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!

Trade of Google+1 "Likes" as a Business

CmdrTaco posted about 3 years ago | from the ruining-it-for-everyone dept.

83

siliconbits writes "Selling Google+1 "likes" is gradually becoming a rather lucrative business, helped by cheap labour and ever-falling internet access worldwide; the trend is not unlike what we saw previously with Twitter & Digg during the days except that this has a more widespread implication for SEO and could turn the nascent social networking service into a massive headache for Google as many try to game the system. Google+1 selling sites like Googleplus1supply, buygoogleplus1 or Blackcatseo have cropped up during the last few months — amongst so many other websites — with the sole aim of selling Google+1 "likes" to publishers and businesses."

cancel ×

83 comments

FSBO: +1 POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885328)

like new, offer void in Wisconsin or where prohibited by law. No cash value. Buyer must take delivery by 7/29/11.

Re:FSBO: +1 POST (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#36885968)

Ok...I've not joined Google+...can someone tell me what at "Google+1 Like" is...? The article didn't explain really clearly....something that has to do with web search rankings was mentioned...

I'm guessing you have to have a Google+ account to see what a +1 like is...?

Re:FSBO: +1 POST (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 3 years ago | (#36886206)

+1 came out before Google+. It was a way to basically "like" a search result. It also had a social component, so you could see the likes of your other friends when performing a search.

Re:FSBO: +1 POST (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#36887096)

+1 came out before Google+. It was a way to basically "like" a search result. It also had a social component, so you could see the likes of your other friends when performing a search.

Ok...after reading further down...and saw that this is something apparently added to regular google searches I looked for it on a search..and can now see the very faint +1 link near links returned by a search. Strange, I had never noticed that being there at all before just now.

I'm not familiar with this concept of "liking" something...I take it this is something done on those social network sites like FB and twitter?

Re:FSBO: +1 POST (1)

lgarner (694957) | about 3 years ago | (#36887220)

I'm not familiar with this concept of "liking" something...I take it this is something done on those social network sites like FB and twitter?

It has something to do with that new inner-web thingy. Maybe this [lmgtfy.com] will help. You can search for information these days, too.

Re:FSBO: +1 POST (2)

siriuskase (679431) | about 3 years ago | (#36887950)

Like without dislike bothers me.

Re:FSBO: +1 POST (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 3 years ago | (#36887240)

+1 is implemented in Goggle+, but it did not come out of Google+ (at least not publicly).

+1 came preceded Google+ by a few months. Google is trying to tie +1 into other Google services as well, not just Google+.

Re:FSBO: +1 POST (1)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | about 3 years ago | (#36891986)

+1 came preceded Google+ by a few months. Google is trying to tie +1 into other Google services as well, not just Google+.

+1 preceded Google by decades, since it came out of TSR in the 1970s. Anyway, +1 is for munchkins, I wouldn't even go near a Mind Flayer without at least a +3 sword, better a +5 if you can get one.

I thought it was going up (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | about 3 years ago | (#36885370)

ever-falling internet access worldwide

falling??

Re:I thought it was going up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885464)

Also, it's called "Google+", and the likes are "+1"s. This is a really hideous summary.

Re:I thought it was going up (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#36885628)

You are confusing two different things. Google +1 [blogspot.com] is not "Google+".

Re:I thought it was going up (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 3 years ago | (#36886290)

I think the parent was referring to Google +1 as "+1"s.

Re:I thought it was going up (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 3 years ago | (#36885518)

I think they missed a "costs of" in their. Should be: "helped by... ever-falling costs of internet access worldwide..."

should be a simple fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885376)

seems like google could stop this with one simple block of code.

if somone gets a shit-ton of likes from brand new accounts that only "likes" stuff, it is an obvious partaker of purchased likes. ban.

if someone makes a brand-new account and like more than a few things a day, it is an obvious seller of likes. ban.

Re:should be a simple fix (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885424)

Or even better - actually pay one of the services for +1s relating to some fake/obscure unlikable thing, and ban every user that +1s it.

Re:should be a simple fix (1)

rufty_tufty (888596) | about 3 years ago | (#36892580)

Not really no.
Take my blog, obscure and possibly disliked by many who read it. That does not mean anyone who dislikes it should be banned. In fact what i want from the like/+1 system is that it shows me obscure gems that would otherwise fall under the radar.
What's wrong with each user has a certain value, not all +1's being equal and all that. If google tracks you as well as some people think they do then fixing this could be as simple as:
1) track all the websites a person visits (probably by IP address to prevent scripts from gaming the system).
2) Each visit creates an internal currency (with some limits placed to prevent bots from gaming the system)
3) each +1 spends some of that currency. Let's say each +1 spends a quarter of the available currency.

Then if someone likes everything at a whim then they don't skew the search results compared to those who only like one or two things a day/week, but when they do like something it is something very special so it really counts.
Yes i can see a few ways that this system could still be gamed, but it seems to me a vast improvement over the current one. Unless someone can call me out on this?

Re:should be a simple fix (1)

m2vq (2417438) | about 3 years ago | (#36885608)

if someone makes a brand-new account and like more than a few things a day, it is an obvious seller of likes. ban.

Eh, when people make an account on Facebook or Google+ they usually have a huge spike of likes then. All your favourite music, movies, games and so on.. After that it slow downs and people like things randomly when they come across new things they, well, like.

Even if Google does get some code running that detects and bans them, well, it doesn't take long for people to study what works and what works and act upon that information. People aren't that stupid that they would just continue doing shit that gets them banned, they will route around it. Besides, a few mistakes in bans of normal people for no good reason does A LOT more harm than getting rid of a few accounts used solely for liking websites.

Re:should be a simple fix (3, Insightful)

NoSig (1919688) | about 3 years ago | (#36886380)

Don't ban them, just don't count their +1s until the behavior of the account gives sufficient evidence that it is legit. The humans who erroneously get flagged as possible bots wouldn't even know it and there would be no adverse impact on them. Since there is no ban, it's not as clear to the SEOs what it was that tipped Google off.

Re:should be a simple fix (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 3 years ago | (#36885618)

if somone gets a shit-ton of likes from brand new accounts that only "likes" stuff, it is an obvious partaker of purchased likes. ban.

Too easy to game to DoS a legit site.

Not really a problem.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885382)

The only thing that Google+ is saying about their +1 affecting search ranking is that it will only increase the ranking of sites that people in your circles have +1'd.. so unless you plan on following a bunch of spam bots on Google+ I really don't see how this is an issue..

"+1 helps people discover relevant content—a website, a Google search result, or an ad—from the people they already know and trust"
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=1140194

Re:Not really a problem.. (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 3 years ago | (#36885708)

Someone mod this up for God's sake. It shows that Google not only realized the potential for the problem but even addressed it before the beta began. Not to mention it shows exactly how Google intends to monetize Google+, by personalizing search results based on what a self-selected group of people similar to you enjoy.

Re:Not really a problem.. (2)

daktari (1983452) | about 3 years ago | (#36886402)

Will average Joe know this though? Or will he get suckered into the usual SEO scam to "enhance" his online presence?

Re:Not really a problem.. (4, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | about 3 years ago | (#36886412)

I read an interesting article a while back that noted that people may become isolated as everything becomes more personalized and their fishbowl shrinks.

Re:Not really a problem.. (3, Funny)

the phantom (107624) | about 3 years ago | (#36887034)

Unfortunately, you are not in any of my circles, so I am sure that I will never read it.

Re:Not really a problem.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36892648)

This is a bit different however. Bare in mind that this tailors results not only according to you but also according to your circles. Thus if you have varied people in your circles you could expect varied results. I even see this as a possible cure for problem you stated (I have read a bit about that and seen TED video about that).

Re:Not really a problem.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36892728)

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

Thinking ahead (2)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 3 years ago | (#36885758)

It's pretty easy to see where this is going, though, and these companies are only thinking ahead.

Google quantifies you somehow. Person A and Person B aren't friends, but they both read a lot of /. and constantly search for tentacle porn. If Person A clicks on a link involving Natalie Portman and an over-excited tentacle monster, it might display that result with more importance for Person B.

Re:Thinking ahead (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 3 years ago | (#36886340)

And how is this a bad thing? :P

Re:Thinking ahead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36887892)

[...] a link involving Natalie Portman and an over-excited tentacle monster [...]

Dude, seriously, that's fucked up. Have you got no conscience?

How could you post that without providing a link?

Re:Thinking ahead (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | about 3 years ago | (#36890912)

+1

Re:Thinking ahead (1)

obscuro (1448733) | about 3 years ago | (#36928186)

Is there really such thing as tentacle porn? I don't want to look it up.

Re:Thinking ahead (1)

obscuro (1448733) | about 3 years ago | (#36928198)

Silly me... I looked up tentacle porn....

Social connections outside Google+ (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36885840)

[+1] will only increase the ranking of sites that people in your circles have +1'd.. so unless you plan on following a bunch of spam bots on Google+ I really don't see how this is an issue

But the +1 button [google.com] was around before the Google+ field trial began. In addition to Google+ circles, +1 also uses [google.com] Google Contacts, Google Talk chat contacts, Google Reader, and Google Buzz to determine social connections. But how can these be gamed?

Re:Not really a problem.. (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | about 3 years ago | (#36886486)

Why would you need bots? Can't you just pay people with large followings to +1 things?

Yeah, and...? (1)

raehl (609729) | about 3 years ago | (#36891206)

There's a word for that... it's called an endorsement.

What's the difference between paying Kim Kardashian to appear in a commercial for your product and paying her to +1 your product?

Re:Not really a problem.. (1)

jafac (1449) | about 3 years ago | (#36887168)

sounds kind of like a protection racket to me.

Re:Not really a problem.. (1)

SnowZero (92219) | about 3 years ago | (#36905234)

so unless you plan on following a bunch of spam bots on Google+

A *lot* of people follow Robert Scoble you insensitive clod!

Plus one this, guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885394)

Come on, give me some +1s!

Crowdsourcing FAIL (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#36885476)

This is why "crowdsourcing" consistently fails as a method of business ranking. It's too easy to spam. Google was burned by this late last year when they were counting reviews on Citysearch and Yelp. That backfired badly. [nytimes.com] Local search results were polluted with junk entries. Google got a lot of bad press over this. Since then, they've stopped counting "likes" on competing sites, but they still count their own.

Google's ad customers have been complaining local spam for years, [google.com] , and Google hasn't been able to fix it. It's become worse since Google combined local results with web search results, and the value of local spam went up.

Re:Crowdsourcing FAIL (2)

EvilStein (414640) | about 3 years ago | (#36885844)

Google is a complete fucking pile of FAIL when it comes to anything related to customer support. They don't fix spam problems and spammers have been flocking to gmail/googlemail for ages now because Google actively protects them by hiding origin IP headers.

Then they let users add stuff to Google maps, and guess what? IT's becoming a spam hole thanks to the hoards of Avon reps & home "Scentsy" businesses. Even in my sparsely populated area, i'm seeing several worthless mommy-biz entries.

Google stumbles with this.. a lot.

Re:Crowdsourcing FAIL (0)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | about 3 years ago | (#36885860)

"Fail" isn't a noun. Leave the mangling of communication to the children who think defacing sites is some sort of activism.

Re:Crowdsourcing FAIL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36886192)

hey look, i'm standing on your lawn with hundreds of millions of other global millennials and we cherish the thought of forcing you to accept our grammar and "incorrect" forms of activism for the rest of your fragile and worthless existence. Lulz.

Today's fad isn't always tomorrow's English... (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 3 years ago | (#36887058)

hey look, i'm standing on your lawn with hundreds of millions of other global millennials and we cherish the thought of forcing you to accept our grammar and "incorrect" forms of activism for the rest of your fragile and worthless existence. Lulz.

Might happen, but I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. For every permanent addition to the language, there's a fad that dies the death when its time is up.

"Groovy" was a cool, popular word during the flower power era. *No-one* uses it now, except as a tongue-in-cheek invocation of the era it's inexorably tied to.

More recent example- remember 13375p34k? Pretty common a few years back. When was the last time you heard anyone use it seriously, or even tongue-in-cheek?

As for "FAIL", the way it's generally used self-consciously by bandwagon jumpers smacks of a fad. I think "LOL" will be around longer because it's common and used as instinctively as inhaling air by every mouth-breathing cretin out there.

Ironically, though it's a variant of the latter, "Lulz" is more self-conscious, more subculturey, less mainstream, and IMHO more likely to be representative of an era. It's likely to be dismissed by Anonymous' younger siblings when the former grow up and the latter take their place and want their own subcultural words.

My guess is that if you're using "FAIL" and "Lulz" in 20 years time, you'll be seen as a sad, boring out-of-touch guy living in the past.

Re:Crowdsourcing FAIL (2)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 3 years ago | (#36886338)

"Fail" isn't a noun. Leave the mangling of communication to the children who think defacing sites is some sort of activism.

Google wasn't a verb. Look how well that turned out.

Re:Crowdsourcing FAIL (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 3 years ago | (#36886446)

It is if you treat it as an abbreviation for failure. This is the internet, communication mangling is its specialty on every level from the Link Layer to the Organic layer.

Re:Crowdsourcing FAIL (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#36886576)

It is if you treat it as an abbreviation for failure. This is the internet, communication mangling is its specialty on every level from the Link Layer to the Organic layer.

It's not really the Internet, it's English:

English is a language that lurks in dark alleys, beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary."

--James D. Nicoll

Re:Crowdsourcing FAIL (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#36887856)

Guess what, the English language is constantly evolving. Either way you're wrong: [merriam-webster.com]

2fail noun

Definition of FAIL

1
: failure —usually used in the phrase without fail
2
: a failure (as by a security dealer) to deliver or receive securities within a prescribed period after purchase or sale
  See fail defined for English-language learners
First Known Use of FAIL

13th century

And here: [reference.com]

–noun
13.
Stock Exchange .
a.
a stockbroker's inability to deliver or receive security within the required time after sale or purchase.
b.
such an undelivered security.
14.
Obsolete . failure as to performance, occurrence, etc.
—Idiom
15.
without fail, with certainty; positively: I will visit you tomorrow without fail.

Maybe next time actually know what you are talking about before speaking up?

Well thankfully.... (2)

Daetrin (576516) | about 3 years ago | (#36885486)

It's a good thing they're forcing people to use real names in order to prevent abuse of the system!

...wait, you mean it's _not_ stopping people determined to exploit the system or make a nuisance of themselves, it's just harming the people interested in maintaining a long term presence on G+? Say it ain't so!

Re:Well thankfully.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885680)

I think their goal is more aimed at making their social internet a less angry and snarky place by reducing anonymity.

Of course, I post this anonymously so those who don't agree can't come after me.

Re:Well thankfully.... (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 3 years ago | (#36886498)

Oh so you think, Mr. Robert Brown from 3200 Chestnut St., Philadelphia. And yes, those two street cameras can see through your window.

Re:Well thankfully.... (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 3 years ago | (#36885930)

This won't affect anyone except the spammer's marks and people in the circles of those marks.

The +1s you give may affect results for you and to a lesser extent the results of people who you are linked two both ways (you have them in a circle and vice-versa).

The only way this is going to affect users in general is if those users have had their accounts hacked (by falling for a phishing attack or such) and are being used to click the +1s without their knowledge (and no spammer is going to waste time on that, as there are far more immediate ways to take advantage of a stolen Google account).

Re:Well thankfully.... (1)

fermion (181285) | about 3 years ago | (#36887696)

This is what I was thinking. There are websites selling Google likes. If this is a problem, it should be trivial to link the accounts used by the webistes and deactivate them. Google could even deactivate the accounts of those who buy the likes.

If google is not doing this, then it is difficult to assume that the problem exists, at least as far as Google is concerned. It is like link farms. It should be easy to identify the layout of a link farm, so the fact that so many of my search have link farms in the top list means that link farms are not a problem for Google. Certainly it is arguable that link farms benifit Google. Same with selling likes. Anything that will help google+ gain market share is not going to be destroyed.

Joke's on them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885524)

I'm pretty sure that Google explicitly stated at some point that +1 does not affect your results unless your friends have +1ed something. Getting +1s from fake accounts with no social connections will have absolutely no effect on your ranking in Google. Like most SEO, this is just more digital snake oil.

Re:Joke's on them? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#36885570)

That leaves me conflicted: On the one hand, this means that money will be leaving the hands of the vile pigfuckers who buy SEO spam. On the other hand, it means that money will be entering the hands of the degenerate subhumans who produce SEO spam....

Re:Joke's on them? (1)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | about 3 years ago | (#36885914)

That shouldn't leave you conflicted, because what you describe is already happening with or without the guff mentioned in the article

simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885566)

would be for google to not use or consider google+ pages and content for google web search index and rankings.

would keep a lot of crud from infesting search results.

Teh Stupid It Burns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885612)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Teh+Stupid+It+Burns

SEO (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885634)

And another example of how SEO is a bullshit industry.
 
  Make a good product, have good presentation, and create good relationships with your customers/clients. Or, hire an "SEO expert" to "get me first on Google." Awesome.

Slashvertising? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885660)

I wonder whether this is a legitimate article or merely advertisement for the mentioned services.

Easy solution (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 3 years ago | (#36885754)

Just make it so the site only shows the likes/dislikes of people who are in your circles. Trust networks are a proven, decade-old concept.

Re:Easy solution (2)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#36885898)

Just make it so the site only shows the likes/dislikes of people who are in your circles. Trust networks are a proven, decade-old concept.

Which was already the plan. The point of these businesses is to sell to ignorant marketing departments... not to thwart the might GOOG.

Kind of like how most of the money in spamming is in selling spamming services to wannabes, not selling what is in the emails.

Re:Easy solution (1)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | about 3 years ago | (#36885956)

Google read your comment and liked it so much, they went back in time and did it just as you said!

How does +1 affect search results? [google.com]

+1 helps people discover relevant content—a website, a Google search result, or an ad—from the people they already know and trust

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885774)

"helped by cheap labour and ever-falling internet access worldwide"

Does he mean "ever-falling COST OF internet access worldwide"?

Idiot!

+1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36885938)

(free)

New Google "+1" Trading-site is launched! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36886032)

Hey guys,

I just found this amazing new site where people are trading "+1" for their websites/articles/etc', a site which is pretty much similar to twiends, only with Google +'s.

check it out: http://www.plusbooster.com

don't forget to "+1" my site there, and get 5 free "boosts"! :)
please replay if you use it also, so we can contribute to each other better from here also. :)

Re:New Google "+1" Trading-site is launched! (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36886390)

Let's see... you're posting advertising on a page for geeks and nerds who have an innate hatred for people who try to abuse "their" system and who are also well known for their zeal to protect their turf and prefer meaningful search results to bullshit advertising in them. In other words, you're talking to the people who will most likely hate you with a passion and who also happen to know a fair lot about the technology you use.

So I wonder, do you want a free audit, are you trying to find out how resilient your service is to a DDoS or are you posting the name of your competitor to have it shut down for free?

In Chrome (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | about 3 years ago | (#36886216)

I have a G+ account but can't (as of today) get it to load in Chrome. Weird.

Re:In Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36886738)

Disable ABP

Add a dislike -1 button, competition will be huge. (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | about 3 years ago | (#36886254)

Then rivals will pay for -1 on their competitors. Let the sh*t hit the fan!

How about liking the likers? (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36886346)

Meta-moderation worked on /. too, why not for Google? It should be trivial to easily identify such "services" by their likes being quickly metamoderated into the ground, hence rendering all their "likes" worthless. Of course, this again can be gamed, but with enough layers of moderation, meta-moderation and meta-meta-moderation, it should become rather tricky for such "services" to continue their business against the rest of the internet users.

Re:How about liking the likers? (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 3 years ago | (#36887040)

I think part of why it works on Slashdot is that there is a community of continually interested people and a focused topic. It's hard to imagine people with that level of interest in "policing" the web at large. I think this is why crowd-sourcing is so easily gamed. While some people will sometimes be interested enough to help police things, the only ones who will be continuously motivated and dedicated are the spammers looking for financial gain.

Re:How about liking the likers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36898748)

But who will like the like-likers??

Google Search is FAIL nowdays (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36886680)

It is getting slower and slower, which was the point of google, FAST accurate results.

Now with all the search for every letter key you press and prefetching previews. It has turned to SHIT, especially on slower connections when mobile.

Re:Google Search is FAIL nowdays (2)

Jeng (926980) | about 3 years ago | (#36887266)

Funny not only can you turn off the instant search, it is even off by default, which means you or someone who uses your phone turned it on.

Brains... (2)

jason.sweet (1272826) | about 3 years ago | (#36886816)

Selling Google+1 "likes" is gradually becoming a rather lucrative business, helped by cheap labour and ever-falling internet access worldwide; the trend is not unlike what we saw previously with Twitter & Digg during the days except that this has a more widespread implication for SEO and could turn the nascent social networking service into a massive headache for Google as many try to game the system.

That rumbling you hear is a million deceased writing teachers digging out of their graves to make siliconbits diagram that "sentence."

In the last few months? (2)

SmilingBoy (686281) | about 3 years ago | (#36887172)

"Google+1 selling sites [...] have cropped up during the last few months"

Hard to believe given that Google+ did not exist one month ago...

Re:In the last few months? (1)

bkaul01 (619795) | about 3 years ago | (#36887382)

Well, the last few weeks were also within the last few months. They could've also said, "this year." It's not inaccurate, only imprecise.

Re:In the last few months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36887570)

The Google +1 concept was in place at least a few weeks before the Google Plus social media network

Re:In the last few months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36887854)

Google +1 is not Google +

Re:In the last few months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36888028)

The little +1 on search results and the button you could post on your site went live before the (plus.google.com) service/site went live.

Would love an invite if you have an extra! (1)

Music2Eat (1878664) | about 3 years ago | (#36890088)

I'd love an invite if you happen to have an extra one. email: brian.f.thomasREMOVE@gmail.com (remove the remove) Thanks in advance.

I would also like an invitation. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 3 years ago | (#36892822)

Me too. I would also like an invitation.
Check for New 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...