201–210 of 276 posts
Google needs to refocus on search and advertising, and put more effort into R&D that might actually have world impact and significant ROI like perfecting and licensing driverless car technology.
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.
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?
NB: I haven't done the upgrade, but I'm presuming that when you opt into it you come to a page that exhorts you to give them your profile with your 'real' name on there instead of whatever you might have had previously in your Google account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with those safeguards, it is still possible to create a phony/spam G+ account. Asking for more information doesn't solve the problem, it simply forces the user to fabricate more information in the beginning during the sign up process.
The user, however, doesn't know the consequences of subverting the form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Big difference between upvoting a video on YouTube for other people on YouTube and giving a +1 to a video that could possibly go on your Google+ wall (if that even exists), influence your search results in ways you don't want, or show up awkwardly in other strange ways while using other Google products like Gmail. The real problem is the effects are unknown and upvoting is no longer a contained action with a specific…
> giving a +1 to a video that could possibly go on your Google+ wall (if that even exists) It does not exist. You can specifically Share a video with Circles. > influence your search results in ways you don't want, In the upper right on your Search page, you can click "Hide personal results." > or show up awkwardly in other strange ways while using other Google products like Gmail [citation needed] > The real problem…
Sorry. I'm a busy person, and I simply can no longer be bothered to learn (or to fully think through) the consequences of pressing any given "like," "unlike," "+1," or other button on the social medium du jour.
It was fun for a while, but the truth is, you need to hire an attorney (or be one) to keep track of where your Web interactions and expressed preferences are going to end up nowadays. The only safe thing to do is not participate.
This is going to become more and more obvious over the next few years... and more and more problematic for anyone who actually needs to gather legitimate data from a wide cross-section of users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if hackernews replaced upvoting with tweeting, that's what they're doing.
That's not quite correct. As far as I can tell, +1'ing things does not appear in your stream and won't appear in the streams of the folks who are following you. Sharing does, but not +1'ing. +1'ing does appear on your profile under the +1 tab if 1) someone navigates over there and 2) you have made that tab visible to that person (you can control who can see that tab). If someone visits the object that you +1'ed, then…
The OP is correct; while technically slightly different (perhaps closer to tweeting to a protected twitter account), its basically the same thing:
Your votes are publicly viewable by your social network friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically, "Anonymous Likes" aren't really susceptible to spamming, as through the years Google developed enormous infrastructure to avoid spamming in ad-clicks. The same technology can be easily used for "Anonymous Likes." The decision to eliminate "Anonymous Likes" is not a result of technical needs, it's a decision "from the above" to force a "more social" Google.
> Technically, "Anonymous Likes" aren't really susceptible to spamming [Citation Needed] Should content show up higher in Google Search Results, if it is more Liked? By whatever system of Likes you care to design... I say "yes." That makes the "Anonymous Like" system a clear target for Search Engine Optimization. People have to pay for ads. If it turns out that the Conversion numbers for a set of search words are lou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically, "Anonymous Likes" aren't really susceptible to spamming, as through the years Google developed enormous infrastructure to avoid spamming in ad-clicks. The same technology can be easily used for "Anonymous Likes." The decision to eliminate "Anonymous Likes" is not a result of technical needs, it's a decision "from the above" to force a "more social" Google.
> Technically, "Anonymous Likes" aren't really susceptible to spamming [Citation Needed] Should content show up higher in Google Search Results, if it is more Liked? By whatever system of Likes you care to design... I say "yes." That makes the "Anonymous Like" system a clear target for Search Engine Optimization. People have to pay for ads. If it turns out that the Conversion numbers for a set of search words are lou…
Is spamming likes really a problem now, and will the SEO target evaporate once the number of accounts is reduced? I don't think so. Quite the opposite, actually.
You say people should not have to see ads they don't want to see - good luck with that. A good deal of marketing is selling to people who aren't looking to buy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Big difference between upvoting a video on YouTube for other people on YouTube and giving a +1 to a video that could possibly go on your Google+ wall (if that even exists), influence your search results in ways you don't want, or show up awkwardly in other strange ways while using other Google products like Gmail. The real problem is the effects are unknown and upvoting is no longer a contained action with a specific…
> giving a +1 to a video that could possibly go on your Google+ wall (if that even exists) It does not exist. You can specifically Share a video with Circles. > influence your search results in ways you don't want, In the upper right on your Search page, you can click "Hide personal results." > or show up awkwardly in other strange ways while using other Google products like Gmail [citation needed] > The real problem…
Lubujackson's entire point is that we don't know what the consequences will be.
As a user this makes me wonder how long it will be before I have to sign up for Google+ in order to watch youtube videos at all? Or to search?
Years later, it still annoys me that you need a Google account to sign up for YouTube.