Beta
×

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!

Google Trying to Lure Celebs to Google+

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the time-to-play-endorsementville dept.

Google 198

alphadogg writes "Part of the buzz this week about Google+ is that Google is reportedly working to lure celebrities such as Lady Gaga to its new social network service with verified accounts. Not sure if tech big shots beyond Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg count as celebrities, but the list of the technology industry's biggest names using Google+ is on the rise. Dell chief Michael Dell – yes, the real Michael Dell — has grabbed headlines for his early enthusiasm for Google+ and interest in using it as a newfangled customer support and interaction tool. Open source movers and shakers like Linus Torvalds, Miguel de Icaza are also posting away."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mark Shuttleworth (5, Funny)

grantek (979387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829588)

If they can get Mark Shuttleworth on board, they'll have Google+ replacing Thunderbird in Ubuntu by the next release...

Re:Mark Shuttleworth (3, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829654)

Isn't he going to replace the Linux Kernel in Ubuntu with Skype, too?

OOoooh! Lady Anus! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829802)

She's like snot on a hot car!

One more reason not to touch that Google+ bag of shit-blisters, with a ten-foot metaphor.

Lady Gaga? (0, Troll)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829596)

Sound like Google is desperate to keep Google+ in the spotlight if they are dredging up ho bags like Lady Gaga to push it.

Re:Lady Gaga? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829640)

Yes, having people who other people care about use your social network is a clear sign of desperation and not completely standard marketing.

You're dumb, I suggest not breathing anymore.

Re:Lady Gaga? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829670)

Google is desperate for extending an invitation to one of the most well-known celebrities? Or are you so out of touch with modern culture you didn't know this? Like her or hate her, I wouldn't call that desperate.

Re:Lady Gaga? (3, Insightful)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829756)

I just canceled my Facebook account (member since 2006), I will not be giving up my personal information to the king of data collection. No thank you.
Yes, Google is my default search engine but googleanalytics, recaptcha and googleapi are blocked.

Re:Lady Gaga? (1)

Oliver Wendell Jones (158103) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829902)

And by personal information you mean First Name, Last Name and Gender? Because that is all you need for a Google+ profile. I don't think that even the brilliant minds at Google are going to find a way to make a huge profit off of information like that - especially since they already have all of that information already...

Re:Lady Gaga? (3, Insightful)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829950)

Social networking offers up far more information than name and gender my friend.

Re:Lady Gaga? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830006)

Social Networking only collects what information you put out there. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head, saying "give us your personal information!" Nobody even verifies if the information given is even accurate. You think my real name is on my account? LOL

Re:Lady Gaga? (1)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830108)

Of course not, but then what's the point of joining a social network if you're gonna simply setup a profile and do nothing else?

Re:Lady Gaga? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830332)

If you create an account and have friends... your associates are there, events you attend or are likely to attend are in there. Photos tagigng you are there. There is a hell of a lot that can be inferred. If someone happens to know where you live and is in one of your friend's contacts, they can use social networking to discover when you are not at home, for example via information posted by others.

Re:Lady Gaga? (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830028)

Personal data also includes the messages, photos and other media that you post, as well as the inferences that are made in respect to the interactions you make with other people using the service.

Re:Lady Gaga? (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830164)

First Name, Last Name and Gender

And who all your friends are.
And everything they say to you or about you.

They get your birthday and age the day all your friends wish you a happy birthday...

They get your eye color from the photographs.

Give me 6 months of google+ data along with what gets linked to your profile using google search, google analytics, and google ads, and I'll know more about you than you thought possible...

Re:Lady Gaga? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830240)

And it will take you 6 months and all the data you'll have will be fairly useless.

Remember, Google isn't paying people to read up on what you think or who you are. They really don't care about you that much.

Re:Lady Gaga? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830342)

You planning to change your appearance and move house in 6 months? Every 6 months?

Pointless bets (5, Funny)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829602)

Bill Gates will use it and be friends with Linus. Can't wait to see his profile...

Unless your name is... (1)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829618)

William Shatner [tomsguide.com] ... Then you are not welcome.

Re:Unless your name is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829942)

It's not the first time he faded out of reality [wikipedia.org] , and it won't be the last.

Proven Strategy (3, Funny)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829622)

It worked for Scientology after all.

Does this mean Google is finally evil, though?

Re:Proven Strategy (2)

zget (2395308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829638)

They have always known what works marketing wise. Just that this time it's more about luring in normal people and teens instead of geeks.

Re:Proven Strategy (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829898)

It means Facebook's has got thetans all up in their business.

Re:Proven Strategy (1)

aceboomblain (830620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36831016)

So ... Google+ is more exclusive that Facebook ... wasn't that what the Winklevoss twins wanted HarvardBook to be? I wonder if they will sue Google.

Re:Proven Strategy (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830352)

What do you mean, finally? They are a multi-billion dollar corporation, they're not a charity.

Re:Proven Strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830564)

What do you mean, finally? They are a multi-billion dollar marketing corporation, they're not a charity.

I can't say fixed that for you as you are quite right; however, I think I improved it a little bit.

People still believe this do no evil shit? Yes lets all believe the snake skin shoe guy when he makes intangible entirely relative promises even after completely breaking the promise countless countless times.

Re:Proven Strategy (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830582)

Mostly just poking fun at Google's slogan there :P

I'd expect any corporation to be "Not good" - shady, unethical, etc. Otherwise they'd probably go out of business, But outright evil is a whole different league.

Just remember kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829626)

If you're not verified, you're not a human.

Here's an idea (1)

PopeScott (1343031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829632)

Open the damn thing up to us normal people who so far haven't been able to get an invite.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

The Cheez-Czar (4124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829730)

It not hard to get invites. It looks like users have unlimited invites now. Or at least I've haven't run out yet. All you need is a friend on google + .

Re:Here's an idea (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829804)

Now you're saying people don't have friends.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

The Cheez-Czar (4124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829874)

Well not cool google+ friends. Its so exclusive not even Lady Gaga is on it.

Re:Here's an idea (2)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#36831026)

What about those of us who want to get on Google+ but don't want to go through the effort of making friends?

Re:Here's an idea (3, Funny)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36831090)

Then you get sent an unsolicited invite. Check your inbox.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

mariasama16 (1895136) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829818)

Whats your email address, I'll send you one

Re:Here's an idea (1)

PopeScott (1343031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829878)

weaver_scott@earthlink.net Thank you very much. I guess I don't have any friends :(

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830146)

Don't worry you will soon have plenty of friends, offering you dates in your area and cheap medications.

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830222)

weaver_scott@earthlink.net Thank you very much. I guess I don't have any friends :(

Oh man... you just put your personal email on a major site with no possible way to delete it. Better inform your friends and family of your new email address now before your inbox is brutally raped.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

PopeScott (1343031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830344)

It's actually my just abandoned old address. Still stupid.

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830270)

You are welcome

Re:Here's an idea (1)

drew30319 (828970) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829930)

I'll be happy to send you an invite (as I've done for many others who have posted on message boards) but currently you need a Gmail address. If you send me a Gmail address I'll add you right away. (the same applies for anybody else)

- Drew

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829992)

...while you're sending out invites...

ben.watts at g mail dot com

Re:Here's an idea (1)

PopeScott (1343031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830080)

Sigh, I don't want Gmail acct. Oh well.

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830136)

..I'll be happy to send you an invite

If you can send me a Google+ invite it would be greatly appreciated, use every google service right now as I have half a dozen android/chrome devices that I develop with.

richard dot neal87 @ gmail dot com

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830376)

What the heck, if you've got a second to send one to jmintha @ gmail dot com. Thanks!

Re:Here's an idea (1)

koreanbabykilla (305807) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830480)

me to please? christopher.david.carpenter at gmail dot com
thanks

Re:Here's an idea (1)

PopeScott (1343031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830516)

Evidently you don't need a Gmail address. I was just sent an invite, and I'm in. It just pulled my address from my regular Google account.

G+ invites (1)

drew30319 (828970) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830544)

PopeScott: Interesting - very good to know!

Everybody else: invites sent - have fun!

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830534)

xbobbyxcx@gmail.com...it would be greatly appreciated

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830572)

l.c.wijesinha at gmail dot com Thanks in advance

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830588)

could I get an invite please? richiewrt@gmail.com

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830870)

Well i'm not averse to a gmail account. I would love an invite if you would be so kind to someone who is also apparently friendless. :-D
svartbjornlkp@gmail.com

Re:Here's an idea (1)

Guidii (686867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830946)

eugene.girard at gmail.com would love a google+ invite. Many thanks.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

drew30319 (828970) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830984)

Done!

Re:Here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830996)

goochrules at gmail dot com. thanks much

It's not that much better than facebook (0, Flamebait)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829646)

Facebook's problem is that its interface is ill-designed. It presents information in ways that are hard to understand ("most recent" sorting I understand; the default sorting is a mystery; and Google+ doesn't even have a "most recent" button on the Stream). And certain things just don't seem to work (when a link has a number on it, it means there are that many messages or something waiting at the other end; click it, and the number goes away because it assumes you've read them; except it doesn't on about 10% of those widgets...)

Google+ seems to have inherited several of these problems. And it provides no means for pointing them out to the development team. It's like walking into a half-built building and finding many rooms have no way in or out, there are windows missing, the cold-water faucet shocks you, the kitchen appliances run on diesel, and you're encouraged to invite your family and friends to join you there.

And now they'll be offering carpeted versions of this to people who can tell 40 million of their Facebook friends that it's broken. Not wise.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (5, Informative)

Literaphile (927079) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829710)

Google+ seems to have inherited several of these problems. And it provides no means for pointing them out to the development team...

... there's a "send feedback" button on the bottom right of every page.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (4, Informative)

mgscheue (21096) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829754)

And it's pretty nice, too. It takes a screenshot and allows you to highlight what items you're talking about in your note.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830460)

I've never seen it until now. But this isn't my usual browser. I've only gone to g+ on the computer where I default to using Chrome.

Fastest Growing Social Network In History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829800)

but, hey, some random dumb-ass on Slashdot is complaining about stream sorting in the two week old service!

No wonder people have been saying Slashdot is circling the bowl for years.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829872)

Well, I suspect that google+ will develop very quickly in another direction. Recently google is getting more and more in location based services, searches, and ads. So i think google+ will be less about gaming and more about luring customers with android smartphones to places integrating well with this concept.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829912)

Half-finished, poorly-designed network opened up to the masses that will quickly be derided as broken by passerbys? Sounds amazingly similar to Wave.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830016)

THIS. This so damn much.

Design is nice, but it certainly needs a lot of work done to it. Some of that stuff is even fixed-width! Ew, no.
Come on guys, we got over that awfulness last decade, don't bring it back!
Especially considering the entire site is designed around JavaScript anyway.
Minimum sizes on sites that are containers for large amounts of cell-based data (tab profile view for example) is the wrong thing to do, all that stuff could easily be collapsed to 1 column, "google bar" to 2 lines to fit data in, so many other things.

Some weird UI oddities too. Why is the default action to highlight a person in the Invite page?
If I am viewing a bunch of profiles, I need to keep deselecting the last one, such an obtuse idea.

Better looking than Facebook though. That's for sure.
Better functionality as well. Circles is considerably better than the crappy Friend Management in Facebook, by every mile that exists. The Facebook friend tools are terrible, absolutely terrible, they have gotten worse since I registered in fact (back in the old designs)
That new chat thing is awful. Why the HELL would I want to talk to people OFFLINE?
Why not just have, oh, I dunno, AN ACTUAL FRIEND LIST ON THE HOMEPAGE?
And to pour a salt tanker in the wound, they seem to have gotten rid of the popped-out chat window. It is certainly hidden if it still exists.
But it has one important thing over G+, it is always visible regardless of scroll-depth!

The battle for the numbers will certainly be interesting. G+ has certainly scared Facebook guys.
Facebook was just lucky that it became as big as it is. Myspace was at that stage where it was changing to peoples dislikes, Bebo wasn't really changing at all, Facebook got a UI change that was actually fairly decent (the new wall mainly), the rest is history.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830502)

It's got potential, but the people marketing it seem to have forgotten one important thing: it took YEARS before either Twitter or Facebook was a major presence in social networking. My first tweet is about 3 years older than my second one.

They think that it was the rise of celebrity cachet that made those things, when that celebrity population didn't get there until numerous people around them were already involved.

They're jumping the gun. They should let it build slowly, get the bugs worked out, let the early-adopters tell them what corners to knock off or stretch into spires, and only then push it hard to people who will drag it to the mass market.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (1)

Scarred Intellect (1648867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830036)

...Google+ doesn't even have a "most recent" button on the Stream). And certain things just don't seem to work (when a link has a number on it, it means there are that many messages or something waiting at the other end; click it, and the number goes away because it assumes you've read them; except it doesn't on about 10% of those widgets...)

You DO understand that Google+ is only in a limited field trial, right?

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830508)

Uh, sure. With 10 million extant users and an attempt to bring Lady Gaga and her 50 million FB kiddies into the "trial".

This is no beta test. This is beta-by-deployment. And they're overdoing it.

Oh God...Just Shut The Fuck Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830618)

No one gives a shit about you retard.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830172)

It sorts by the most recent comment on a given post.

You can give feedback by clicking the "SEND FEEBACK" button.

Re:It's not that much better than facebook (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830842)

Google+ seems to have inherited several of these problems. And it provides no means for pointing them out to the development team. It's like walking into a half-built building and finding many rooms have no way in or out, there are windows missing, the cold-water faucet shocks you, the kitchen appliances run on diesel, and you're encouraged to invite your family and friends to join you there.

Could you be more explicit? I've barely touched Facebook and haven't looked at Google+ at all

Open source movers and shakers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829650)

Miguel de Icaza???

You have to be joking...

But why??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829724)

I hear Google+ is huge in Brazil.

Why? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829752)

Why?

I'm already there!

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830124)

How fast can you ride your bick?

adoption? Easy! (2)

tloh (451585) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829758)

Dude!

The simplest way to push Google+ is to leverage the noise-making power of fan-boys the world over. Imagine the volumes of traffic and the recruitment potential for Google+ if they can attract enthusiastic fanatics to fight classic holy wars such as:

VI vs EMACS
Harvard vs Yale
Liverpool vs Manchester United
Edward vs Jacob
Barbie vs. G.I. Joe

With the trolls so distracted, maybe they'll leave slashdot in peace for the rest of us, at least for a while.

Google+ is my favorite text editor. (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830194)

Way better than Notepad++. Way better.

No Google+ for Google Apps' users (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829782)

Really says it all.

Re:No Google+ for Google Apps' users (1)

broknstrngz (1616893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829870)

Because Google Apps is supposed to be a productivity suite.

Re:No Google+ for Google Apps' users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36829960)

But accounts that make use of Apps, such as mine, with their own domains, such as mine, are not treated like "normal" gmail accounts and are denied access to G+.

For now.

I've heard this will no longer be the case in the next month or two.

Re:No Google+ for Google Apps' users (1)

Jakester2K (612607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829920)

But "... yet" says more.

All you need to know... (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829808)

I have an account but haven't logged in yet.

I need an online social network like Lady Gaga needs another dick.

I created a Facebook account just so I could have the pleasure of telling people that no, I won't be their friend.

I might make a Google+ account because it lets you make "circles". I want to create Nine Circles of Hell and then place my friends in them accordingly.

See? Social networks are empowering!

Re:All you need to know... (3, Interesting)

Oliver Wendell Jones (158103) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829928)

Oh, you're dissing Google... that's going to land you in Circle #6 (Heresy)...

'Luring' celebrities... (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829844)

...maybe if they stick a small amount of notoriety under a box propped up with a stick, tie string to it and wait around the corner?

Oh no wait, that'll just get Youtube celebrities.

Geek celebrities (4, Insightful)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829850)

Both Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day are pretty active users of Google+. I know that these people aren't going to draw in your everyday user, but I'm sure entertained by Wesley Crusher posting videos of cats on the internet.

Re:Geek celebrities (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 3 years ago | (#36831008)

Add Sean Bonner. He's worth the price of admission alone.

Prediction (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829892)

I predict that as soon as Google+ is opened to the public, Facebook will implode like a wet paper bag. Heck, with the rate people have been sneaking in by asking everyone they know for invites, it might happen even before the official launch.

Re:Prediction (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830012)

Just like Google Wave and Orkut, right?

Re:Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830256)

No one used Google Wave in the first place. People are already using G+.

Google+ is easily usable to anyone used to Facebook or Twitter. Wave was some weird new paradigm thing that was a big confusing hassle to actually use to do anything with.

Orkut is super popular in Brazil and India. It's not so much a direct Facebook replacement like G+ though.

Re:Prediction (1)

eh2o (471262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830104)

Somebody should let Rupert Murdoch know, he likes to buy imploding social networks.

Microsoft Introduces Microsoft++ (2)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36829940)

Strong typed and object oriented, only bots and web crawlers can join, but there are BILLIONS of them. You know, the Internet of Things, so farsighted of them.

Of course the techies are coming... (1)

thejuiceisloose (2397444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830064)

Any good techie wants to try the next big thing, even if the craze doesn't last that long. However, getting celebrities to post content that vast hoards of people are interested in seeing is more what Google is going after here. It gets people to actually use the product and maybe tell their friends about it-- the same people who tell their friends they are going to go to a concert.

celebrities? (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830078)

Yeah, like this [techcrunch.com] .

Who gives a fuck! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830176)

Give all your personal data to evil company A or evil company B - what difference does it make?

Re:Who gives a fuck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36831004)

Google already owns most of it, it's less work for us.

pseudonyms? (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830196)

If Lady Gag-me-with-a-stick-a gets to use a pseudonym, what about the rest of us? Or are there different rules for the peasantry?
I know...I shouldn't ask rhetorical questions...

Doing business as Lady Gaga (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830584)

If Lady Gag-me-with-a-stick-a gets to use a pseudonym, what about the rest of us?

If Ms. Germanotta can file a DBA [wikipedia.org] , you can too.

Re:Doing business as Lady Gaga (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36831018)

Is Google+ for doing business? Facebook and Myspace had options specifically for artists. G+ doesn't...yet.

Re:pseudonyms? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830882)

Who would want to sell records under the name Stefani Germanotta? "Oh, I love that song! Who sings it?" "Stefani Germa--something with a G, I think?"

Am I missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36830832)

There's like two Linuses, five Zuckerburgs and two Gates. It's easy to tell the fake accounts apart sometimes, but it seems like this can grow into a problem. I'd love to follow people, but it seems like it'd grow to be annoying if there wasn't a way to verify the real people from the fakes.

Oh Trent Reznor is on there too, along with a few other musicians.

Finding People To Follow (1)

CycleFreak (99646) | more than 3 years ago | (#36830948)

Finding people that you want to follow on G+ is not very easy. But this site seems to work pretty well at making is somewhat easier: http://www.findpeopleonplus.com/ [findpeopleonplus.com]

Lady GagMe??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36831038)

THAT ought to attract people!

Warren Ellis and Neil Gaiman say no (1)

blarkon (1712194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36831054)

Warren Ellis and Neil Gaiman have already given up - they were flooded with notification spam as people added them to their circles. Neither celebrity is a net newbie, and if they couldn't be arsed with it a lot of other celebrities aren't going to be arsed with it either.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?