81–90 of 276 posts
Tabletop made a huge mistake making their bottom line dependent on YouTube's upvoting system. What if YouTube decides to get rid of the "Thumbs up" system? Or if Google wants a share of your revenue from this service? See edw519's comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2255615
In the beginning people complained that Google has like a dozen different "Like" buttons on the Reader, Youtube and so on. Now they complain that they want to use just one everywhere? I think it's a great move. Personally, I even want them to integrate their G+ commenting system into all their services. It's one of the best commenting systems out there, and certainly much better than the Youtube one. It might even en…
In the beginning people complained that Google has like a dozen different "Like" buttons on the Reader, Youtube and so on. Now they complain that they want to use just one everywhere? I think it's a great move. Personally, I even want them to integrate their G+ commenting system into all their services. It's one of the best commenting systems out there, and certainly much better than the Youtube one. It might even en…
A friend of mine actually convinced me otherwise re: youtube comments. Because youtube comments are reverse threaded by time, so the newest comments are first, it encourages comments to be actual reactions to the video instead of just getting lost in replies to replies to replies.
I always fancied threaded comment systems, but they can spiral off topic. That's not in tiself a bad thing. Loads of comments can be hard to read, or rather take a long time to read. Perhaps a character limit - and a comment limit would make them more succinct and better all round.
Wasn't the +1 just a shortcut for those that used to just cut and paste someone else's comment to signify that they were in agreement with what the other person said anyway? Perhaps I'm wrong and it means something different to other people.
Part of me says do anything to make the YouTube comment system better. But I'm not sure if Google+ is the right way to go about it.
I wish these things were decentralised. Somewhere in my browser there should be settings to set up my 'like' service, and the same for sharing and blogging and a whole gamut of activities. Plus a simple way to switch between these, and turn them off. I have a real hatred for the merging of Google services - and I'm not even sure why. I think it's because it just feels like the erosion of my privacy. I've become someo…
Google thinks it will die in the long run without social. They realize that all the tech-savvy software product in the world can be reproduced eventually, but secondary, human-savvy products, can never be reproduced. Furthermore, they see the power in adding ever more context to search - see Bret Victor's talk about how 'interaction' is bad, and inferring context is everything. There's no better context than social.…
"but secondary, human-savvy products, can never be reproduced" So, your logic is that because human-savvy products can not be reproduced, it is incumbent upon Google to reproduce them?
Google thinks it will die in the long run without social. They realize that all the tech-savvy software product in the world can be reproduced eventually, but secondary, human-savvy products, can never be reproduced. Furthermore, they see the power in adding ever more context to search - see Bret Victor's talk about how 'interaction' is bad, and inferring context is everything. There's no better context than social.…
"but secondary, human-savvy products, can never be reproduced" So, your logic is that because human-savvy products can not be reproduced, it is incumbent upon Google to reproduce them?
Another way to describe it would be inertia. It is a lot easier to switch programs and leave nothing behind than it is to switch social networks and leave your history behind.
[1] these are just examples from my own usage - lets not argue about specifics. Never let facts can get in the way of a good story.
In the beginning people complained that Google has like a dozen different "Like" buttons on the Reader, Youtube and so on. Now they complain that they want to use just one everywhere? I think it's a great move. Personally, I even want them to integrate their G+ commenting system into all their services. It's one of the best commenting systems out there, and certainly much better than the Youtube one. It might even en…
> Now they complain that they want to use just one everywhere? It's almost like the Internet is lots of different people with wildly divergent opinions!
This is where I show my complete lack of understanding about Social Media, but really, what is the point of a 'like' button? The web is built on URLs. If you like something and want to share it with people, send them a URL. That's what they're for.
Feedback to the author, and crowd-rating for people you don't know.
What do you think the point of HN's up and down arrows are?
In the beginning people complained that Google has like a dozen different "Like" buttons on the Reader, Youtube and so on. Now they complain that they want to use just one everywhere? I think it's a great move. Personally, I even want them to integrate their G+ commenting system into all their services. It's one of the best commenting systems out there, and certainly much better than the Youtube one. It might even en…
It is a question of semantics and word choice really - pretty sure that if they had said "Login with your Google Account" instead of "Upgrade to Google+", the reaction would not have been as negative. All that the Upgrade to Google+ does is tie your Google account to Google+ - you don't have to follow anyone, post anything or fill out any details of you profile. So they could have just called it : We are tying / conv…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much does Google gain from having a bunch of people who technically have G+ accounts, but don't actually use them for anything aside from liking/disliking videos?
They gain a bunch of people with an easy and painless upgrade path to G+ usage if/when their friends start using it. It reduces the technical friction, which is always the biggest blocker for early adopters. Like most people, all of my friends use Facebook more or less exclusively. But I know if I have a photo in my G+ account (the Android app syncs all photos to the G+ cloud by default) I can send people a link and…
Do they, or do they just piss people off and result in them using their services less? When Google mandated migrating youtube accounts to G+, I just let mine rot.