Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing the new Google+

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 300 posts

Re: Introducing the new Google+

#141

Post by [deleted] »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #130
yid wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, I think Google people know and they just don't care. If this is the case, then it probably means that a majority of people find the less-dense layout easier to read. It would also explain why Reader didn't have enough usage to keep Google interested.

> If this is the case, then it probably means that a majority of people find the less-dense layout easier to read. Maybe. But the service doesn't exist for the people using it to read, or to post either for that matter. They're not paying for it. If Google knows people would rather a different layout but don't care, it's because the people who are paying for it prefer it this way.

[deleted]

Re: Introducing the new Google+

#144

Post by puredemo »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #139

A stunning fact came from a Googler today: https://plus.google.com/+IlyaGrigorik/posts/GzjRiVUED1S The previous Google+ site took an AVERAGE of 12 seconds to load, and was 22 MB when gzipped. This company, which once wrote a blog called "speed matters", where they announced they'd penalize sites for slow loading, had an average page load of 12 seconds on their social network. (For single-threaded browsers like Firefo…

You mean an Alphabater?

Re: Introducing the new Google+

#146

Post by hussong »

sp332 wrote: post #58
nostromo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was with you until you dissed Pinterest. Pinterest is very information dense. It utilizes every inch of screen space, and it does so without looking cramped at all. It's a huge design success.

It seems very image-oriented though. I wouldn't try to read news on it.

I think the problem is that people see the beauty of the pinterest layout (which works well for pinning images) and then adapt it to show textual content (which works much worse than a plain list of headlines for scanning news).

Re: Introducing the new Google+

#147

Post by macu »

rogerbinns wrote: post #16

Google seem to keep making worse the thing that matters most to me. What I want is to conveniently read. I want to see content, from a variety of sources. I want density. I want to catch up and be aware. It was like that in the earlier days. Every update kept reducing the amount of visible content, and severe reductions in density. Here is a screenshot of my screen - http://i.imgur.com/fM2WIVf.png (1920x1200) - almos…

I wonder if this keeps people mystified when they visit the news feed, wondering what's beyond the fold and scrolling their hours away.

Re: Introducing the new Google+

#148

Post by GCA10 »

kin wrote: post #57

Collections is kind of like Pinterest. Communities is kind of like Reddit. Plus was kind of like Facebook. Buzz was kind of like Twitter. They really need to stop imitating and start innovating. At this point I don't even think they know who they're targeting they're just trying to do a little bit of everything but they don't do it well enough for me to want to use it.

Well said. It's as if Steve Ballmer's nephew is now running the products team.

Re: Introducing the new Google+

#149

Post by jusben1369 »

codingdave wrote: post #91
jordanlev wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where it originated, but it was popularized by Pinterest many years ago. I think it works better when the content is primarily images, not so much text.

Yeah, I have the same complaint about Pinterest. My wife likes it, but I find it an incomprehensible mess.

Well I bet based on their target market they'd be ok with this outcome.

Re: Introducing the new Google+

#150

Post by mikeash »

moonchrome wrote: post #82
agumonkey wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the web has gone into distributed application / magazine, density has dropped. http://imgur.com/MRnd81J http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://justinjackson.ca/words.html TBC

> http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ >You dumbass. You thought you needed media queries to be responsive, but no. Responsive means that it responds to whatever motherfucking screensize it's viewed on. This site doesn't care if you're on an iMac or a motherfucking Tamagotchi. Except that it's really hard to read on a wide screen. I get it - it's a satire - but it goes too far and fails to make a convincing point because…

Why not make your window narrower?
Post reply on HN