81–88 of 88 posts
The correct title should have been: "Google's Management Doesn't Use Google+ For Public Posts". But not so good for pageviews, is it? "Management caring deeply about their company’s products and using them every day is almost always a prerequisite of making great products." From my time on Google+, the Google+ team seems to be highly visible and doing a terrific job interacting on the site. It seems like a useful upd…
This thought: Further, I think it’s reasonable to assume a correlation between private use & public use kills the whole article. No, it isn't a reasonable assumption. If you look at my Facebook without being a friend of mine, you get a picture of me. Five years of use and that is the only public thing I have published. And I am just another dude no one cares about. I am sure billionaire CEOs and board members who hav…
I disagree - he makes a reasonable assumption. G+ allows you to share things that are public and share things that are private. If someone was sharing things that are private (our assumption), wouldn't it follow that they are sharing things that they have indicated (via some other means) are public? For example, David Drummond's post on the Google Blog regarding Android patents ( http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/0…
I write blog posts for my employer, on the employer's blog frequently. I never share them on my private accounts on social networks. Why should I? Thats not "cbs, person" thats "cbs, talking on behalf of Corp X". Even if I was in senior management I wouldn't want to dilute myself as a person by posting things on social networks that are not me.
You're basically arguing that google execs don't understand G+ because, they haven't mixed their personal and professional lives to a sufficient extent. That is a rather bold conclusion to draw. Maybe they're just private people.
It is impossible for me to use the product I work on day-to-day. It would literally kill me if I tried. Does that mean I'm unable to understand it?
Given I have a finite amount of time to socialize my identity online, the value proposition of a service has to extend into emotion rather than pure pragmatism.
Fun and joy: maximize this for me and my loyalty follows. If you want me to switch, you had best maximize these more than the existing player.
In Googles case, the service just isn't fun. I always feel like I am missing things, it's hard to track comments you have read and the circle interface is klunky. Facebook has the same type of issues as an information service, but makes up for it in being a fun service for identity curation. Twitter is the best for a river-of-discourse type use case.
Remember that Larry re-org'd Google into product groups, and the SVP of Social is Vic Gundorota. My understanding is that these groups are supposed to work in a more autonomous fashion, with Larry more of a Jobsian gatekeeper and guiding hand. If you are to make some sort of conclusion based on whether the boss is using it or not, you need to actually choose the boss. Vic is the boss of Google+, and he's made 150+ po…
I think the point is that even senior googlers don't think its valuable/useful enough.
Dogfooding is nice and all, but some people are not part of their products' target audiences.