? Now THAT's pretty cool! I can close the Facebook tabs, and see it all in one tab under Google+ ! WHOOT!

Re:Google+ (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 years ago | (#36711854)

Oh - did you know that you can access Facebook via Google+ ? Now THAT's pretty cool! I can close the Facebook tabs, and see it all in one tab under Google+ ! WHOOT!

like in wargames, the winning move is not to play at all.

do not play FB. do not play google+. stay the hell out of that mess, if you are smart.

you think its funny; but years later, I promise you, you will regret it. see that now before you get sucked in even farther.

the winning play is not to play at all. these are silly corporate data mining games. please don't give the corp trolls their user info. save your dignity and your privacy. corporations masquerading as 'your friends' are most CERTAINLY not your friends. better wise up sooner rather than later.

when it comes down to it, sony and google - they all are driven by the same basic goals and needs. no corporation is ever your friend. ever.

Re:Google+ (2)

kullnd (760403) | about 3 years ago | (#36712070)

I really don't care what they do with my data that I *PUBLICLY* post on Google+ or Facebook, .... I posted it there because I'm not concerned about the privacy of that data. Ever heard the term nothing is free? Most users of Facebook, including myself, feel that we get enough benefit from using those sites that allowing them to use some useless data for some targeted advertising, or whatever they want to do, is ok. Privacy is easy, don't post shit you don't want to be sold, mined, or made available to anyone in the world...

Re:Google+ (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#36712118)

You may possibly be right. But - I kind of play by my own rules. For instance - you'll have a few day's work cut out for you, trying to find my real name on Facebook, Google+, Youtube, Myspace, and all the other places I visit on the internet. You'll have an even harder time trying to tie all my identities together. If you want to know who I am, it would be easier to phish me onto a site so that you could get my IP address, and work from that.

But, whatever. I realize that few people see any need for exercising care on the internet, so, for most people, you are right.

Re:Google+ (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | about 3 years ago | (#36712132)

How? When I try to connect my Facebook account in the G+ account settings, all I get is an error message :(

Re:Google+ (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#36712244)

http://crossrider.com/install/519-google-facebook [crossrider.com]

Install the extension - it works for certain in Chromium 14.0.797 (Linux) I've not yet tried connecting to Google+ with Firefox, so I can't say how well it works.

Re:Google+ (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 years ago | (#36711744)

So far my only complaint has been receiving a notification before I could sign in, and how long it took me to get an invite in general which is a real first world problem if I ever heard of one. People are getting in now so there's plenty of opportunity to see where this thing goes. At least this time it's clear what we're supposed to do with it.

Re:Google+ (1)

Serpents (1831432) | about 3 years ago | (#36711748)

sooo... if one of google's servers runs out of disk space doesn't it mean that people are quite busy using the service? And since it's in 'limited field trial" it means you need to try hard to get in - I know I had to - hence lack of "casual people"

What?? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711780)

Google did the same mistake here they've done several times earlier.. They published an unfinished product...

No, they're field testing an unfinished product. It's the reason why it's hard to get an invite.

...on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service.

They don't seem to be having much difficulty getting users to move to their service. In fact, most of their difficulties lies in slowing down the demand because they can't handle it at this stage of testing, as shown by this particular problem. It's expanding way faster than they want it to, with more than a million users already signed up (according to TFA). I've sent invites to a bunch of people, and none of them have actually gotten the invitation mail yet, because google is throttling the number of invites they send.

This included with the constant problems on Google+

Field testing. Finding bugs is the purpose of this.

not really offering anything new and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook really isn't doing good.

What are these even bigger privacy problems? Google+ is centered around increased privacy controls, which is also what they're offering that's new.

Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.

Pff...considering that a few days after they began public testing, Google+ was among the top 10 referrers to web sites, it's more likely that Facebook will die a quick death as soon as field testing is over. About as quick as myspace died once facebook opened up to non-university students.

Re:Google+ (1)

cyberfin (1454265) | about 3 years ago | (#36711810)

Excuse me, what does this have to do with TFA. If anything, we should be asking why the infrastructure wasn't ready to handle what it was designed for. It will only rival Facebook if it gets storage and DB right (read the /. article regarding Facebook and MySQL from earlier). BTW, I like G+ and am actively using it.

Re:Google+ (2)

ssh.rdp (2361776) | about 3 years ago | (#36711830)

Why are you always in a rush to post wrong information about Google+? http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/07/0252228/Google-Deleting-Private-Profiles [slashdot.org] Is Facebook playing with Slashdot commenting system?

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711940)

You're close to the mark; the OP is the original devxo guy who astroturfed /. regularly, only now he's learned to make it slightly less obvious.

Re:Google+ (1)

marga (455344) | about 3 years ago | (#36711836)

What are the "bigger privacy problems" ? I see it basically as _the same_ privacy problems, I fail to see how they are bigger.

Re:Google+ (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36712002)

I imagine that Google has a larger share of the online advertising and analytics markets than Facebook, and Google+ profiles would just give Google a more reliable way to correlate the page-view-stream data with real-world identities.

Re:Google+ (3, Interesting)

tchernobog (752560) | about 3 years ago | (#36711880)

Google did the same mistake here they've done several times earlier.. They published an unfinished product on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service. This included with the constant problems on Google+, not really offering anything new and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook really isn't doing good. It was hot for a few days when coming out of beta.. Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.

Actually, if they ran out of disk space, it's more like they had a bigger response than what they anticipated, so it's probably going quite well.

As for the "same mistake they've done several times earlier", are you referring to the undoubtedly failure of products such as GMail or GTalk? Or of Google Search, maybe? They seem to have been adopted pretty widely to me...

And as both a Facebook and Google+ user, I can't really say how you manage to state that privacy is worse on Google+ than in Facebook, where they introduce new options violating your privacy all the times and without alerting you (almost all weeks I found new checkboxes to uncheck in my privacy settings, not to speak of the scam/spam apps and the poor security record FB has). Maybe you can elaborate your line of reasoning? Else, it's just trolling.

Frankly, I am closing down my Facebook account, and I'm giving a Google+ a shot. In the past three days, friends in my circles on Google+ went up from being just 6 to about 40-50. I expect this number to increase. Deep integration with other Google products, such as GMail, will most likely ensure a big number of participants.

If Google+ fails, I won't at least go back to FB. There is a lot of social pressure to do so, but quite frankly it sucks. You use it because most of your friends do, not because it works well. The only thing I will miss is the capability of creating events among friends, but there are other ways.

Re:Google+ (1)

gadzook33 (740455) | about 3 years ago | (#36711978)

Personally I find it comforting to know that google runs into the same sorts of problems that we do.

Re:Google+ (1)

gwstuff (2067112) | about 3 years ago | (#36712004)

The fact that the market is established does not imply that there isn't room for massive improvements. When they entered Search it was an established industry but their technology was superior and hence got people to switch. Google+ makes massive changes to the Facebook model. If these are perceived as improvements, then they might just have a winner on their hands. The point about a premature release is hard to judge. Some of their products - most recently Google App Engine - have seen extraordinary success thanks to early 'preview' releases. They've had their failures too - but as I understand it Google has formal statistical methods to gauge if a product is going to make it by looking at early interest with the preview/beta product. On that scale, Google+ seems to be tending more towards Gmail than Google Buzz.

Re:Google+ (1)

starkat2k (2353628) | about 3 years ago | (#36712036)

Cgeys, you've made the same mistake others have done several times earlier.. This is still in beta, so stop yer whinin'!

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712150)

and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook

[citation needed]

Re:Google+ (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#36712156)

You might be surprised at the number of major companies, organizations, and institutions whose mission-critical systems are brought to a crippling halt by running out of disk space.

Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712158)

How are the privacy problems possibly bigger than Facebook's? Also, it seems like Google+ is focused on privacy, contrary to your statement.

Re:Google+ (1)

sirlark (1676276) | about 3 years ago | (#36712168)

a) Google __made__ the same mistakes b) It's not out of beta yet.... Oh my God!!! My Arm!! That troll just bit my arm off

Re:Google+ (1)

jthill (303417) | about 3 years ago | (#36712260)

I see Facebook's PR team is classy as ever.

Re:Google+ (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | about 3 years ago | (#36712272)

It's not Facebook. People trust Google. It will be a success.

Re:Google+ (1)

a_nonamiss (743253) | about 3 years ago | (#36712362)

It's a shame they didn't label it a "beta" product or something.

/sarcasm

HAHA !! THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS USE WD 320 GB !! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711710)

Never run out of disk no more !! And I am not a gillion dollar company in case you thought so !!

So what you're saying is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712082)

320GB ought to be enough space for anybody.

Google Engineer remarks: (1)

Timtimes (730036) | about 3 years ago | (#36711720)

"Dam this is harder than it appeared at first glance." Enjoy.

As an early-adopter of Google+ (0, Flamebait)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | about 3 years ago | (#36711812)

... all I can said is that FB has nothing to worry about. The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711860)

But none of those things are actually true.

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (3, Informative)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 3 years ago | (#36711892)

... all I can said is that FB has nothing to worry about. The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.

If you would call an interface that's not cluttered with Mafia Wars and Farmville updates "boring", then I suppose it's boring. But I prefer it over FB's.

Circles are drag-and-drop. I'm not sure how they could have made it easier. By comparison, FB has you check boxes next to names when you edit Groups.

If you create a new post and share it with only one person, that's functionally the same as a Wall post. Granular control over who sees what you post is G+'s biggest selling point.

Agreed on Photos. The integration to Picasa feels clunky to me.

Honestly, most of your criticisms seem to come from the perspective someone who hasn't spent more than 10 or 15 minutes with G+. Of course it doesn't work exactly the same way as FB. What would be the point?

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712176)

If you create a new post and share it with only one person, that's functionally the same as a Wall post.

Except that the primary purpose of posting on someone else's wall is to publicly embarrass them in front of all their friends. This is not possible in Google+. One might argue that is a good thing. The method you describe is Google+'s version of direct messaging, except that it can be lost in the stream.

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | about 3 years ago | (#36712476)

Yeah, but from my use of Google+ (and it's integration via the Google bar with other gStuff) I think they really want direct messaging to go back to just plain email. A move I support.

In 24 hours I've gotten half (7) of my friends to add Google+ to the other Google services they use. Since notifications are shown above their email, I know they will get them regardless of how much they use Google+, and soon I will be able to start ignoring facebook :)

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712442)

[i]If you would call an interface that's not cluttered with Mafia Wars and Farmville updates "boring", then I suppose it's boring. But I prefer it over FB's.[/i]

Then just click on the 'x' in the corner of the offending post, and select 'Hide all posts by [app name]'. Voila, no more posts from that app. Simples.
  Anyway, G+ is only uncluttered 'cos it's missing all those shit-awful Zynga games. Once G+ reaches critical mass it'll be the same shit hole FB is nowdays.

  Crap like that is why the unclean masses use social networking.
No crap, no users.
No users, no point in joining it.

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711914)

The interface is clear and devoid of the crappy mess-o'-nagging-boxes that is Facebook, and the Circles take about as much time to set up as adding friends to groups on Facebook and configuring its privacy settings to a sane level of exposure.

You cannot figure out how to post on someone's wall because there is no such thing as Facebook's wall in Google+. What you see when you click on someone's name is more akin to a profile and an activity log, not a two-way publishing place. Comparing Facebook and Google+ is legitimate. Blaming Google+ for not being an exact clone is quite lame. Oh, and pointless.

who you shared your post with (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | about 3 years ago | (#36711952)

you can't tell who you shared your posts with

This is not actually true. First of all, you choose who to share with. Unless you posted something as 'public' you do have an idea of who you are sharing with. On the post itself (again, unless you posted something as public) you can click on the little link that says 'limited' and it will show you who it was shared with. If you are concerned about people RE-sharing your post, then you can disable resharing on a post as well. Naturally there is always a way for people to republish what you posted, manually, with good old copy/paste, to get around these controls, but why would you have people like this in your circles of trust to begin with?

I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall.

there is no wall. If you want to share a post with one person, then you specify that one person while you are creating your post.

the circles are way too hard to set up

Really? Dragging and dropping in a visual interface is 'too hard'? What did you expect? That it read your mind?

P.S. If you're just trolling, it's kind of obvious.

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | about 3 years ago | (#36712034)

The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.

A simple clean interface has better for non-power users over the years, and is considered a staple of Google's success with their products.

Circles work just like dragging icons on a desktop, better even, as you can access the functionality anywhere (see a name, click for pop-up).

Every post tells you generally how many it's shared with, without any action on your part (public/limited), and one click of that link pops up a list of exactly who it's shared with.

I posted dozens of photos in one shot (just dragged them).

Wait, maybe you don't have a mouse? (Obviously teasing, bit it seems you are over-thinking it or something.)

PS: The mobile app easily does those things with touchscreens--I watched a complete neophyte do all but upload a photo on her Droid last Friday. My stream shows she uploaded her profile photo this weekend.

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712126)

There is no "Wall". That is a feature.

Re:As an early-adopter of Google+ (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 3 years ago | (#36712146)

Some would say that a boring interface is a compliment. It should get out of the way and let you access and manage the content you're there for.

The circles are ridiculously easy to set up. If you can drag and drop, you can set them up. To see who you shared your posts with, click the word "Limited" at the top right of the post. I don't think you can write on other people's walls, but I don't really know why you would want to.

Facebook(2011):Google+::MySpace:Facebook(2005) (3, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 3 years ago | (#36711852)

I finally got an invite yesterday from a friend. It still needs a bit of tweaking but hands down the best social website since Facebook was nice and clean back in the day. The fact that it's rising this fast should make some people over at Facebook a bit worried. I'm going to finally start transitioning.

Back in the day Facebook was only .edu and thus didn't have the lowest common denominator on it. We used to make fun of people on MySpace for "ThEiR HoRiBLZ Grammer" and such. But if you start reading LameBook [lamebook.com] or Failbook [failbook.com] this group of people is now over on Facebook. And as long as Google+ remains invite only, I can't see them ever getting over to Google+.

CSB:
Facebook royally screwed me when they did the automated bans of numerous apps. [slashdot.org] My app. User 1 (me). [github.com] . Was caught up in it.

When my grandma died I was tasked with scanning in family photos. I needed a faster way to upload them so I wrote my app. I had thousands, if not tens of thousands of photos uploaded, sorted, tagged. Most of my large family isn't the most technological, and facebook was much easier than Gallery. Plus they could tag each other, comment on the photos "Oh this is when Dad took us to that beach and set the house on fire" etc. When the auto ban bot came through it was all gone. My appeal reply was boiler plated. "Sorry our bot says you're doing spamming." Unlike some people, I do still have all the photos. (It looks like there were numerous photo uploading apps that got caught up in the ban.)

Thankfully with my app it only took about 24 hours of my bandwidth to reupload them, but all of the additional value added metadata that was lost. (I am not retagging them). Any photo less than 2048x2048 doesn't count towards your 1GB Picasa (Google+ Photos?) quota. I've already started looking at the PHP Google API. I'm hoping to have all my photos up there soon. Anyone that wants to see any new photos I take, will follow me to Google+.
-

invite only is not protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711906)

if there were consequencies to who you invite to the network, then maybe it would protect the network from trash. but that isn't the case with G+, and likely the whole invite thing will go away once it's a little more mature.

Re:Facebook(2011):Google+::MySpace:Facebook(2005) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711920)

We used to make fun of people on MySpace for "ThEiR HoRiBLZ Grammer" and such. But if you start reading LameBook [lamebook.com] or Failbook [failbook.com] this group of people is now over on Facebook.

And Google+ will be a success when those same people move again.

Re:Facebook(2011):Google+::MySpace:Facebook(2005) (1)

AncientPC (951874) | about 3 years ago | (#36711926)

The 2048x2048 freebies only applies to G+ users, normal user freebie is 800x800. Also you can just upload using Picasa desktop app to share on Plus if you hate web uploaders.

Also G+ will not be invite only in the long run. However there will be better signal:noise feeds because of asymmetrical relationships vs Facebook's mutual relationships. Most people (myself included) seem content with starting over and keeping their G+ circles intentionally small.

Re:Facebook(2011):Google+::MySpace:Facebook(2005) (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 years ago | (#36711942)

get your own website and put your photos there.

jeebus cristo, you people are TECHIES. act like it. 'big content' hosting sites are not the only way to serve your own photos and html, even free forum software.

lazy. do your own site and html. its not rocket science!

stop giving all your content to the big corps.

Re:Facebook(2011):Google+::MySpace:Facebook(2005) (2)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 3 years ago | (#36712356)

I have one. [github.com] I spent forever on it getting it right. Valid HTML4. Can scroll through lots of photos fast. Because I separated out the header and footer bits I've integrated it on a few websites I'm on. I have a hacked together fork that will output a valid KML file so I can view my photos from when I went to India on a map. In all it's pretty awesome IMHO. Maybe you missed out on the part where I said I used to have a Gallery setup.

But MOST people just don't get that. They want to share their photos with their friends. I'd constantly get "I forgot the URL" e-mails and other such inane questions. They couldn't tag each other. They couldn't comment without registering for an account (That or I'd have a billion spam bots) and this was too difficult for them. Some only recently started using the computer. The fact that they found Facebook is good. (And some only login once a week if that).

It's not rocket science to setup. But it's rocket science to some of these people to use. They're not by any means "dumb". 3 of my Aunts & Uncles are Doctors. Some have engineering degrees. They just don't use the internet like we do. If you don't think these people exist go volunteer at your local GeekSquad or for a Tech Support line.

Re:Facebook(2011):Google+::MySpace:Facebook(2005) (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 3 years ago | (#36712416)

I'm glad it's so easy for you, but for my grandmother she's not as technically inclined. If I had to make a page for each of my non-tech-savvy relatives who ask me to upload pictures or music for them, I'm sure I'd end up remaking half of Facebook's features. They're already on Facebook, might as well use what they've already got.

Re:Facebook(2011):Google+::MySpace:Facebook(2005) (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 3 years ago | (#36712046)

Off-topic, but this is something I've been struggling with. Does anyone know a good way to synchronize metatags of photos online with the same photos sitting on my hard drive? Most of the apps I've tried will go the other way - let you tag photos on your hard drive, then carry those tags with them when you upload the photos to a website. But I haven't found anything that'll synchronize the tags back if others add more info about the photos.

Note to editors... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711884)

...how about making a new category for Google news releases? This will make it easier for those of us who want to filter out the relentless stream of non-interesting Google news. Talk about editorial bias to the extreme.

Ran out of disk space? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36711900)

Erm, is there not simple script in place to discard all notifications when the server has 1000/500/50mb of space left? or maybe the smarter way, delete oldest to make room for newest. Even my Android phone has this. Is that not something google do?

*scratches head*

Define many (3, Interesting)

kmdrtako (1971832) | about 3 years ago | (#36711922)

"Yesterday, many users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox..."

Yesterday some users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox.

There, fixed that for you.

I, e.g., did not get spammed, (And yes, I have a g+ account.)

Re:Define many (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712084)

This is correct as there are only 3 users of Google+!

If it happened to all 3 users then it would say 'all users'...

If it happened to 2 of the 3 'many users' would be correct...

However as the parent had no issue that means only 1 of the 3 had issues and he is correct to say 'some users'.

Re:Define many (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712528)

Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to thousands of other people. All notifications for over one million users for a period of 80 minutes were affected. That's not just "some". Are you so self-important that you alone account for the tipping point between "some" and "many"?

Google Haters? (5, Insightful)

pro151 (2021702) | about 3 years ago | (#36711958)

I guess it is only inevitable. Some people (most?) despise MS, some people (me) despise apple. IMHO Google has always been forthcoming with genuine and (for the most part timely reasons why they have or have had a problem. I have always had good luck and good experiences with Google, even when we went to Google Apps at the plant. I have found Google+ to be a better experience (so far) than FB. Of course they will need to load it up with a bunch of useless games to attract the masses over from FB. I suppose this post now qualifies me as a "Google Fan Boy" and fair game for the flamers, so have at it if that is what makes you happy. Google is Skynet and I am a Droid Borg.

Re:Google Haters? (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 3 years ago | (#36711974)

You have a point, but just wait until you actually need to get support from somebody at Google.

Re:Google Haters? (1)

pro151 (2021702) | about 3 years ago | (#36712018)

Well, I must be one of the lucky ones. I have always found it relatively easy to get help form Support. Usually within 24 hours for minor problems. We have excellent support from them at the plant. Now ask me how I do getting any kind of support from MEDCO and I can type you a novel on slipshod, sloppy, late, etc customer service. Go figure.

Re:Google Haters? (5, Interesting)

jbernardo (1014507) | about 3 years ago | (#36712066)

This post will possibly get you downvoted very quickly by the fb trolls/"relationship managers", like the guy who posted this "news" or the first poster. They are getting less obvious (well, after the idiot RMs for wp7 they only could improve), but are quite easy to spot as drones working for a RM agency. And they are trying to do the same to slashdot as they did to techcrunch or betanews, were you can't find a decent comment in the middle of all the astroturfers. So you (and everyone who calls their game) will get downvoted in a second. As I will be, no doubt.

Re:Google Haters? (1)

pro151 (2021702) | about 3 years ago | (#36712194)

I got moderated day before yesterday and received 5 points for naming a personal hater, so I am no stranger to it. Such is the internet. what slashdot needs to do is stop the "Anonymous Coward" posts.

Browser support (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 3 years ago | (#36712090)

My biggest issue so far, beyond none of my friends having it yet, is that it doesn't support Opera. But by the same token, Facebook broke compatibility with Opera nearly every time they made a minor interface change. I stopped using FB for a year or so until they fixed the issues causing it to run horribly under Opera. Now FB runs equally horrible in all browsers.

I doubt it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36712282)

I doubt Google actually would run out of disk space. Aren't they supposed to have a megasuperduper cluster ? After all they brag about it enough, how they use cheap components and build their own racks and whatnot....

It is a publicity stunt that is all it is.

Re:I doubt it (2)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | about 3 years ago | (#36712480)

They don't run all their services on the same cluster.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...