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

Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 131 posts

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#31

Post by Karunamon »

ajross wrote: post #15
erehweb wrote: post #5

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?

Surely you "have access" to wikipedia, so therefore nothing there will surprise you, right? This doesn't sound so weird to me. No one was working on Google Reader. The traffic to the web app was negligible. It generated little to no revenue. And even the API traffic probably didn't amount to much. It just wasn't on the radar. The fact that got missed wasn't that Reader was a popular app, it simply wasn't, period. Wha…

>The traffic to the web app was negligible.

This is completely and demonstrably false. It drives more traffic at this point than G+ itself.

http://www.quora.com/How-many-users-does-Google-Reader-have

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#32

Post by b0sk »

jcomis wrote: post #7
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #4

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?

Wall of text from sources I have subscribed. When I press 'f' it embiggens that text to cover the whole screen. j/k for navigation. If he had spent a couple of minutes on Google Reader he'd know.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#33

Post by Mahn »

njr123 wrote: post #19
ajross wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you "have access" to wikipedia, so therefore nothing there will surprise you, right? This doesn't sound so weird to me. No one was working on Google Reader. The traffic to the web app was negligible. It generated little to no revenue. And even the API traffic probably didn't amount to much. It just wasn't on the radar. The fact that got missed wasn't that Reader was a popular app, it simply wasn't, period. Wha…

Is it really true that the web app was getting no traffic? I know quite a few non-tech people that use it to follow blogs

"No traffic" is relative; I'd say it easily had somewhere around 50-100k users. This might seem like a lot, but it's sadly peanuts for Google.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#34

Post by jcampbell1 »

Google can be damn stupid sometimes. They shutdown Google Reader which is used daily by every journalist on the planet. This resulted in a ton of bad press which was completely foreseeable. Now they have some chieftain try to change the conversation into "Tell me what you loved about Reader", under the guise that they will use your comment to help make better products. As if Google has no data on how people use Google Reader.

What is funny is how many lemmings are falling into his trap.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#36

Post by pointernil »

Are there any exploitation available reg. WHY they are closing it down? Either the users being loud about it are a minority (it that case ok close it, deal with it etc.) OR they are not, and in that case I'm wondering:

When did Google lose its sense for the needs of users on the internet?

and

What is the problem google as an enterprise is having with the service staying alive... as at the same time g+ currently simply can not replace g-reader for its users.

Strange.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#37

Post by r00fus »

nicksergeant wrote: post #6

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".

All I can gather from Google's recent moves is: "useful != profitable"... and Google's more interested in profit than utility now.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#38

Post by scott_s »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #34

Google can be damn stupid sometimes. They shutdown Google Reader which is used daily by every journalist on the planet. This resulted in a ton of bad press which was completely foreseeable. Now they have some chieftain try to change the conversation into "Tell me what you loved about Reader", under the guise that they will use your comment to help make better products. As if Google has no data on how people use Googl…

You assume that these actions were coordinated, and that all individuals in Google know about, and act on, a single vision.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#39

Post by Mahn »

reader5000 wrote: post #12

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.

> G+ can't be google reader for two reasons

Don't be fooled, though, the fact that he is asking about Google Reader does not mean they intent to implement a feeds reader within G+. They most likely believe RSS is an old technology that should be phased out, so I don't think this is happening.

Re: Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader

#40

Post by scott_s »

nicksergeant wrote: post #6

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 thought it was straight-forward: he wants to understand what it was about Reader that users liked, so he can work on incorporating them into Google+. Since he does not have the power to save Reader, he's telling people this is not the venue to complain about its shutdown.
Post reply on HN