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+ Opens To Businesses With 'Pages'

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-know-we-call-a-lot-of-things-pages-right dept.

Google 159

karthikmns writes with news that Google is rolling out Google+ Pages, integrating businesses and brands into its social network. When Google+ launched, it asked businesses not to create user pages, which upset many companies who had grown accustomed to interacting with customers on Facebook. Today's update closes the gap between the two social networks in this regard, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how annoying you find social marketing. "If you’ve established a personal Google+ profile before, then the features offered through a Page will be familiar. You can place people into Circles, which lets you share content with specific sets of users. You can launch video hangouts, which lets you have face-to-face conversations with your followers. And the Pages work through the site’s mobile app. ... But Google has made some key tweaks. The first is that a Page cannot add someone to a circle until that user has already added the page to one of their circles. In other words, a Page can’t start sending you messages until you’ve elected to add them to one of your circles. Another key change: the content on a Page defaults to public (as opposed to ‘My Circles’ for personal profiles) and Pages can’t share with extended circles."

cancel ×

159 comments

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

Find: Bob Smith (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37976926)

Did you reall mean to find "Bob Smith, Corp" or "Bobsmith Co." or "Smith LLP"

I worry how this will play out.

Re:Find: Bob Smith (1, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37976970)

I'd imagine the same as facebook?

They don't really bother anybody, it's just another store front so to speak.

More importantly (3, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977224)

It looks, at least, like Google has abandon the "Real Name" policy. Looking at the Google+ Privacy Policy and Google TOS pages today, I could not find any mention of a real name requirement. Unless I missed something (possible), it looks like Google did the Right Thing after considerable pressure from the community at large:

Anyone know any different? Is it actually permissible to have a pseudonym-based account on Google now?

Re:More importantly (2)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977250)

wait... you mean that my sig has no power against you??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Re:More importantly (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977294)

Couple of typos, sorry:

"abandon" should have been "abandoned"; and the last sentence should be "Anyone know any different? Is it actually permissible to have a pseudonym-based account on Google now?"

Re:More importantly (5, Insightful)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977300)

They have huge limits on your account if you use pseudonym instead. And they only backed out of real name policy as it become impossible to verify with different nationals and they started losing users. Of course, they are still losing users.

Google just doesn't seem to get the full picture. They imitate Facebook but do it poorly. Lets take for example this pages change. They didn't implement pages properly, they only modified the profile system a bit and actually restricted pages. Google+ pages don't allow HTML or anything else like Facebook does. The absolutely worst thing is the url though; With Facebook you get facebook.com/nintendo. Companies can easily put that in to ads and other material. With Google+ the url is http://plus.google.com/58493672095786225 [google.com] . Awesome! Google just doesn't see the whole picture.

Re:More importantly (2)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977392)

They have huge limits on your account if you use pseudonym instead.

What are those limits? More to the point, where are they? They aren't on the TOS page, at least I didn't see anything like that.

Re:More importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977552)

They have huge limits on your account if you use pseudonym instead.

What are those limits? More to the point, where are they? They aren't on the TOS page, at least I didn't see anything like that.

And how can they possibly know? Am I really Stan Goodwald or Henry Stabenger or maybe Alf Stickleback? Would you believe "John Smith"?

Re:More importantly (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977922)

They have asked some of the users for a scan of a government issued ID.

Re:More importantly (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978014)

Better - if you're name's not a Western-looking WASPonym, they'll look at the scan and still reject it.

Don't Be Evil - Just Racist.

nepka is an MS troll / PR agent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979122)

See his post history. New user + all pro MS/FB & anti Google posts.

Re:More importantly (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977506)


With Google+ the url is http://plus.google.com/58493672095786225 [google.com] . Awesome! Google just doesn't see the whole picture.

Just type: +Nintendo or +Pepsi into your browser's google search bar, or into google search directly. Takes you right to the page. Much easier than a URL. Once there, you are on the URL, so if you like, you can bookmark it.

Re:More importantly (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977600)

No it doesn't, it gives me normal search results. Besides, that still isn't an URL like facebook.com/nintendo that you can put to your advertisements.

Re:More importantly (1)

kenboldt (1071456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977788)

using Google, you're doing it wrong.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%2Bpepsi [lmgtfy.com]

Re:More importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978794)

Still getting normal search results asshole.

Re:More importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979092)

What browser are you using? Searching for +Pepsi on google.com took me directly to Pepi's +page in Firefox, IE, and Chrome? I don't think +Nintendo works.. but I don't think Nintendo has a +page yet, so that'd only be expected.

Re:More importantly (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977626)

Good find!

Breaks 100% of web standards. It's tough to be in google's shoes though.. do you copy facebook 90% 80% or 70%, facebook dues urls in type a, do we use type a or type b. Myself, I've never gone facebook.com/pepsi, nor do i plan to, nor will i go +pepsi, --> google "pepsi facebook" is good enough for me without needing to remember useless corporate shit. Then again I drink pepsi, I don't see a reason to go to their website for anything, unless my computer gets a soda dispenser that mixes formulas for me. You can nitpick google all you want for doing things different ways, but it's all apples and oranges in the end...

Back to why they broke the web standard, they should have implemented both, how is plus.google.com/##### efficient? Nobody will even try to remember this, where it the front facing documentation on +[company name]? Why not implement both? It's not easier to use google's approach if you don't know about it, but what's funny is neither one helps if you can't spell the company name, which most of tend to not mimic letter for letter.

Re:More importantly (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977908)

Speaking only for myself (anecdote != data), +[name] is quite convenient -- much more so than a URL, standards or not -- and I suspect I'll have no trouble remembering it.

Re:More importantly (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977994)

Breaks 100% of web standards.

How so?

Re:More importantly (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978044)

umm.. not sure if your trolling but, don't talk about the web if you don't know how to use google or what a url is...

http://www.w3.org/Addressing/ [w3.org]

If you don't understand why HAVING TO USE google's search engine to utilize the + feature does not conform to a url (the thing you use to access websites) then Idk what to say to you, alone indeed. Try the astronomy section of slashdot.

Re:More importantly (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978344)

But it's not an url, nor have they ever claimed it to be. Why would you think it's an url? It's a query term for Google Search.

Re:More importantly (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978656)

They are trying to replace a url based approach with their own.

Re:More importantly (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978734)

No they aren't. They are providing a shortcut into their search, just like Firefox keywords, or the many !codes in duckduckgo, or even the I'm feeling luck search.

Re:More importantly (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978884)

I get that automation is useful, that is not the topic here, the topic is google MAKING YOU use their search bar for THEIR product and the only way to USE their + feature is to use google search bar. This would be the equivalent of having to go to facebook.com and searching from there, which is fine, but that's not how it's done is it? If it were up to google, google search would be the web, but that's out of context...

Re:More importantly (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978746)

That doesn't mean it "breaks" the web standards. It just means they don't use them, and use searches instead.

Re:More importantly (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978844)

So if I wanted to access plus.google.com and I happen to be using lynx and I wanted to access pepsi directly, please advise what would I do?

Re:More importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978692)

Read this. [netdna-cdn.com]

Re:More importantly (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978072)

google "pepsi facebook" is good enough for me without needing to remember useless corporate shit.

Link #2: https://www.google.com/#q=pepsi+google [google.com] ("pepsi google")
Link #3: https://www.google.com/#q=google+pepsi [google.com] ("google pepsi")

Those searches aren't all that difficult either.

Re:More importantly (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978000)

You've missed that, whatever the stated rules, the suspensions and blockings continue.

Re:Find: Bob Smith (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977640)

Yes, just like all other Google products, where you can never find anything useful because of all the spam!

sterilize and purge itards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37976940)

Has anyone ever noticed that iTards are limp-wristed sissies? About a week ago an iTard started a fight with me in front of his hipster friends and his girlfriend. After facestomping him, I picked him up, pulled down his pants and underwear and preceded to shove his brand new iPhones 4s up his ass. Now apparently this guy gets off on being beaten up since he had a raging 2 inch boner. I guess his girlfriend had never seen his dick before since she started uncontrollably laughing and ended up dumping him on the spot. After running off his douchebag friends I took his ex-girlfriend back to my place and gave her the deep-dicking of her life. Needless to say she has given up the hipster scene after that and threw all her iShinies in the trash.

The moral of this story is that you better check what an iTard is packing in his pants before you date him. Chances are high that his iPhone is longer than his dick.

Re:sterilize and purge itards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978268)

I guess the curse is real. He felt a tickle in his bootyass....

Features in the wrong order (4, Insightful)

schlesinm (934723) | more than 2 years ago | (#37976966)

Shouldn't Google+ worry more about getting people communicating with each other before they start throwing businesses on to the platform? Where is the API?

Re:Features in the wrong order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977028)

Where is the change in policy about the real names crap?

Re:Features in the wrong order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977096)

I think they did change the policy on that, though I haven't tried using a pseudonym in g+.

Re:Features in the wrong order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977140)

I have a pseudonym that still works on google+, though I haven't used it heavily, the real names police may only crack down on people who post a lot (or who get themselves reported)

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977410)

Yeah, this is frustrating. I'm just this close to leave it to rot and jump to Diaspora.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

schlesinm (934723) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977614)

Judging from my Google+ feed, everyone else has already jumped. They had a golden window of opportunity with great press and they not only blew it, but they intentionally blew it. No API, the real name idiocy, it's almost as if they wanted to have a social network without having to actually understand how people use a social network.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977668)

Yep, it's hard without all the failures they did too. They could had at least finished the platform first. Now it's just empty, dead and I just don't see that changing anymore. The funny thing is how much Slashdotters (we, at the same time, absolutely hate Facebook) try to tell to follow some "interesting" people like Linus or other tech geeks. They just don't get it either. I have no interest in following them, I want to follow my friends and talk with them. So does 99% of the Facebook users. Google+ doesn't offer anything new either, so there isn't any reason for anyone to change, especially when everything is already happening on Facebook and Google+ is really, really dry.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977700)

Replying also to GP: The problem is that, unless FB turns into some totally useless thing or G+ gets a media thunderstorm coming, people won't move from FB, no matter how many celebrities or tech geeks do move.

Re:Features in the wrong order (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978918)

There's a few hard core people on G+.

One I know is because he's so anti "walled garden" and pro-Open Source, so he posts lots of stuff that way.

Another I know is using a Facebook/G+ cross poster.

That's about it, really. Nothing really significant enough for me to check it daily - I only log in maybe once every few weeks just to clear the "1" away from my GMail.

No, I don't use Facebook much either, but things seem to be "happening" there. If I was Joe User, I wouldn't move to G+ when everything's happening just fine with Facebook. One of those "it's working and I get my stuff done - why should I bother with G+ and have to still check Facebook?" things.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977708)

Diaspora has more or less no hope of even making it into half recognition. Screwing up at 10x the significance google did. Step 1. Generate tons of starter funds donations etc..., 2, Generate hype, more hype, ask for more donations. 3. Launch a prototype, so full of security holes, bugs etc... that 3/4ths of tinfoil hats realized it was in their best interest to steer clear of the product. 4. Make no more anouncements for a year and a half, let whatever remaining sparks of hype that weren't crushed by step 3, smoulder and fade away. Step 5. Send another donation request and wonder why nobody takes it seriously anymore.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

lptport1 (640159) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977764)

I just got my invite the other day. I've chosen to ignore it.

As far as I'm concerned, Diaspora is DOA.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977798)

... well I thought it looked alright. I hadn't really taken the time to do much more than tinkering with it. The concept was, though, very intriguing.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978954)

Oh I agree, the concept was fantastic. If they had released something half way up to the hype, something that didn't have so many security vulnerabilities to the point that they couldn't find something in your profile that couldn't be hacked, on the first demo, and had it actually launched back when there was hype. G+'s biggest criticism is that they don't have the API's up to strike while the iron is as hot as it's going to get. Diaspora was weak because... well the time for it to strike it big and move up was back when it got media coverage and people were still talking about it... I believe that was 2009 was it's peak of publicity.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978080)

Seriously. That second request for donations really didn't work out for them so well did it. Personally I couldn't believe they did that without first offering up either a public service, or an easy installation of shitty software. If they set up a yum distro that lets me install it I'd consider it.

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978438)

Is there actually anyone using Diaspora?

Re:Features in the wrong order (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#37979176)

Only diasporate people.

Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37976996)

The first is that a Page cannot add someone to a circle until that user has already added the page to one of their circles. In other words, a Page canâ(TM)t start sending you messages until youâ(TM)ve elected to add them to one of your circles. Another key change: the content on a Page defaults to public (as opposed to âMy Circlesâ(TM) for personal profiles) and Pages canâ(TM)t share with extended circles.

What is this inane gibberish, how is it news for nerds? Does anyone care about the groups system on the BBS I wrote in the '90s? Thought not!

Interacting? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977026)

I deleted my FB account a year or two ago, but

many companies who had grown accustomed to interacting with customers on Facebook

I never saw much "interaction" unless you mean spamming with marketing messages, or simply ignoring them. Is/was there any other form of FB interaction?

Re:Interacting? (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977128)

Of course you're right, it's mostly marketing. But some companies do a good job of responding openly to criticism or simple questions on facebook.

Re:Interacting? (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977166)

There were pleas to "like" them in various games in order to get minor virtual rewards. I guess that counts as interaction.

Re:Interacting? (2)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977192)

Not all of them spam like that, especially small business owners. I have friends around the world and spend most of my year living elsewhere too, and especially in Asia some expats have small businesses on the side, like restaurants or baking things you can't get elsewhere. When they post "I'm baking (food we eat in my home country), they just went to oven!" it really doesn't seem like bad marketing. So I go visit, grab a beer and buy and eat a piece or two while talking with the guys at the same time. In addition to that, I don't really mind when the restaurants I visit post some party pictures (relaxed pictures, not "everyone is fucking drunk" ones), it doesn't bother me either. Of course, somehow in Asia stuff like that has a much more personal feel. And you can easily find new interesting people that way, and find the restaurants via your friends or people you meet. This is why Facebook is so good for it - you find stuff you don't even know to look for, via connections.

Of course, it's your own fault if you follow something like Walmart on Facebook.

Re:Interacting? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977320)

Not all of them spam like that, especially small business owners.

I do see your point, that a heck of a lot of people follow Ms Limor Fried (misspelled?) and she posts a heck of a lot of good stuff on G+ but a lot more people would be able to find and follow a G+ ladyada.com page.

Ian Lesnet from Dangerous Prototypes always posts to his blog, which is perfectly OK, but I imagine a lot more people would follow +DP than +Ian.

Uncle Leo and TWIT probably don't qualify as merely being small businesses anymore, but I could see that none the less being easier to find. Hmm... +Triangulation is a lot easier than guessing if its +Leo and/or +Tom Meritt or Merrit or WTF.

My Debian Circle has 55 people in it, and my ham radio operators circle has 784 people. I'm thinking it would be a heck of a lot simpler to just circle +Debian or +ARRL.

I thinking of FB "Coca Cola" "monster energy drinks" and similar pages, which as I remember were pure spam.

Re:Interacting? (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977388)

That's the "Interaction" they speak about. Though every once in a blue moon, they advertise some contest or something that might be worth reading.

Re:Interacting? (1)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977672)

Canon Australia does the following through facebook:
-photo contests
-"what's your best tip for a new photographer" discussions
-"why do you shoot photos?"

etc.

And they routinely give away free stuff to good posts.

I would call that interaction. It's creating conversation and adding value in addition to simply marketing.

Re:Interacting? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37978486)

A few small businesses near me, including my favorite chain of you-pullit junkyards, had a FB page where an employee and/or the owner would respond to questions or whatever, (usually pretty honestly as these companies weren't big enough to have a PR agency.) I wouldn't follow the page for something like Google or Ford or whatever, of course.

Re:Interacting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37979180)

Maybe you're dealing with the wrong companies. I've seen added value stuff from a lot of the companies I deal with.

I feel like... (2)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977030)

... Google needs to finish refining the product and then re-produce (since they did it before) the media campaign they carried out to drive excitement and interest in Google+. So many people came, got in, found few friends in the system, and left their G+ accounts stagnant --- or came, and didn't even get in --- that they really need a massive campaign to drive interest again. And since most people that use social networking already know about G+, they should approach it as such; they should be saying "come pop in again, and get your friends in for real this time" or something of the sort.

Like most of the people I know with G+ accounts, I appreciate it and its merits beyond facebook, but the long transition from the level of contact I have via FB to any level close to that in G+ looks like it is so far out that I hardly ever check G+ at all. Not only that, I see absolutely no trend of migration. I came to G+, got a few friends, invited some that came, and since then there has been NOTHING.

Come on Google! For your sake, and also for those of us who recognize your product quality, make yourself visible! (Its not like you don't have massive advertising, for free, within your reach, lol).

Re:I feel like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977078)

And since most people that use social networking already know about G+

[citation needed]

Re:I feel like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977362)

Lol. If you paid attention on your current social networking platform in the past few months, you would notice that most of the people you network with had some form of participation in conversation about G+.

That is unless your idea of social networking is the craigslist message system and you log in once every two months to see if anyone said any more racist and belligerent crap (as is usual there).

If you want me to dig up citations and spoonfeed you, you'll have to stop being Anonymous Coward and show some form of Identity for anyone to care.

Re:I feel like... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977484)

If you want me to dig up citations and spoonfeed you, you'll have to stop being Anonymous Coward and show some form of Identity for anyone to care.

That's pretty ironic, actually.

Re:I feel like... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978030)

Not really. If someone's logged in, there's more than a pretty good chance that they'll get notification that someone has responded and can go back and read the response to their comment. With an AC there's little reason to respond, since there's little liklihood the AC will see your response.

I generally ignore ACs unless I'm moderating and one says something that might be of interest, but I never respond to their comments unless they say something stupid that needs to be countered AND if someone has modded them up.

Re:I feel like... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978576)

I generally ignore ACs unless I'm moderating and one says something that might be of interest, but I never respond to their comments unless they say something stupid that needs to be countered AND if someone has modded them up.

But do you respond anonymously, as this person did when he/she chose to make disparaging comments about posting anonymously?

Re:I feel like... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978698)

Is the indication of irony only a tool to disprove the point? When I deliberately responded that way, I felt the irony was instructive and exemplary.

Don't let one way of understanding be the only way.

Cheers. (Did I just suggest we are having drinks, or am I posing a kind formality?) Get me?

Re:I feel like... (1)

Etherized (1038092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977172)

Google could afford one hell of a marketing campaign if they wanted to, but I don't see much evidence of this. Why did they not do a full on media blitz at launch?

I can only assume that + is internally still considered a sort of "soft launch" and they won't start mass marketing until they reach feature parity with Facebook. Maybe they're hoping to "seed" Plus with early adopters now, who will make the service more attractive when it "really" launches, but they run the risk of losing a lot of those early adopters before launch even happens

I actually use Plus (and not Facebook) and it's a fine service, but unless they make some major moves to drive adoption very soon, it's just not going to go anywhere in the long term.

Re:I feel like... (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977476)

Not to mention the early adopters who will run away at the change of the service.

Re:I feel like... (1)

hoppo (254995) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978176)

There's just no compelling reason to use G+. Everyone I know is on Facebook, and it's not like G+'s UX sets itself so far above anything else on the web that friends will drop Facebook in droves.

G+ is a Facebook knockoff, and Google is going to have to do something pretty drastic to shake that perception if they are to see an uptick in real users.

Sweet! (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977122)

So now, all of my cats can have their own page! I love it. I'll do one for Fluffy, and one for Buffy, and one for Muffy, and one for Satan (he's incontinent). Rockin!

Re:Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977290)

Your cats have, or are, businesses?

Re:Sweet! (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977376)

Your cats have, or are, businesses?

New to the internet? Let me introduce you to http://icanhascheezburger.com/ [icanhascheezburger.com]

URL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977148)

Why get http://facebook.com/pepsico if you can get http://plus.google.com/111883881632877146615 !
Huge hit on billboards, no doubt.

Re:URL? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977368)

Actually, they've gone one better. You want to see Pepsi's page on google? type in "+Pepsi" on Google's search page or in the Google search bar of your browser. There it is.

Re:URL? (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977418)

That just brings me usual search results, with pepsi.com at top.

Re:URL? (1)

kenboldt (1071456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977768)

using Google, you're doing it wrong.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%2Bpepsi [lmgtfy.com]

Re:URL? (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977844)

Yep, still doesn't work. Judging from the comment under me, I'm not the only one either.

Re:URL? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978484)

Weird. Works for me and I have nothing to do with Google+

Re:URL? (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977890)

search results, with pepsi.com at top for that too

Re:URL? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977560)

fantastic - love the linked stuff in the stream, especially the bloodied polar bears captions "you want a coke mother fucker".

But of course, even though that looked like a stream on pepsi's page, it was really just search results. Too bad that I can't really see which one was the real pepsi google+ page (glad to see their policy on real names is working fine).

In short - Google+ is a total failure, which is a pity. They need to stop trying to be like facebook and start being like a communications hub where we can share all the google products (and our own) in a central location. *Then* they might get some use out of it. Keeping it like a mini blog is just not working.

Re:URL? (1)

bluelip (123578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977458)

Go to google.com, type +pepsi

Get it yet?

Re:URL? (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977674)

Go to google.com, type +pepsi

Get it yet?

Yes, Google has destroyed an important feature of their search engine (using +term to mean that term absolutely has to appear on the page to count as a result) just to keep from businesses from asking for human-readable URLs in Google+.

Re:URL? (0)

bluelip (123578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977930)

Adapt.

Use quotes to surround text that is to be explicitly included.

Re:URL? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978604)

They didn't destroy it. All you have to do is put the term in quotes.

About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977232)

Seriously, this should have been their FIRST job when making the profile system.

Hopefully (for them) they never pissed off the people who would have wanted to make a "business" page, be it a page for a huge brand, or just a group profile for some teens garage band.
That's if they even allow the latter. Let's see..

So APPS users are allowed to use it now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977252)

Or by business they mean people who do not use google to host their services?

Re:So APPS users are allowed to use it now? (1)

tresstatus (260408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977790)

Or by business they mean people who do not use google to host their services?

apps users have been allowed for a week or so now.

Re:So APPS users are allowed to use it now? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978132)

But if you use an Apps account belonging to someone else (like my Uni account), remember the domain admin can see *everything* you put on G+.

Or just say fuck it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977282)

This never-ending race to "social" communication is ridiculous.

How appropriate that to prove myself, I must type "scorns".

Non-public profile and opted-out search results. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977286)

The first is that a Page cannot add someone to a circle until that user has already added the page to one of their circles. In other words, a Page can’t start sending you messages until you’ve elected to add them to one of your circles. Another key change: the content on a Page defaults to public (as opposed to ‘My Circles’ for personal profiles) and Pages can’t share with extended circles."

Please google, bring this to user profiles as well!

User should be finded only if user wants and not by everyone.
If my name is AC and I have opted out from public searching then:

1. X does search "AC" in google+ and finds out only some results who have not wanted to hide their existing but not me.
2. I get notification from google+ that someone made search with "AC" and would have otherwise found me if I would not have opted out
3. I can allow X to find me or just forget the notification
4. When click I allow X to find me, X gets notification that earlier search have gained more results
5. X can add me to list

What if my friends friend want to add me to list but can not find me because I opted out? Then my friends friend could as well ask trough one of my friends about contacting me and my friend asks from me is it OK or not.

So my friends could actually work as my friends so I would not get every possible hipper out there to trying contact me or their friends would not try to contact to me if they don't want it (situations like friends GF/BF trying to do something such with me).

Re:Non-public profile and opted-out search results (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977334)

That's a stupid idea. Many people don't want others what they have searched for.

Just Give Me Search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977312)

I'm no longer interested in anything google has to offer other than the search text field. I don't even like the javascript bloat that's crept in over the years.

Looks Like Facebook's Fan Page . . . (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977390)

. . . with a way to organize 'fans'. This will probably tie into Google Analytics.

Missed Opportunity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977396)

One thing I don't understand is why Facebook and Google have not added a feature to allow people to sell things over social networking websites. I know lots of people who make things and sell them but they don't have the know-how to create a web store. I don't see why a social networking site couldn't include the ability for companies and individuals to sell items. Seems like an opportunity ready to happen.

Message to Vic Gundotra (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37977518)

Too little, too late. Why don't you focus on fixing the real problems like the Real Names fiasco your sub-70IQ brain caused? God dammed hypocrite, your name is not even Vic!

Take your stupid identify platform and shove it up your ass!

Glass

Same name as an Apple software product (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977912)

Baiting Apple for the lawsuit's free publicity. Pretty transparent ploy.

Re:Same name as an Apple software product (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978636)

...You actually believe that?

Re:Same name as an Apple software product (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978796)

Yeah, calling a page on the internet a "Page". Very clever Google...

+ operator (2)

Barryke (772876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37977992)

I see Google now wants me to google ' +Brand Or Business That I Want To Videochat With '
So that is why they disabled the + search operator, now requiring two double quotes surrounding the word you insist on actually appearing in every search result.

Should have done this first (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37978556)

I think it's fairly obvious that Facebook's enormous success is at least in part because so many businesses have gotten on board. Even little mom and pop stores have "like us on Facebook" stickers everywhere. Which in turn makes people, even old people and such that aren't usually so tech-savvy, want to check out this Facebook thing. Which makes more businesses want to sign up, and we have a nice feedback loop going.

Yes, people need to be on + for its success, but Google has just taken too long to get the ball rolling. There was a brief surge of interest when all sorts of people were trying it out, but then everyone but tech people simply went back to Facebook where they can play games and get malware and be marketed at.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?