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!

Why You Shouldn't Write Off Google+ Just Yet

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the well-armed-tortoise-gunning-for-hare dept.

Google 286

TheNextCorner writes "Cmdr Taco writes for The Washington Post on why you shouldn't write off Google+ just yet: "Google+ is technically better than its rivals in a number of key ways. The user interface is comfortable and friendly. It's easy to maintain circles of contacts, and to segregate what you share with each group. Discussions of small-to-medium sizes are manageable and readable — even in real time. Facebook wins when it comes to the open graph and app ecosystem, but a lot of people don't care about that stuff.""

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

Google What? (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719463)

I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.

Re:Google What? (5, Insightful)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719593)

but anonymity is bad too?

Re:Google What? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719687)

Check mate sir!

Re:Google What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719809)

Works for me.

Re:Google What? (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719871)

Yesterday Google-Youtube asked me for my real name. Well actually they already KNOW my real name via my email account, but they wanted me to start using it on youtube so everybody else would know too. (Posted by cpu6502, Bill Smith)

I refused.
Now I can't reply to comments. I can post new ones on videos, but the reply button is disabled. What a crummy thing for Google to do (try to take-away my anonymity). I don't want thousands of posts hanging-round with my real name for the next 60 years.

And here's another reason to dislike google: Quoting Rob âCmdrTacoâ(TM) Malda article: "Google doesnâ(TM)t really need you to use Google+ to post status updates with your friends as much as they simply need you to log in and tell them your age. If you do this, suddenly they can tie together your iPhone, your work machine, and your laptop. Your 3 machines become one person. You. And you are broadcasting signals all the time. If you don't* explicitly tell Google where you live, what you do, and how old you are, they will be able to make fantastically informed guesses."

On facebook almost everything is faked. My age, my location, only thing's that real is my name & my school (to reconnect with alumni).

*
*Why is Opera telling me that don't is mis-spelled?
*:-o

Re:Google What? (5, Insightful)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720633)

They almost have to do this. Online communities are being poisoned to death. While I value anonymous posting, much of the web is becoming unusable. This could be solved with better (think: out-of-the-box) moderation, but the other alternative to cleaning up something as invective as YouTube is to require real names. I would be willing to pay a small amount in able to join a community and use a handle, with the chance of getting banned by a REAL moderator, to participate in a grown-up conversation.

Re:Google What? (4, Informative)

horza (87255) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719883)

With the Google Real Names policy, and always badgering you for your mobile phone number, apparently it is. Hence G+ being a desolate wasteground.

Phillip.

Re:Google What? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720505)

There are a ton of fake names on G+.

Re:Google What? (-1, Troll)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719647)

It's so amazing that these dumb, irrelevant comments still get positive moderations on Slashdot.

Re:Google What? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719683)

speaking of dumb, irrelevant comments...

Re:Google What? (5, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719709)

I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.

You're missing the point. Facebook is a tool that _you_ use to spy on and stalk _other_ people. As long as you don't post anything any more revealing that "omg wtf my dog just farted!!1!!!1" then you don't have a problem. It's not like anyone can spy on anything other than what you post there.

Re:Google What? (4, Informative)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720031)

Facebook can spy on every website you ever visit that has a Facebook "like" button. They then sell the information about what you view online, combined with who you interact with on facebook, who lists you as a relative on Facebook, who names you in photos... and YOUR IMAGE if someone tags you in a Facebook photo using their face recognition software.

Which they package and sell.

Happy privacy.

Re:Google What? (2)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720201)

Facebook can spy on every website you ever visit that has a Facebook "like" button. They then sell the information about what you view online, combined with who you interact with on facebook, who lists you as a relative on Facebook, who names you in photos... and YOUR IMAGE if someone tags you in a Facebook photo using their face recognition software.

Which they package and sell.

Happy privacy.

Yes all that can happen if you don't handle your cookies properly.

Re:Google What? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720423)

Do you have a browser cache? Because if so, companies can spy on you using e-tags. Hulu was discovered doing it, and others probably are too. No cookies/scripts necessary, just base html.

Re:Google What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720391)

Riiight... and google does the exact same thing across multiple products. What's you point?

Re:Google What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720449)

Google is a search engine/advertising company that *does* track your web movements. Duh.

Re:Google What? (1)

InterGuru (50986) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720555)

I downloaded a separate browser 9 (Opera in my case) which I use exclusively for Facebook. That way FB can't track my browsing with like buttons as I do my browsing on Firefox.

Re:Google What? (1)

The Infamous Grimace (525297) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720625)

Facebook page has my name and age, nothing more, and I only visit it Incognito. No friends, no apps, and I think 1 like - a local news station.

Re:Google What? (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719723)

I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.

It's really no different than Usenet. Except with Usenet you don't have any control at all over who sees your post. Ever. It's not Facebook's or Google's fault that you can't figure out the filtering. Treat "social networking" as Usenet or BBS networks, and you're golden. It's not that hard. But wait there's more. Facebook has features that you can use to control *what other people say about you* - you can have tags (mentions of you) in other people's posts set to require your approval. How neat is that? And you can actually control who sees your posts, down to eliminating even single individuals. Want to blab a phone number or picture to all your "friends" but one? You can do it.

But wait, you say, Facebook knows all about you! Well, dearie, I hate to break it to you, but when I was an admin lo those many years ago, I saw who downloaded the watersports binaries. And no, they weren't about swimming. Nothing shocks me any more.

No, really, I see posts like yours, and when I mentally transport myself back to the 90s, it looks like you're whining. If you haven't learned how to manage your privacy by now, you shouldn't even be posting to Slashdot, announcing your views to the world here.

--
BMO

Re:Google What? (3, Insightful)

horza (87255) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719959)

That's bullshit. Usenet was a public forum and anything you posted you knew was public. Not posting to what you thought was a group of friends but unbeknown to you Facebook changed your privacy settings to make it public. You trusted your server admins (and I've run email servers for people too) and if they stepped over the line and abused their knowledge they would be fired and their reputation trashed. If Facebook abuses and sells your information they make a healthy bonus.

The '90s web of trust didn't scale, and fell apart as it bloomed outside the academic world. It's a different world now with a different set of problems, you can't compare the two.

Phillip.

Re:Google What? (4, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720107)

Usenet was a public forum and anything you posted you knew was public.

Yeah, you'd have to have been pretty stupid to post something to Usenet thinking it'd be private.

Come to think of it, the same thing applies to Facebook.

Re:Google What? (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720173)

No, it's not bullshit.

Posting to Facebook even back when it was strictly an academics-only community still meant that whatever you posted was public to that community. And if you think it was cloistered and that nobody from the outside could get in and read your stuff, you were delusional.

Go ahead and rage that Facebook "changed its privacy policies." People who knew better didn't post photos of drunken bacchanalia, because they knew that doing so was stupid, even in a "closed" network. Only the people who threw caution to the wind were upset when Facebook opened up to the public.

Here's a clue: Don't post anything in public (even in a "cloistered setting") that you don't want your mom, or the cops, to see. Follow that rule and you'll have no problems whatsoever with privacy. Yes it's self censorship. It's also called common sense. I followed the rule even back in the 80s and 90s even on small systems. It has done me well.

When Dejanews showed up and everyone friggin' panicked, I didn't give a shit, because nobody could hold whatever I said against me anyway.

--
BMO

Re:Google What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719991)

I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.

A one liner prompts all these straw men. Hair trigger much? Sounds like you got stiffed in a share deal recently and still can't work out why.

Re:Google What? (2)

dewatf (209360) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720099)

All the usenet groups I read disappeared under the deluge of spam and trolling once Google took it over and allowed anyone to post via the web. It became totally pointless so I read Slashdot instead. Google+ is technically much environment for with dealing with the real world where there are malicious and stupid people. However, it lacks the connections to get things organised from scratch.

Not that the interface is particularly important in a social networks. People happily put up with Facebook's unfriendly interface, bugs, random changes and data harvesting. It is the network that matters and Facebook did that really well. That is why it took out My Space and why Google+ will remain confined to niche applications.

Hah! BMO. I hacked into someone else's account and downloaded all my porn through an anonymiser. So you know nothing about my furry fetish.

Re:Google What? (4, Insightful)

markjhood2003 (779923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720373)

I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.

It's really no different than Usenet. Except with Usenet you don't have any control at all over who sees your post. Ever. It's not Facebook's or Google's fault that you can't figure out the filtering.

-- BMO

Google's privacy controls are pretty transparent, but Facebook appears to deliberately obfuscate their privacy settings, and the policies change frequently. I believe Facebook does this deliberately in order to maximize the amount of personal info their customers and 3rd party developers have access to.

Usenet was indeed a form of computer-mediated social networking long before the term was invented, but otherwise there are not many similarities. Nobody had any expectation of privacy on Usenet; all you had to do was grep through the raw feed to find anything you want. Facebook on the other hand promises privacy control but in practice they actively thwart it and only provide the illusion of privacy. They always have complete access to your info even if their customers don't.

Re:Google What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720039)

Normal people who don't use something just pass by and ignore it. Pathetic assholes like you feel the need to express that you don't use something to everyone else. Here's a little wakeup call for you: Nobody gives a shit about your boring life. You're not worth spying on, dick.

Re:Google What? (4, Funny)

gtaluvit (218726) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720077)

I wrote off all social media long ago

As you post in a threaded message board...

Re:Google What? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720329)

It wouldn't matter if you used it frankly, nor what features it has or has not, its the network effect. For shits and giggles i set one up a couple of months ago and found that NOBODY I know is using it, nobody, not a single one. Whereas every single person I've known since fricking HS has a FB account and seems to use it daily, even though I don't hardly mess with mine.

So frankly Google is finding out that just like MSFT just because you have money doesn't mean you can buy your way into the party. MSFT couldn't do it with WinPhone, Google can't do it with Google+. FB was able to take over from MySpace because MySpace took a massive dump on the design and lax security quickly turned it into a spam haven so users got fed up and left. will that happen to FB? Its possible but until they take a big enough shit on the UI and ruin it for enough people G+ hasn't got a prayer.

So? (4, Insightful)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719473)

We're waiting for something that's not Facebook, not something that's not Facebook, but is basically Facebook.

Oh, and if you work in advertising: kill yourself.

Re:So? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719517)

Oh, and if you work in advertising: kill yourself.

How's NSFNet working out for you then?

Re:So? (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719595)

Wait, what [wikipedia.org] ? I honestly have no idea what you mean.

Re:So? (5, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719713)

NSFNet made up much of the Internet backbone for a while. Its AUP prohibited advertising. These were the days of the Internet Yellow Pages and David and Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web on akebono. This ended on April 30, 1995, and at that point everything exploded - the Internet you see today has been built on advertising revenues.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719973)

Which is exactly the problem

Re:So? (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720053)

And what internet, exactly, do I see today? One that is "a bit faster, a bit sooner", and has more tracking code than content on it? You are seriously saying this is a good thing with a straight face? MOAR = GUD?

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720387)

And what internet, exactly, do I see today? One that is "a bit faster, a bit sooner", and has more tracking code than content on it? You are seriously saying this is a good thing with a straight face? MOAR = GUD?

One that has search engines on it, one that has given millions of people gmail/hotmail type services which allow them to meaningfully use the Internet without a subscription fee, one that has all sorts of cloud services that are allowing people to not worry about local storage.

Hell, I've got a * next to my username, I pay Slashdot an astonishingly small amount of money per day. You don't - your Slashdot is funded by their ad model!

Re:So? (4, Interesting)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720275)

...really? You're gonna go there? So it had nothing to do with all the other stuff happening in 94-96? rfc1700 - assigned numbers [ietf.org] in 94, rfc1737 Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names [ietf.org] in Dec94, http/1.0 finalized in 1996 [ietf.org] , Linux bringing a bunch of common folks exploding onto the scene with things like RedHat 1.0 in Dec1994...you're not really giving credit to bloat and advertising for the explosion of the internet, are you? I owned an ISP from 1994-1996 (sold it). There was practically no advertising at the time, and it was still exploding. It exploded in spite of the bloat that came later. Are you just a ad exec or something, that you would put all the other things happening in the mid 90's behind advertising. Yeesh.

Re:So? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720365)

Are you just a ad exec or something, that you would put all the other things happening in the mid 90's behind advertising. Yeesh.

Tell me which search engines exist without an advertising model.

Re:So? (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719917)

How's NSFNet working out for you then?

Heh, my brain kept trying for like 10 seconds to unpack that as "Not Safe For..."

Re:So? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719715)

Oh, you're playing to the anti-marketing demographic. There are a lot of dollars in that demographic.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719775)

You're dead, Bill. Go back to sleep.

Re:So? (-1, Offtopic)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720069)

Fuck you, scumbags! I am not doing that!

Re:So? (1)

geegel (1587009) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720379)

Tell me about it.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720235)

Its not like Facebook but people are trying to use it as such. Google plus is a set of tools to find things to do socially while Facebook is just a way to communicate socially.

Re:So? (-1, Offtopic)

bug1 (96678) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720425)

Oh, and if you work in advertising: kill yourself.

-1 Offensive (and i dont work in advertising)

Re:So? (1)

wasimkadak (1960958) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720501)

Oh, and if you work in advertising: kill yourself.

Bill Hicks couldn't have said it better himself!

Google+ is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719479)

Plus you don't want that big bad Google to have even more information about you.

We use Google+ for mini meetings (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719491)

Google Plus's chat feature has rudimentary desktop screening, and is just more convenient than Skype for small group projects. Select a circle, call 'em all up, and get to work. Facebook chat is better for showing the chat history. Although, I still think I prefer good old fashioned BBS systems for regular communication. Keeping conversations locked into tidy (or not so tidy) threads appeals to my OCD side.

Re:We use Google+ for mini meetings (3, Informative)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719841)

Google Plus's chat feature has rudimentary desktop screening, and is just more convenient than Skype for small group projects.

Not to mention more reliable, responds faster and presence notification is low latency. And doesn't crash like Skype does (some platforms). And seems to have better sound qualilty. And I'm more like to find people actually logged in there, people don't seem to hang on Skype any more like they used to. These days, it's more like send an email or call on a land line or cell phone to set up a Skype call. And that makes sense exactly why?

Re:We use Google+ for mini meetings (1)

murdocj (543661) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720433)

So what you are saying is that your friends use Google Plus instead of Skype, so they are easier to find on Google Plus instead of Skype.

Okay? (4, Interesting)

steevven1 (1045978) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719509)

This has all been true since it came onto the scene, but it has still made no big splash. The title of this article implies that there is something significantly new now. There's not.

Re:Okay? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719583)

This has all been true since it came onto the scene

I gave up on Google Plus before most of my friends had even heard of it (true, not trying to be all hipster here). The average Washington Post reader has only heard of Google Plus in passing, perhaps just a few times.

So, it may be a good article for the audience, though it's a fair question: "why does this belong on Slashdot?" Lord knows I haven't seen any posts on what CowboyNeal is working on.

Re:Okay? (4, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719655)

...it has still made no big splash.

I'd say it's made a pretty big splash for those of us who haven't "upgraded" our accounts to use Google+. If you're not a Plus member, many links and settings in Google services no longer work or take you to 404 pages. And some of the help docs have been re-written in such a way that they only apply to Plus users.

Re:Okay? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719751)

If you're not a Plus member, many links and settings in Google services no longer work or take you to 404 pages.

For example?

Re:Okay? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720011)

Our friend, MrEricSir, is full of shit...but one feature of Google+ I don't see advertised is that it prevents me from replying to youtube videos. Quite the accomplishment, that. Can still write comments, but don't dare press the reply button since it doesn't do anything!! Remove Google+ account, works like a champ again.

Re:Okay? (2)

Tough Love (215404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719853)

The title of this article implies that there is something significantly new now. There's not.

Time went by. It didn't die like pundits said it would.

Re:Okay? (3, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720509)

Why does there have to be a splash before people notice that there's water?

Strange title.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719513)

... as it's FB I wrote off long ago - as G+ will surely one day join it - in the land of fad induced mass market websites. Anyone still using GeoCities or MySpace?

Re:Strange title.... (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719579)

... as it's FB I wrote off long ago - as G+ will surely one day join it - in the land of fad induced mass market websites. Anyone still using GeoCities or MySpace?

Meet the new Web, same as the old Web.

A 12-1/2 years ago when you watched the evening news or saw a commercial you got the distinct impression that both only existed to get you to visit their shiny new web site.

Now you get the distinct impression that they only exist to get you to visit their shiny new Facebook page.

We're past due another dot-crash.

and it provides advertisers with one stop snooping (5, Interesting)

davidannis (939047) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719549)

Let's face it, FaceBook can't provide every shred of information about me. Sure they know who my friends are, but Google will be able to layer on top of that things from the location of my cellphone (android), my search history (google.com), what books and movies I've bought (google play), websites I've visited (adwords), and even the contents of my e-mail (gmail) and files (Google drive). Since my primary goal is to only see relevant ads I'm going with Google+ and I assume advertisers will push me in that direction anyway once they realize how effective Google ads can be.

scaremonger much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719801)

Google doesn't do any of that stuff. Google wants to present you with little ads, that google hopes you will click. And that's it.

IMO: Google's record on privacy is vastly better than facebook's record. MS's smear campaign not withstanding.

Re:scaremonger much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720127)

Until one day google starts hurting for/ wants more cash, and a new CEO comes into power.... oops.

Re:scaremonger much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720157)

Groups.google.com. Don't tell me about Google privacy they even have previously nuked posts from the DejaNews time.

Re:and it provides advertisers with one stop snoop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720477)

hate to say it, but if you've ever seen a post from Facebook on a phone, it uses GPS or AGPS to post your location (or near to). Of course it also tries to do that when you're on a desktop as well

Oh, well, if CmdrTaco endorses it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719571)

Then it must be doomed.

Hangouts are cool (1)

jslarve (1193417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719591)

To be honest, I'm completely baffled by the google+ feed. It's very difficult to make "seen" things go away. Other than that, it's pretty cool. I've only been using it to attend a couple hangouts. Hangouts are really great, especially if you know ahead of time to comb your hair. It was a bit of a shocker to see my ugly mug on the list of attendees.

Re:Hangouts are cool (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719741)

To be honest, I'm completely baffled by the google+ feed. It's very difficult to make "seen" things go away.

Try clicking on the icon in the top-right corner and clicking "mute this post".

Re:Hangouts are cool (1)

jslarve (1193417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719803)

Thanks. I did find that, but it's still a whole lot of work to make stuff go away. I'd love to see it work like Google Reader.

Re:Hangouts are cool (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719885)

Thanks. I did find that, but it's still a whole lot of work to make stuff go away.

I'd love to see it work like Google Reader.

Google reader is going away...

Re:Hangouts are cool (1)

darkfeline (1890882) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720339)

What? One of the best RSS feed aggregators is going away? What is this madness?

Re:Hangouts are cool (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720559)

Google wants you to use your g+ feed for that.

Re:Hangouts are cool (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719905)

You would post on your wall. For example if I said that +Rob Malda knows what's he's talking about then he would get alerted at the top right of his screen to take a look at the post.

user friendly? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719597)

OK, I won't defend Facebook as a shining example of good UI design, but Google? How do I write on someone's wall? That is, how do I say something directed to someone, but in a public way?

Also, for whatever reason, I get things in my Google+ feed that seem so random. Like today, I got something from "Mike Elgan." Who is he? I have no idea, I definitely never added him. And his post is useless, I am not interested in it at all (If you are Mike Elgan reading this I soo apologize).

I am not anti-google+, I want it to succeed. But I recognize that Google+ isn't going to win because it has a better UI. And basically everyone, even grandmas have figured out how to use Google+.

Re:user friendly? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719907)

You can turn Mike Elgan off, option somewhere.

No worse than Tom from myspace having 20 million friends.

Re:user friendly? (4, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720057)

OK, I won't defend Facebook as a shining example of good UI design, but Google? How do I write on someone's wall? That is, how do I say something directed to someone, but in a public way?

Same way you do it on Twitter -- you don't. You post things to your own page and tag the other person. You don't post something on someone else's page -- which actually makes a lot of sense. The problem here is not their UI, but the fact that you've gotten used to doing things the Facebook way.

Nomad all over again? (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719617)

Sort of like how the Nomad was technically superior to the iPod?

Re:Nomad all over again? (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720071)

Sort of like how the Nomad was technically superior to the iPod?

Yeah. Still waiting for this wireless functionality that's supposedly necessary in a music player.

Re:Nomad all over again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720629)

The Nomad [wikipedia.org] could play any Genesis cart plugged into it. No Apple product has ever had a Genesis-compatible cartridge slot.

captcha: retina

Advertising (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719695)

Yesterday on reddit somebody posted a onion video but when I played it I got an advertisment from the Australian government promoting a google hangout featuring the Prime Minister. I got this because I have a G+ account with all that tasty meta data about myself, and this allows youtube to pick adverts to show me. So its all about the meta data. Its very valuable to google, even if their market penetration is still quite small in comparison to facebook.

Facebook hasn't screwed up...yet (5, Interesting)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719729)

What killed MySpace was allowing the level of customization to a profile page such that the result was GeoCities. I stopped going to MySpace because I valued my eyesight.

Until Facebook makes me not want to look the main page or other people's profiles, it's not going anywhere.

Features aren't going to win people to Google+ because Facebook has a perfectly solid team of developers that will happily spend their days copying the things that make the user experience better.

Re:Facebook hasn't screwed up...yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720223)

Until Facebook makes me not want to look the main page or other people's profiles, it's not going anywhere.

I must have lower thresholds of irritation, then, because the only way I want to look at Facebook is through its mobile interface (which is all the posts from people minus all the advertising in a clean, scrollable form.)

All the Facebook pages I've seen through a web browser are complete abominations of UI and human factors design, as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Facebook hasn't screwed up...yet (2)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720537)

I agree [slashdot.org] . I wrote the same thing in May in a story entitled "Online Loneliness At Google+".

MySpace let people have loads of control, and it ended up an awful, slow, non-responsive mess. Facebook started off by letting people use templates and that's how they've continued. They can control the end user experience much better, and people have a much more consistent and much more positive experience.

Disclaimer: I have never used Google + because (i) nobody's there, and (ii) I have always been wary about Google and how much information they collect about me. So I have no clue what it's like.

Final thought: Slashdot, that pinnacle of geek friendly sites, has had a "share this article on Facebook" icon on stories for ages. They only very recently added the equivalent Google + icon. If even a super-geek (well, used to be a super-geek) site like /. shows a preference against Google +, it's gonna take a bit of work to make it succeed.

Lamebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719735)

I'd say give it five years and let history replay itself again. Facebook will be lame and a has been while either Google+ or something like it will be the new cool. It's obvious that G+ is much more advanced plus they have a company that actually makes money behind them. Facebook just wreaks of the Jershey shore showoffs and wannabes.

Image sharing (5, Informative)

nxcho (754392) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719781)

I use facebook,g+ and twitter, mostly for maintaining a presence rather than posting personal stuf. But I've discovered that google+ is quite good for sharing images with family and closer friends. The fact that you can can share things with people that doesn't have a g+ account just by their e-mail address means that I can show them whats happening in my life from a single place.

Re:Image sharing (4, Informative)

partofthepuzzle (1707364) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720221)

You can also invite people who aren't Google+ users to events via the same invitation that I use for the G+ folks. email address. This is a major usability win for me.

Solutions in search of a problem (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40719839)

Facebook wins when it comes to the open graph and app ecosystem, but a lot of people don't care about that stuff.

Well, thing is, it's quite obvious most people don't care at all about "maintaining circles of contacts" or "segregating what you share" - they just want to throw stuff up on Facebook where all their friends will see it. If they wanted to share with a small group... they actually could do that too.

Actually "throw stuff up" is a pretty accurate metaphor for a lot of what I've seen on pretty much every social network...

Still shilling for Google, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719893)

Seeing Taco shill for Google raises a question: Is Slashdot's shilling for Google an official policy or an unofficial one?

Re:Still shilling for Google, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720155)

Facebook: no circles. Less hangouts than G+. Lame.

Google+ and Youtube sitting in a tree.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40719983)

..K-I-S-S-I-N...errr, fighting like cats and dogs....Google+ is great and all, except for the fact that simply having one prevents me from being able to reply to users on my Youtube channel...really?? Why is that even possible?!? Get rid of Google+, my friend the Reply button, works like it should...allowing me to tell everyone else how wrong their opinion is.

Re:Google+ and Youtube sitting in a tree.. (2)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720061)

That happened to me today, and worst of all Youtube didn't even give me the option of refusing to link to my G+ account. I clicked a link that quite clearly said not to do so, but it went and did it anyway. I have a good mind to delete my G+ account.

Sure, but who would trust google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720017)

If it's not run by some kind of not for profit organization, do you really think it's wise to give up your data freedom? What did you thini these billion dollar mega-corps were paying so much for? If they can know us intimately, they can really get into our heads and trick us into buying more junk. Think about it

Parable of the format wars (4, Informative)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720047)

Betamax was technically better than VHS. Brunel's wide gauge railway system was technically better than the standard gauge. We all know what became of them. It's the scale of adoption that counts. A squillion people are now in the habit of living their lives through Facebook. They're not going to simultaneously migrate to G+ because of a few bells and whistles no matter how good they are. Sorry Google, you missed the boat on this one.

BTW Mr. Malda (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720103)

Why the heck do you insert "CmdrTaco" in your byline on the Washington Post? I really doubt anyone there cares about your old Slashdot persona, and it works against any impression of professionalism I'd think you'd want to cultivate now that you're in that world.

Re:BTW Mr. Malda (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720587)

He's just trying to stay gansta. He is the original /. OG, after all.

Google+ UI Sux (2)

bug1 (96678) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720237)

Does it bother
anyone else
how google+
puts all its
content on the
left two thirds
of the display
and doesnt
use thr right
side of the
display ?

I guess they
care more
about mobile
users than us
old fashioned
desktop users.

HATE THE MOBILE !

replaces iGoogle (2, Informative)

mathfeel (937008) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720283)

Instead of thinking G+ as a Facebook clone/competition, I like to think of it as a replacement of iGoogle, Google's attempt at a personalized home page and portal to all Google's services, now the "social" element. Considering how bad iGoogle used to be, I would say G+ is a great success at replacing it. The interface is so much cleaner now.

Google+ Hangout are the killer feature. (5, Interesting)

Above (100351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720409)

I've used at least a dozen video conferencing solutions, and Google+ Hangouts seems to work across the most platforms, with some of the highest quality video, and it's free. I can communicate with folks inside and outside of the company without any special clients or problems. It really is a killer video conferencing solution.

But it's buried inside Google+, and I am amazed how many people I meet have no idea it exists, have never tried it, and so on. Everyone I make use it the first time instantly falls in love. Google could easily sell Hangouts as a stand alone video conferencing product.

Which is why I think Google+ may make it yet. There's some really cool stuff buried in it. Not enough to unseat Facebook on its own, but if Facebook stumbles, Google+ could pick up the market. Much like when myspace fell behind Facebook moved in.

Hangouts/Youtube (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720429)

The only thing I know people to use G+ for is the hangouts/youtube stream. It makes it easy to do a video podcast with multiple people and not have to deal with the crap livestream/ustream/justin.tv makes you do.

facebook wins... (4, Insightful)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720445)

Facebook wins because that's where all my friends and acquaintances are. That Google+ is technically superior doesn't mean much so long as it lacks a critical mass of users. It's also foreign. People have been on Facebook long enough that they're comfortable with it. In order for people to defect Google+ has to be not just "better" but "way better".

I find it odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40720511)

Google and gmail in particular are all about searching -- why organize when you can just search!? From what I've seen from Google emperically and with telemetry (Microsoft blogs etc.) is that using folders for Mail is really really low for some reason that absolutely escapes me.

So I find this odd. Odd that people tend to organize here instead of other aspects in their life. For example, spending 1minute to setup some sane shortcuts and pinned items on the Windows 7 taskbar for example (why isn't that done more often with normal folk)

What social network existed in 1998? (1)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40720627)

I'm just curious what CmdrTaco is alluding to in the following paragraph:

Of course, Facebook is doing more or less the same thing. You probably just don't care as much, because Facebook was always doing it. You weren't using it anonymously in 1998, so your expectations are different.

One way to read that passage is that he got his dates horribly wrong (theFacebook started in 2004). I'm inclined to think it's a hint to another (anti)social networking site [twitter.com] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?