31–40 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appleseed has already addressed this. When you comment, a push notification is sent to the group defined the context . Actions are not broadcast, contexts are. IE, Alice posts a blog, which is available to Group A. Bob posts a comment to the blog, and members of Group A are notified (even if they're not on Bob's friends list). Chris, who is on Bob's friends list, but not a member of Group A, will not receive a notifi…
That's still potentially confusing, though. Bob has no idea who is part of Group A apart from himself. He could probably check, but there's a cognitive load/uncertainty there that equals friction to every secondary action (like a comment). So there's two problems: 1. Bob might comment on Alice's post thinking he's in his own social context, which is reinforced by the fact that on Google+, he's in his own UI and Alice…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think invites are tied to specific email addresses?
They are. I attempted to use the signup invite link given on a different account, it failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are. I attempted to use the signup invite link given on a different account, it failed.
They aren't. I got an invite on my epochwolf gmail account but signed up with my personal gmail account. (Which I happened to be logged in to at the time)
This article is dead on. I already have many google apps open all day and g+ will integrate with those nicely. A friend already exclaimed this morning that the google apps integration is what will kill FB (if that's even possible - myspace still has users). He then set out to move over those he actually cared about on FB to g+. I especially like default use of groups and how it forces users to think about privacy fro…
It's a brilliant strategy, and I'd be very surprised if it doesn't lead to some antitrust litigation.
Unlike Microsoft's control of the desktop, people choose to use Google everyday. It would be so very very easy to switch to Bing tomorrow (even easier than choosing not to use Facebook!) but people have chosen not to switch.
Just because you have a lot of marketshare doesn't mean you are a monopoly.
It's also quite easy to say that consumers will benefit from the increased competition with Facebook. This is what anti-trust tries to promote, not restrict.
Am I being unrealistically impatient, or is the only feature that actually matters the feature that lets your friends sign up? Google+ is a ghost town for me right now and there's nothing I can do to change that. It's very frustrating. I love the ideas in Google+ and want to use it, but I've got no ability to share or add friends.
I had the opposite reaction: At first only a couple of close friends were in my circles, and it felt like a true social site. Even though many of us are miles and miles apart, we were sharing, talking, hanging out and posting. All this without hundreds of relatives, coworkers, ex girlfriends silently watching us like some stalkers from the bushes. It got even better once i realized that because of the way circles wor…
This is actually a misfeature -- it's hard enough to avoid procrastinating without having to summon the super-human willpower necessary to avoid clicking your notifications every time you do a simple search.
That said, it's not like there's a choice.