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!

Facebook Loses Users, Satisfaction Higher at Google+

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the time-to-launch-facebook++ dept.

Social Networks 274

benfrog writes "Facebook has lost what (by the standards of their userbase) is a modest number of users over the last six months, which is perhaps one of the causes of a fall in their stock price. In the meantime, a study shows that Google+ users are more satisfied with the site than Facebook users, who are (understandably) upset about the number of recent UI changes, the amount of advertising, and other elements, according to a statement accompanying the study. Figures also show dramatic growth in Google+ usage."

cancel ×

274 comments

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

It's amazing.... (5, Insightful)

UltimaBuddy (2566017) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690209)

.... what actual revenue can do for morale.

Comment in subject idiocy (1, Informative)

zidium (2550286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690833)

It's amazing how difficult it is to read your entire comment, when half of it is in the subject.

Re:Comment in subject idiocy (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690899)

Comment in subject idiocy it's amazing how difficult it is to read your entire comment

That's not even a sentence.

( :P )

Hmmmm, yeah (2, Interesting)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690211)

Is this like some sort of Google ad? I dunno. I like G+ too, but it is a little hard to use in the ways that you can use FB when people just don't do a lot with it. Maybe they'll hit some sort of critical mass? I'd like that, but...

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (3, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690321)

I have to agree. I like it fine, but it's not a full-on Facebook replacement, and I'm not much interested in unique visitors as a useful metric when 800 trillion people already have google accounts. Show me big numbers for user engagement. Then I'll gladly accept that people are actually using it as a Facebook replacement.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (5, Informative)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690511)

Why try to use it as a Facebook replacement? It isn't designed to directly compete. Facebook has a "two way" model (where two people have to agree to be 'friends'). This fosters a community of people who "post to each other"; sort of a friends keeping in touch type of model. Google+ is a one way thing. You put a person in your circles. Then, if they post to public, you get their content in your feed. (Google+ also has the concept of private posts where you can post just to your circles instead of public). However, just circling someone gets you their public content. So Google+ is a great place to get content from content producers, interesting people, etc. For example circle Mike Elgin, Wil Wheaton, Robert Scoble, etc. and you'll get lots of content (I can't vouch for whether you'll like said content). Circle LifeHacker, ArsTechnica, etc. and you get notified of their posts - and can engage with people on Google+ about them without registering accounts on Gawker, Ars, etc. It really is a different model and a different target. I don't view it as a replacement at all.

Oh, and Google Instant (where photos you take automatically upload to a private area) is the killer feature there - just that alone can be so helpful even if you don't circle anyone or use the other features.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690669)

Still having trouble with the terminology.

"Friend me" has entered the lexicon, but "Circle me" is kinda late to the punch.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40691121)

Yeah but "loop me in" has a ring to it and I just thought of that right now - there are bound to be easier ways to distill something down to one word.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40691143)

really? you don't understand what a "circle" of friends is? what it means to run in the same "circles" as someone else. it's not some new term google came up with.

verbing it as you have is kind of silly, but i don't think anyone proposes to do that. personally, i just tell people to add me on google.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690679)

You're right, it is different, and I kinda like that. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

I'm just not going to draw a line from a few lost Facebook users to some kind of Google+ migration... almost precisely for the reasons you mention. I got the feeling that's where the article submission was headed.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (4, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690783)

Google+ is a one way thing. You put a person in your circles. Then, if they post to public, you get their content in your feed. (Google+ also has the concept of private posts where you can post just to your circles instead of public). However, just circling someone gets you their public content. So Google+ is a great place to get content from content producers, interesting people, etc.

As opposed to following someone's blog, watching their twitter feed, subscribing to their podcast, etc.

Ya know what? I have my own life. There are only so many hours in the day I can spend on what other people are doing.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (5, Interesting)

stevencbrown (238995) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690353)

there is a definite spin to the article - not like slashdot.(!)

I like G+ as well, but just don't see how it ever reaches critical mass, and even if it does, will it supplant facebook, or will it just become as annoying as facebook.

I use 3 social media sites, and feel the all fulfill a certain niche, and not sure that will change for a while.

Facebook, for semi-interesting mix of updates from a variety of friends and acquaintances, just dip in now and again when I'm bored, certainly don't feel I'm missing out on anything if I don't check.

G+ fulfills more of my tech need, as I most of the stuff I follow in there is more tech related, and I tend to check it every day, and usually get some interesting reading out of it. (though had to unfollow NASA, they provide way too many updates if they had been landing somebody on Mars, let alone just updates about the effects of micro gravity on small screws).

Twitter is good for when I'm on the toilet and doing a dump.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690377)

They will hit critical mass because Google is leveraging their other markets. Facebook doesn't have Google maps, YouTube, the Chrome browser, g-mail, etc. Google is going to integrate all of its technology and because the applications are there, people will use it. Google will surround Facebook, and then give an integrated alternative. People will move.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is why Google hasn't yet bought Twitter. Maybe Twitter refuses to sell?

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690503)

Android is the only market that matters as far as their leverage goes. Everyone on android has gmail, and everyone on gmail has Google+. My family suddenly realized that everyone had a video chat app installed on their phones, imagine their shock! But how to organize it so the whole family can be on together? Oh wait, Google+ supports events now. And sharing pictures and video is about 2 taps on the screen? Oh, but my friends don't want to see yet another picture of my daughter doing something adorable, luckily it's about 2 more screen presses to only share it with my family then. The Google+ app has a remarkable amount of functionality, Google has been putting a lot of effort into getting it right because they know that mobile is where Facebook stumbles.

Seriously. Nobody cares about Google+ (-1, Troll)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690997)

It's just you.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (2)

Archladon (2648141) | more than 2 years ago | (#40691047)

Google+ really hits the convenience factor. That's their advantage.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690917)

Google+ functions as a Facebook and a Twitter. The whole idea of Circles allow this. Someone can add you to their Circle to see your public posts (Twitter) or you can add someone to your Circle to see your public/private posts (Facebook).

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690417)

I remember when "everyone" was on MySpace, "Everyone" was there and nobody used "Facebook". Until one day ... Nobody used MySpace and everyone was on Facebook.

It is true (2)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690519)

Of course MySpace REALLY just went noplace in terms of creating features. They piddled around but it was like everything was user interface nuclear disaster. It was the ugliest site in history. I guess FB COULD screw up that bad. I think they probably won't. They'll screw up a little bit, but so will Google.

Re:It is true (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690891)

Facebook's mobile app is mediocre at best. If you believe even half the hype, that will be enough to seriously hurt them in the long run, especially considering they've admitted it themselves that they don't know how to do mobile well.

Re:It is true (1)

youngone (975102) | more than 2 years ago | (#40691137)

I kind of assumed that once the Myspace guys got the millions from the mark that bought them out, their job was done and could kick back. Seemed like quite a clever business model really. Couldn't remember who the mark was, but google did: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/06/doing-the-math-on-news-corps-disastrous-myspace-years/ [arstechnica.com]

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (1)

Literaphile (927079) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690905)

I remember when "everyone" was on MySpace, "Everyone" was there and nobody used "Facebook". Until one day ... Nobody used MySpace and everyone was on Facebook.

But "everyone" was not on MySpace. Facebook has 10x more users than MySpace had at the height of its popularity. It won't be as easy for Facebook just to disappear.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (3, Interesting)

bedroll (806612) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690453)

I doubt it's an ad or a distortion. It's common for a smaller, more committed user base to be happier with a product. There's a lot of ownership bias. At this point most people have at least a clue what G+ is, and the ones who use it know that they're dealing with a smaller user base. They're happy with it despite its flaws and lack of ubiquity. It shouldn't be surprised.

The slowing of FB adoption is the bigger story. It probably doesn't mark a shift toward G+, but it may be that Facebook is at the upper bounds of users interested in its service. For my part, I didn't close my FB account but I've moved almost all of my social networking activity over to Twitter. I wanted to like G+ but none of my social circles use it.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (5, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690691)

There's also the fact that a number of people (including me) only use Facebook because they feel "forced" to do so. Friends or family members they want to keep in touch with only use Facebook, or events they want to be notified of are only announced on Facebook, or some game or website or something forces people to use Facebook to participate.

That "forcing" is part of what keeps Facebook's numbers so high, but it also leads to discontent. No one likes being forced into something, and it tends to aggravate any negative feelings they already have. On the other hand no one (except possibly Google employees =) feels forced to use G+. If you're there, it's because you want to be there.

I have noticed some swings in G+ activity, at least amongst the people i follow. Sometimes it slows down to four or five dedicated people/groups posting on a somewhat regular basis, sometimes it swings up. Currently it seems to be in a bit of an upswing with about a dozen "regular" posters, but that's a _very_ small and biased bit of anecdotal data.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (5, Insightful)

flitty (981864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690593)

FB's failing is due to it's users, mostly. About 3-6 months ago, everyone decided that pictures with text on them is all they were going to post. Or food pictures, or Spotify playlists.

Facebook was never awesome, but it did have a lot of my friends and family posting interesting discussions and information. Then everyone ran out of things to say, so now they just post funny pictures.

A lot of this isn't just users fault though, many issues arise out of the lack of Grouping, which is something G+ fixes and is awesome at. I don't want my pictures of partying being shown to employers, or my neices and nephews which causes issues with my conservative siblings. Sorting what information I want to send to select groups easily is the main reason I wish people were using G+.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690789)

Let me start by saying I have a Facebook account, but would not call myself a Facebook user. I don't post anything on there.

Now that that is out of the way, I have heard anecdotal evidence that Facebook does have some way to do grouping. Even if this is true, it points out an issue Facebook will have a hard time getting over. If it didn't have it when it started up, and they add a feature later, a lot of people will never know about it. Others will be upset with changes.

I like the way G+ has been set up from the beginning. It seems like more of a useful tool to me than a way to annoy people with ads and requests to do meaningless things. Of course I don't really use G+ much more than Facebook.

Yup (3, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690919)

They will both do grouping, the g+ version is just infinitely easier to deal with. I guess FB has been working on that, but honestly I only use it myself basically so I can actually see all the messages that people I know mysteriously seem to think that posting to FB will magically get to everyone. FB is OK, G+ is definitely nicer in most ways.

Re:Hmmmm, yeah (1, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690705)

I'm skeptical. I've tried to use Google + a couple times, but quite frankly, I can't figure out what it does or how I use it.

Most of the problem is I can't tell which communications are from real people and which are spam from Google. Someone wants to connect with me...is that the G+ equivalent of an fb friend request? Or is it just because I have someone with a gmail address in my address book? And if I (attempt) connect with someone, is it someone who is using G+? Or just someone with a gmail account?

I tried to connect with a few people (real friends I know in meat space) and there was no one on the other end. It seems like Google just created G+ accounts for everyone with a gmail address and then spammed me with messages to connect with everyone in my address with a gmail address.

Maybe it isn't a ghost town, but it's a ghost metropolis built around a very small settlement.

Sort of (2)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690941)

G+ is less designed around getting everyone to join and more around actually communicating. You can put people in your circles that are just email contacts. They'll get invited of course, but you can happily post things to them. I get what you're saying though. FB is conceptually easier to wrap your head around in a sense.

Not just UI changes - stop changing SETTINGS! (5, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690241)

Facebook screws with actual settings all the time, which goes well beyond UI changes
There was a recent email replacement issue. And logging in today I realized that my facebook chat now shows my online status, even though I explicitly disabled it a couple of months ago.
Keeping your settings on Facebook where you want them (if that is even feasible) is a full time job.

Full time job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690283)

Try zero seconds a year. No facebook account. Ha! Ha!

Re:Full time job? (3, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690915)

Are you sure that Facebook has not created a "ghost" account for you with information they have gleaned from people who are actual Facebook users, just waiting for you to create a user account to link it to?

Re:Not just UI changes - stop changing SETTINGS! (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690397)

The comment versioning with diff was another fun one that appeared out of nowhere.

Now my: "I have to disagree with this, and here's why..." indicates that I had previously said, "God damn, you're a fucking dunce."

Just let me pretend to respect all of my 8 billion "friends", Facebook!

Re:Not just UI changes - stop changing SETTINGS! (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690491)

I keep hearing about that kind of things happening. Is it because FB is incompetent? I could see them forcibly doing some setting changes from time to time, but this seems oddly frequent. Or could it be a byproduct of using their NoSQL system?

Re:Not just UI changes - stop changing SETTINGS! (5, Informative)

Algae_94 (2017070) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690853)

I swear in the past they had a setting to stop people from tagging me in photos that others post on Facebook. Just recently, I got a notification that I had been tagged in a photo. Big surprise that when I logged in to look, the setting hadn't been changed, it was gone. I found no way to stop this tagging of photos now. I guess I just can't let tagging types take pictures of me now.

Wir sind das Licht (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690243)

Wir sind das Licht dieser Welt, wir werden alle Dunkelheit vertreiben.

Re:Wir sind das Licht (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690363)

Wir erwarten nur die verhießene Zeit.
Dann werden alle Völker sich der deutsche Nation unterwerfen.
Kommt der Sieg!

Just the next step in the social network lifecycle (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690249)

1. Make it really easy to use and feature-full, to build a user base.
2. Attempt to monetize it by loading it with a ton of ads and other annoyances.
3. Sell to investors for big bucks.
4. Users get fed up and leave, leaving a hulking mess.

Re:Just the next step in the social network lifecy (2)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690369)

Except I don't see Google pawning off their service. They ARE the conglomo-corp. And historically their ads are not terribly invasive in their services, because the ads are so much better targeted at the users that they don't have to pepper the page with a dozen ads.

Google can really stick it (gymnastics term, weird of me) if they don't force the UI changes on the user. Develop new stuff, absolutely, don't force it.

Re:Just the next step in the social network lifecy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690385)

Tumblr is around number 2 right now. Expect a a Tumblr hype-storm soon and then the buyout/IPO and then all the users will move to the next trendy blog. It's so lame the users think they're being hip constantly switching to hip new blogs but all they're doing is making a bunch of venture capitalist dickheads rich.

FB market oversaturated (4, Insightful)

Haoie (1277294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690253)

There are only so many people in the world who are interested in social networks; it's impossible to attain infinite growth.

Besides, a lot of folks at some point wake up to how much time they spend on FB and the like [a lot!].

Re:FB market oversaturated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690809)

And this will happen to G+ at some point, and then later to whatever service/site G+ lost to, and so on and so forth.

YaY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690263)

Fuck Facebook!

Re:YaY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690399)

Yes, Fuck FB. And G+ along with it, it's the same shit in a different wrapper.

Most people who quit FB don't go to Google+, it's not drawing people from FB it's just picking up a few scraps who can't quit social media and don't have anywhere else to go.

I'm out. (2)

Ehgeekay (2022008) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690273)

My brother dropped his at the start of the year. I was six months later. Just last night a friend said hey why can't I find you on Facebook? I gave them my phone number.

Misleading google+ figures (3, Insightful)

MichaelusWF (2225540) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690287)

The same site (siteanalytics.compete.com) that shows "dramatic" growth in Google+ usage (from 20.2 million in April to 31.8 million users presently) also shows considerable growth in facebook usage over the same time period (from 154.5 million to 158.5 million). If you're going to compare sites, use the same metrics for each site, otherwise you look like kind of an asshole.

Re:Misleading google+ figures (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690409)

In absolute numbers, that's G+ increasing by 11.6 M and Facebook increasing by 4 M - or G+ increasing 2.9X as fast as Facebook. In percentages, that's G+ increasing by 57% and Facebook increasing by 2.6%. So I'd say that's dramatic growth at G+, and mild growth at Facebook. Mind you, part of that is because Facebook is practically saturated.

Re:Misleading google+ figures (4, Insightful)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690413)

It's a question of scale. If a social network has 800 million people and 10 join, that's not "dramatic". If it has 2 people and 10 join, that is dramatic.

Re:Misleading google+ figures (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690435)

otherwise you look like kind of an asshole.

Or a shill, which is what I suspect is behind this slashvertisement.

Re:Misleading google+ figures (1)

gVibe (997166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690903)

And lets not forget that the number presented can never represent the number of REAL users versus automated/bots/scripts etc. So I can guarantee that whatever number Facebook claims is its user number, does not mean they actually have that number of actual real living people using the site.

My biggest facebook annoyance (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690289)

They keep redirecting my tablet from www.facebook to m.facebook. That's like me telling my taxi driver to take me to Baltimore, and instead they take me to the tiny town of Columbia. I can't figure-out why the programmers would arbitrarily decide to overrule my desire to vist the full WWW page.

As for google, none of my friends are over there, so I have no interest. It would be like standing in a room by myself.

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690367)

Maybe you can tweak your user-agent string. That might be how FaceBook is detecting you as mobile. If you have a popular tablet, the answer is probably online somewhere.

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690445)

Dude, Baltimore is a shithole; I live there. Columbia is a lot nicer. They even have a Wegmans there now. Just get new friends there.

(Holy crap, that was an unintentional Facebook vs. Google+ analogy! At first I was just being a jackass.)

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690687)

So, where does Diaspora fit in this metaphor? Is that Annapolis? (I have not spent any time in Maryland; this is a stab in the dark.)

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690457)

They keep redirecting my tablet from www.facebook to m.facebook. That's like me telling my taxi driver to take me to Baltimore, and instead they take me to the tiny town of Columbia. I can't figure-out why the programmers would arbitrarily decide to overrule my desire to vist the full WWW page.

As for google, none of my friends are over there, so I have no interest. It would be like standing in a room by myself.

But w/ Facebook...you're sitting in a room by yourself...looking at internet friends on your computer. Sweet.

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690473)

They keep redirecting my tablet from www.facebook to m.facebook. That's like me telling my taxi driver to take me to Baltimore, and instead they take me to the tiny town of Columbia. I can't figure-out why the programmers would arbitrarily decide to overrule my desire to vist the full WWW page.

As for google, none of my friends are over there, so I have no interest. It would be like standing in a room by myself.

why? because they hired some mobile "expert" fucker asshole, that's why. extra work, shittier results to visitors( and then they go on complaining about fragmentation.. that they could just ignore if they had smarts). oh and they copied that from what google did circa 2002(it was really, really annoying to use from ip addresses they had determined to be wap browsers, so they translated every fucking page through their god awful wapizer even if you had been better off with the original page, the god awful wapizer even cut sentences midw prev (1)(2)(3)(4) next ).

out of curiosity does it do it both when you're on 3g and on wifi? also, I suspect the right place for that mobile expert fucker to forward you would have been touch.facebook.com if not to the real full page(touch.facebook.com is a bit like the mobile app, it's different from m.facebook.com which is optimized for dumbphones).

as for google+ satisfaction, I got no doubt that it's higher. but it's like I said the other day, the people on google+ are google employees, facebook haters and people who have no friends. 2/3rds of that group would say they're more satisfied with g+ even if it stuck needles into their eyes and the remaining 1/3rd is using social networks as yet another news aggregator.

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690475)

But if you made that room far more awesome than their room, you can shout from your awesome room over to them and laugh at the peasants piss-poor room.

Yeah.

And if you never caught that, just use an extension to post to various sites instead of dealing with one.
One-sitedness is just obtuse.

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690489)

Non of my friends use it. I like the fact that I can find interesting (photography, art, cars) things and not see the crap friends post about that I don't care about. posting things that I only want one group to see and not everyone works unlike if i say only friends on facebook some how the whole world can still see it.

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (5, Insightful)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690609)

This is one of my pet peeves in websites today. It's not just FB that does this.

Attention web developers: PLEASE STOP forcing us to the mobile versions of your sites. Just stop it.

Re:My biggest facebook annoyance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690767)

That's like me telling my taxi driver to take me to Baltimore, and instead they take me to the tiny town of Columbia.

No, it isn't. It wasn't like that the first time you made that comparison, and it isn't like that now.

What it is like, is if you tell the taxi cab driver to take you to "Baltimore", they drop you off at the Inner Harbor, and you get mad at the driver because they didn't take you to Camden Yards. You are still in Baltimore, just like you are still at Facebook. It's not the taxi cab driver's fault you failed to specify a specific location in Baltimore to drop you off at.

And please don't say "but I specified www.facebook.com so Facebook should have used that to know to not send me to m.facebook.com!". It'd be great if www meant full site, but due to legacy reasons, it's pretty much ingrained in peoples minds that www is simply part of the url. And considering how often you lampoon against Apple for a lack of legacy support...

But seriously, learn to work on your analogies. You keep doing a piss-poor job of writing them.

Your Mom's on Facebook (4, Funny)

jrmcc (703725) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690299)

'nuff said!

I never opened a Facebook account (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690333)

I never will

For that, I was a smelly old geeky kook before.

But now, I am smelly old PRESCIENT geeky kook.

Yeah!

People are finally understanding they can do everything Facebook does for them without feeding an advertising and spying machine in other venues.

Not that Google is an improvement in that department, but eventually Fabebook's crass manipulation and even Google' subtle manipulation will make way to the realization: you own your data, and you control your data, and it's time everyone woke up and realized what they were giving away for free and what it was doing to their privacy and their integrity.

So what's the next hub? Diaspora?

Re:I never opened a Facebook account (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690403)

You modern day Luddite you. (Sounds just like me)

Re:I never opened a Facebook account (4, Funny)

firewrought (36952) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690487)

We should start a club for non-facebook users! Someone can run an NNTP server and we can all upload base-64 encoded JPG's of cats.

(Seriously... FB can't die soon enough for me; I'm getting tired of holding out.)

Re:I never opened a Facebook account (1)

zippy40 (737906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690423)

I never did either. I never saw the need in needing to advertise myself. The only people that I want to communicate with have my email and phone number.

Re:I never opened a Facebook account (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690505)

if I put something on my homepage, google gets it - it's meant to be public in the first place. if I use my email, I get google adverts tailored by it...
and diaspora will fly just as well as private irc networks. not too well.

and if you were on fb you might have had your anti-tea party movie funded already(also there's no need to tinyfy the url, it cuts down on clickthroughs since there's a possibility for goatse now). that's why the internet is a hard game - sometimes you want others to notice.

Re:I never opened a Facebook account (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690737)

I have a FB placeholder account. If anyone wants to friend me from the old days, I log in and approve it, the log out. People can get in touch with me easily, but I don't have the annoyance of FB tracking.

Re:I never opened a Facebook account (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690933)

Integrity? Ha! That's hilarious. People don't have integrity any more (did they ever?). They'll sell their souls for 10% off an Amazon order. Most people are stupid, selfish, and have -zero- integrity.

Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690347)

Facebook has ads?

Google+ and Circles (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690359)

I never liked the idea that anyone can add me to their Circle without my approval. And yes, I know I can "Block", but that just seems mean.

Re:Google+ and Circles (3, Informative)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690513)

Anyone can add you to their circles, but unless you either a) post everything as public for EVERYONE to see, or b) add them to one of your circles in return, they won't see anything you post anyway, so what's it matter?
This is one thing Google Plus has done right. The default for posting is to only show your posts to people in your own circles, but you can show stuff to the entire world if you want.
If you want to talk about what's "mean" the only thing I don't like is that people can see who you have in your circles, so sometimes you feel pressure to add someone just to be polite, of course you can always have a circle for those people and not share anything with them... They can't see WHICH circle you put them in...

Re:Google+ and Circles (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690661)

If you want to talk about what's "mean" the only thing I don't like is that people can see who you have in your circles, so sometimes you feel pressure to add someone just to be polite, of course you can always have a circle for those people and not share anything with them... They can't see WHICH circle you put them in...

And that is what is my issue. People will look at someone's profile and see you as someone they have in their circle, so most people will assume there is a relation between the two. Why should some random guy from anywhere in the world, have the option to but a relation to me, if I don't know them in some way? Maybe I'm being anal about it, but I just don't like the idea.

Re:Google+ and Circles (4, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40691123)

You don't HAVE to add them to your circles, if random guy I don't know adds me to their circles, I don't add them back (and I do have a couple of those... though I have no idea why) it is very explicit when you look at it who is following who. if random guy is following you without you following back, it makes them look like a stalker, doesn't make you look bad, in fact if anything it makes you look good because you must be interesting if you have fans like that. The only time it is awkward is when your real life friendship is also awkward (ie that creepy guy who somehow ends up at the same parties as you and just sits in the corner all night... you don't want to add him because he's not really a friend... but he's at all the same events you are, so you don't feel right excluding him either for fear of offending him and having to deal with it the next time you see him)

This allows famous people to interact more easilly, they can have millions of fans following them without needing to approve each and every one, and yet they can still have only their actual friends in their own circles, and share more personal stuff only with them, without having to share it with their millions of followers, and without having to have a seperate persona for their public selves from their private lives. Now famous people are somewhat of an extreme example, but it scales well for all levels.

I do have a fair number of complaints about a few things google has done, but the setup of their circles is not one of them, that's one place that I feel Google nailed it just right.

Re:Google+ and Circles (3, Informative)

BenLeeImp (1347831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690525)

Well, the visibility of the things you publish is based on who you have in your circles, so it doesn't really matter who adds you. That's kind of the point of the circles. You don't need a separate "fan" page, for instance, in order to publish different things for public/private consumption.

Re:Google+ and Circles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690535)

Google first planned to release it as a Facebook plugin "Stalkerville," but Zucky turned them down, so Google had to set up their own servers to run it.

It's really too bad, the original prototype rewarded you with access to the private galleries of your targets when you had enough friends clicking links to give you in-game binoculars.

mo(d doWn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690371)

become like they the reaper In a a change to during this file And its long term another folder. 20 Irc.secsup.org or fun to be again. foolowed. Obviously Are you GAY troubled OS. Now [klerck.org]? a GAY NIGGER Series of exploding includes where you To die. I will jam morning. Now I ha7e is the ultimate something done or mislead the was what got me These early good to write you 'I have to kill whether to repeat Smith only serve Community at GNAA and support

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690375)

How long will some of you keep this meme alive? Google+ is NOT a social network like Facebook. Google+ is, but is not limited to, an identity service used to identify users in Google's products.

Not sure if trolling or just stupid (3, Funny)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690391)

-insert pic of Fry from Futurama-

Analyzing explosive Google+ growth... (0)

rtilghman (736281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690405)

Sounds like that one guy who was still managing his circles finally has someone else to chat with. 1 + 1 = +100%! Google HOOO!

Give me a break, you can make the data say whatever you want out of context. Google+ is a dog designed by engineers for engineers. This doesn't excuse the fact that FB is a POS, but I'll take a platform with users over one with 4 trolls who work at Google any day of the week.

-rt

Re:Analyzing explosive Google+ growth... (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690563)

A quick check of my circles shows about two dozen people who post occasionally, about a dozen of which post on a fairly regular basis, and if i'm counting right seven have posted in the last 24 hours. Oh, and that's not counting the two Google topics i follow. I have two friends who work for Google who post occasionally, but i also have three or four friends who work for Google and never post at all.

I certainly wouldn't mind those numbers being a little higher, and perhaps i should go out looking for a few more interesting people to follow, but that doesn't seem too bad to me.

Seems obvious (4, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690477)

It sounds kind of obvious that Google+ would have higher satisfaction then Facebook. The only people using it are people who really want to use it, no one is there just because all there friends are there.

Re:Seems obvious (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690633)

And half the people who use it are Google employees, so it makes sense they'd be more positive in satisfaction surveys.

Re:Seems obvious (1)

gVibe (997166) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690927)

I use Google+ because when you first join...you are asked verbatim whether you would like them to use your information for advertisement revenue. Now whether they actually don't do this when you say no is another issue. I supposed I would know if I were logged in and suddenly the ads started showing me things tied to what I was typing or to what was being said during a meet up.

Yeah, right (1, Funny)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690501)

Google+ users are more satisfied with the site

I'm sure they are. Both of them.

Re:Yeah, right (3, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690641)

Get with the times, man - there are THREE now.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690787)

Dangit. You beat me to the exact punchline I was going to use.

The fall in facebook stock (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690597)

... is not due much to the loss of users. It is due primarily to the fact that the investors realized facebook has no long-term business plan. The notion of "bring in users, sell their information" only works for so long. They don't have a good plan for getting users of mobile devices to pay attention to advertising. They don't have a plan to keep users interested. Eventually the novelty wears off.

Facebook wants people to believe they are the next google. They are more likely the next AOL.

Re:The fall in facebook stock (3, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690775)

When Goldman Sachs was telling the world it was worth $50 billion 6 months or so before the IPO, that should've been a sign for every investor to run for the hills. If you're not smart enough to turn tail when you detect the taint of GS, you deserve to get looted.

The high water mark. (3, Informative)

gallondr00nk (868673) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690655)

Hardly surprising really that just after the IPO the numbers start flatling. It seemed obvious to me that the IPO was simply to cash in while the going was good, rather than to move on from there.

There's no sustainability in social networking, and I imagine the smart money knew that already. I imagine the people who invested in it were the same ones who thought that the housing market would never crash.

Re:The high water mark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690731)

It seemed obvious to me that the IPO was simply to cash in while the going was good, rather than to move on from there.

Uhm, cashing in is always the idea with an IPO. The first investors cash in. That's always their motivation for an exit.

adds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690743)

Facebook has adds?

sex wiTh a cum (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690779)

the0rIsts - [goat.cx]

Timeline (1)

zidium (2550286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690813)

It's the damn timeline forced migration in May. I haven't been a regular since. I can't STAND IT!!!

Bring back the walls, please!

Re:Timeline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40691109)

Forced, really? My profile still has the wall. I am wondering how long it will last, but it's still there. I use FB about once every month or two.

Don't accept any change questions if you don't want or don't understand them. If they put up a prompt saying 'We're going to do this, press OK to make it happen' and don't have a cancel option, open a new tab to the main site and you won't see the after-login prompt. You didn't agree to the change and you didn't disagree, you simply delayed the question and became one of 'those users' stuck on the legacy version. This works with many companies, especially Google.

Where everybody thinks you care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40690815)

Google plus not only has no one on it but the few people who are on it constantly spam me with crap I don't care about. A good idea with the circles, but its just turned into internet meme spams. Turns out I get that on facebook already.

It's Alive (1)

freeshoes (826204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40690939)

Google+ is a frankenstein monster between Twitter and Facebook with Google Wave thrown in, something Microsoft would be proud of. If Google had any balls they would shut it down and sack anyone who backed it.

Not sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40691001)

I have two accounts myself and will gradually shift over as more and more of my friends register, but I have to criticize the customer satisfaction metric. Right now, people use Google+ if they make a conscious choice not to use Facebook, just like Linux and formerly Firefox. If they weren't happy with it, they wouldn't be using it - unlike Facebook, which people are stuck with because of inertia, regardless of how much they like it.

How much of the difference that explains is debatable. Much like the question of whether obscurity or security contribute more to the lack of Linux malware.

Google+ GUI & Privacy (1)

lilfields (961485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40691019)

I find the Google+ GUI to be way too intrusive and annoying to use. Others will disagree, but I absolutely hate their GUI. Neither of the two giants have great privacy policies...so why should I switch to Google+ from Facebook, if it has less people, annoying to use and has the same or worse privacy policies.

It's about time... (1)

Proteus Cortex (2511824) | more than 2 years ago | (#40691097)

It's about time people start using Google+ a little more... I was getting the impression that I was beta testing it or something... :P
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>