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

The Mounting Minuses at Google+

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#31

Post by xxbondsxx »

rryan wrote: post #11

Google+ fills a void for me most similar to a mix between Twitter and HN. The discussions are what makes it shine. Why doesn't this happen on Facebook or Twitter? Here's what I think: For most people, Facebook is just the wrong context for intellectual discussions. Similarly, Twitter's medium and user interface are too limiting to have quality discussions since there is no centralized concept of a post. It's just a s…

Like gms said, the majority of the public doesn't have intellectual discussions. It's hard to engage the masses with a killer feature like that... you might as well be selling online PhD Dissertation latex markup editors.

I still agree, but it's sometimes hard for HN to separate their own niche uses of software versus what will be successful on the market. Pinterest and even Chill are examples of this

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#32

Post by dredmorbius »

Among the most compelling positives about G+ for me is that it's not Facebook.

Among the most compelling negatives about G+ for me is that ... it's the emergent evil face of Google.

Nothing has changed my view of the company as much as it's exceptionally ham-handed dealings with real identities, real names, pseudonyms, and the like, particularly as expressed by Schmid and Gundotra (with an honorable mention to Horowitz) in the past six or eight months.

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#33

Post by bcantrill »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #27
bcantrill wrote: post #17

I was initially very excited about G+ because Twitter continues to be such a disappointment, but I find that I'm using Twitter more than ever (and, it should be said, disliking it more than ever). It has become clear to me that -- like the transition from black-and-white to color television -- the winning replacement for Twitter will be the one that doesn't force the world to choose overnight. To that end (and apolog…

1. Why do you use Twitter if you dislike it so much? (I'm actually curious) 2. Syndicating your tweets across multiple networks would annoy people - and you would probably lose followers. The most annoying thing I see on Facebook is a stream of someones tweets. People tend to tweet a lot. They also tend to update their Facebook status a lot. But G+ is different. People post less and their is more discussion. Allowing…

I use Twitter primarily because of the network effect -- and secondarily because of the benefits of the 140-character narrative. (In particular, this allows for a much higher density view than I get with G+.) As for syndicating across multiple networks: I don't really see how I would lose Twitter followers -- and if I lose G+ followers over it, then G+ was probably never meant to be (at least for me). But I think you raise the essential question: is G+ meant to be different or better? And if better, how am I to migrate from Twitter (or FB) without having to manage two social networks?

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#34

Post by urdnot »

cromwellian wrote: post #16
jamie wrote: post #2

That sound you hear is a giant checkbook opening in the direction of Pintrest. The parallels with Google Video and Youtube shouldn't be lost on anyone.

Actually, it's the sound of Rupert Murdoch directing his properties on an anti-Google crusade.

I was going to say, it sure seems like News Corp beating the old drum.

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#35

Post by xxbondsxx »

dredmorbius wrote: post #32

Among the most compelling positives about G+ for me is that it's not Facebook. Among the most compelling negatives about G+ for me is that ... it's the emergent evil face of Google. Nothing has changed my view of the company as much as it's exceptionally ham-handed dealings with real identities, real names, pseudonyms, and the like, particularly as expressed by Schmid and Gundotra (with an honorable mention to Horowi…

I thought G+ would be the first "non-evil" social networking site... until everything happened over the past year since it's launch. Google is betting the farm on the importance of social data for advertising, and it's disappointing to see them so desperate (when it's still considerably early in the race).

To be honest, I don't think Google even needs a social networking. They will be the kings of search, youtube, and email for the foreseeable future, and that's certainly enough to rake in billions in profit.

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#36

Post by xxbondsxx »

untog wrote: post #21
citricsquid wrote: post #13

If I want to post publicly to my "followers" (people I don't know) I use Twitter, if I want to post to my friends I use Facebook, for me and almost everyone else I've spoken to Google+ offers no value. I still don't understand what Google was thinking with +, it offers nothing to most people. The only good feature is hangouts which could easily be a separate product. I have around 150 friends on Facebook and I see a…

If I want to post publicly to my "followers" (people I don't know) I use Twitter, [...] I still don't understand what Google was thinking with + How about publicly post long form content to your followers? Because G+ excels in that, and both Facebook and Twitter fail at it. There's a network effect problem, for sure, but it does have a purpose in the situation you outline.

Tumblr and other blogging platforms integrate into Facebook, and can drive a ton of traffic to your long-form content from there with short story previews or thumbnails. It's not the most seamless transition, but the functionality exists

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#37

Post by marshallp »

dredmorbius wrote: post #32

Among the most compelling positives about G+ for me is that it's not Facebook. Among the most compelling negatives about G+ for me is that ... it's the emergent evil face of Google. Nothing has changed my view of the company as much as it's exceptionally ham-handed dealings with real identities, real names, pseudonyms, and the like, particularly as expressed by Schmid and Gundotra (with an honorable mention to Horowi…

It's the lesser of two evils. Would you rather facebook (rumored to deal with the CIA/Palantir), or shudder - the government, be the internet's identity provider. In fact, unless Larry and Sergey crash in their planes I don't believe google will actually ever turn evil.

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#38

Post by willy1234x1 »

A social network that's been around for majority of a decade has more users and interaction than one that hasn't even hit a year of age?

All joking aside, this article really doesn't offer much to drive its point. Google+ to me has become indispensable, I go to it to discover new things and interact with other people who share interests with me. Not to find the same friends I have on Facebook. Comparing the level of engagement on the two sites really isn't fair as they happen completely differently. On Facebook, people post to their friends (primarily) whereas at Google+ you are encouraged to share selectively to your circles, which means that there's an active mix of posting privately and publicly.

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#39

Post by willy1234x1 »

xxbondsxx wrote: post #36
untog wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I want to post publicly to my "followers" (people I don't know) I use Twitter, [...] I still don't understand what Google was thinking with + How about publicly post long form content to your followers? Because G+ excels in that, and both Facebook and Twitter fail at it. There's a network effect problem, for sure, but it does have a purpose in the situation you outline.

Tumblr and other blogging platforms integrate into Facebook, and can drive a ton of traffic to your long-form content from there with short story previews or thumbnails. It's not the most seamless transition, but the functionality exists

Right, because the vast majority of Tumblr users actually use it as a long-form content site rather than an evolution of chain emails? Who's to say that Google won't open API's that allow you to do the same on Google+?

Re: The Mounting Minuses at Google+

#40

Post by k-mcgrady »

bcantrill wrote: post #33
k-mcgrady wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Why do you use Twitter if you dislike it so much? (I'm actually curious) 2. Syndicating your tweets across multiple networks would annoy people - and you would probably lose followers. The most annoying thing I see on Facebook is a stream of someones tweets. People tend to tweet a lot. They also tend to update their Facebook status a lot. But G+ is different. People post less and their is more discussion. Allowing…

I use Twitter primarily because of the network effect -- and secondarily because of the benefits of the 140-character narrative. (In particular, this allows for a much higher density view than I get with G+.) As for syndicating across multiple networks: I don't really see how I would lose Twitter followers -- and if I lose G+ followers over it, then G+ was probably never meant to be (at least for me). But I think you…

I think it's meant to be different, not better (or at least that is how it is right now). It allows the follower model of Twitter but with the long form post ability (+profiles/photos) of Facebook. For me they are all best used separately: Facebook for friends & family; twitter for news/content that won't instigate discussions; Google+ for blog post style content and discussions.
Post reply on HN