21–30 of 131 posts
Interesting, but doesn't speak too well of Google. Shouldn't Google know how people were using Google Reader before deciding to axe it? And even if that information's in a different part of the company, shouldn't the chief architect of Google+ have access to it?
Well regardless of what data google has about Reader's use... the best way to really understand how people used it is to ask.
Interesting, but doesn't speak too well of Google. Shouldn't Google know how people were using Google Reader before deciding to axe it? And even if that information's in a different part of the company, shouldn't the chief architect of Google+ have access to it?
Well regardless of what data google has about Reader's use... the best way to really understand how people used it is to ask.
G+ can't be google reader for two reasons: 1. Information density. Magazine style / tiles / graphics etc aren't the same as single line expandable headline with maybe 40 headlines visible per screen height. 2. Just the content. Reader didn't try to guess what you wanted to read or notify you what your friends were up to.
Yeah, I really don't understand what he's looking for here. He wants constructive criticism about what parts of Google Reader were useful, but if you complain at all, your comment will be deleted. Google Reader itself was the useful piece. It aggregates RSS feeds. I don't really know how else you can explain that "yes, it aggregated RSS feeds, and I like to read all of my RSS feeds in one place".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's asking for specific elements of the reader that people found useful, enjoyable, easy to use. I'd say that's valuable. How is it not?
So like, the "Subscribe" button, and the list view? That's what was useful. I really don't get what he's aiming for here... obscure features that may have existed that only some people thought were useful?
Do the benefits of an RSS reader really need explanation? Or is he simply hoping to hear some unexpected input from this?
He's asking for specific elements of the reader that people found useful, enjoyable, easy to use. I'd say that's valuable. How is it not?
"Comments which disregard the previous paragraph will simply be deleted. Comments complaining about my deleting those comments will result in me blocking and/or mercilessly mocking you for failing to read instructions. Comments complaining about that will lead to some interesting replies in a combination of languages, probably starting with Yiddish and moving on from there. " I just love this offensive/defensive writ…
G+ can't be google reader for two reasons: 1. Information density. Magazine style / tiles / graphics etc aren't the same as single line expandable headline with maybe 40 headlines visible per screen height. 2. Just the content. Reader didn't try to guess what you wanted to read or notify you what your friends were up to.
That is the philosophy of G+, though-- to cannibalize Google into a Facebook clone. G+ is like the evil vizier whispering in the senile monarch's ear.
G+ can't be google reader for two reasons: 1. Information density. Magazine style / tiles / graphics etc aren't the same as single line expandable headline with maybe 40 headlines visible per screen height. 2. Just the content. Reader didn't try to guess what you wanted to read or notify you what your friends were up to.
I 'circled' a bunch of people from the numerous Hacker News communities on G+, and I see far too many pictures and videos in the feed. And mostly personal life stuff, like their pets, or lunch, or some trees or whatever. (This is also my current complaint with App.net, but that's a different story).
I really wish there were a way to filter by post type (text and links only) in Google+, to bring it even one small step closer to replacing Reader.
Yeah, I really don't understand what he's looking for here. He wants constructive criticism about what parts of Google Reader were useful, but if you complain at all, your comment will be deleted. Google Reader itself was the useful piece. It aggregates RSS feeds. I don't really know how else you can explain that "yes, it aggregated RSS feeds, and I like to read all of my RSS feeds in one place".
i also think this line of thinking is silly. the Googler is assuming a set of features is what made Google Reader the best RSS reader on the market. while that is true in essence (features do add up to the overall product) i don't think any 1 feature in reader was killer. rather, the collection of all the features made the app itself killer.
Even when they aren't.