171–180 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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?
I believe he meant reproduction in the technical sense, which is different than ramping up widespread use of a social product.
This is annoying, but how is it a huge mistake on Google's part? Sure, they're going to annoy a few people, but I think that these tactics forcing people to use G+ will probably work. People will be forced onto this G+ platform whether they like it or not; the mass exodus threats about any social networking platform never materialize into anything more than a few users deactivating their accounts.
Actually I do think it's a big mistake and here is a simple reason why: I was wanting to share a Google document with family members a year ago. And those without Google accounts simply were not interested in getting one - despite my want for them to access the document. When I said it was quite simple to get themselves a log in they still weren't interested. They just didn't want to sign up to yet another service.
Overall, it seems to me it's probably both more likely than a random family member will have a Google account, and/or be willing to sign up for one, than sign up for a different service that's less well-known and has fewer services based on that login.
While I appreciate the sentiment and agree with his point of view, his simply telling Google 'go fuck yourself' doesn't really offer an in-depth critique of why these changes or wrong -- it just smacks of the same old 'Everything that's new sucks' sentiment that I can and do find on IRC every day already. Leave the analyses to the real UX folks.
That's his express of strong emotion, which is a very important data point for UX. Emotion trumps cool analytic fact in any day for UX. When a user is extremely annoyed, you change you UI/UX.
Uh, no, it doesn't, at least not at any responsible software project I've worked on. The whole reason you run experiments, A/B testing, etc is so that this doesn't happen.
> It is bad for viewers, bad for video creators, and bad for YouTube’s ability to curate and tailor videos to potential viewers. First, a question: any random person on the internet, without being logged in, used to be able to Thumb Up a YouTube video? If that's true, then I bet it was very easy to spam. Giving it a Thumb Up, without being logged in, would also mean that none of your friends had any idea that you had…
Imagine if hackernews replaced upvoting with tweeting, that's what they're doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is my take on things but happy to hear other views. Google (and Facebook) are advertising based so try thinking about it in terms of how well they know their users. The better they know their users, the more specifically they can target ads to them. For example, if I wanted to reach 20-somethings, who really like pizza and motorbikes, travel widely and currently reside on the west coast, FB can put ads in front…
I have to say that it sounds like an excellent reason to drop gmail and move away from google products. I don't _want_ advertisers to know more about me.
It's like a stock exchange -- you say you want to sell 30 shares of AAPL, and you're anonymously matched with someone that wants to buy 30 shares of AAPL. Only the exchange knows who both parties to the transaction are, protecting you from evil transaction partners.
Now, if you don't trust the exchange, that's a problem. But if you are worried about using the exchange because you don't trust every possible trading party, that's incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
In order to get a Google+ account, you have to give them a lot more information than you do to just get a normal Google account. And you have to use your real name or they'll disable you entire account - including email etc.
No, not true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh... masklinn was self-admittedly "pissed off", Will Wheaton "made a rageface" and posted "go fuck yourself, Google"., I paraphrased those both to "bone to pick" because I thought it sounded better. What is "astounding" about that? They sound like synonyms to me. Do you have an argument with the substance of what I wrote (regarding average users' reacions to youtube merging accounts with G+)?
A "bone to pick" implies a preexisting grudge, which is different from simply being displeased with one decision or other.
This UK source isn't quite the connotation, though the reference to the Irish usage matches the American English one pretty well: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/30/messages/2182.ht...
Given that two of you now have gone out of your way to deliberately (and uncharitably) misinterpret me: are you sure that I am the one with a preexisting grudge?
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.
A "bone to pick" implies a preexisting grudge, which is different from simply being displeased with one decision or other.
Good grief. No, it doesn't. "I have a bone to pick with you" is a statement of immediate annoyance. Here's a thefreedictionary reference that matches my understanding. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+a+bone+to+pick+with This UK source isn't quite the connotation, though the reference to the Irish usage matches the American English one pretty well: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/30/messages/2182.ht.…