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

71–80 of 131 posts

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

#71

Post by roc »

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.

1. The popular RSS readers all seem/seemed to be moving toward looking like Reeder and Flipboard, moreso than Google Reader's Web UI. It seems that UI is/was only necessary for a niche of the niche.

2. And yet there were non-trivial complaints Google Reader lost its original sharing/social functionality. So clearly not everyone prefers the social-less implementation. And fewer still would seem completely off-put by a social panel they can tune out and ignore (as they already were ignoring it on Google Reader's rise).

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

#72

Post by libria »

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 don't get it either. I mean, if he really wants to make me happy but can only build in the context of G+, make a "Reader" tab and open up Reader in an iframe that takes up 90% of the page (outer frame optional). There's nothing about G+'s layout (or mission?) that will be conducive to feed reading.

This is like asking me what I like about burgers so you can make a better salad.

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

#73

Post by roc »

javajosh wrote: post #65
roc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His assumption only requires the group that's replacing Google Reader to have been aware of and involved in the effort to replace Google Reader. Which seems pretty reasonable.

There is a much simpler explanation: the lead of one project is looking to improve his project however he can. In this case, he sees the ruckus over Reader as a chance to get a bunch of feature requests. It's kind of like a vulture picking over a carcass, but hey, circle of life and all that. It's important to remember that to Google products like Reader are blips on the radar. Every second they spent scheming about…

I would find it difficult to believe that Google+ wouldn't have already been looking into getting news feed subscriptions into their product. An RSS-style solution with discoverability would leap-frog Facebook's News stuff and could even put them into quasi-competition with Twitter.

It seems an inevitable sort of feature.

So the idea that they were surprised by this and are going to start from zero to build a new bit of G+ seems... a stretch.

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

#74

Post by dannyr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #67
dannyr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google never get feedback from users. They don't even beta test when they build products.

> They don't even beta test when they build products. Uh... Gmail pretty much started the "launch your web app as a beta" craze.

Dude, do I need to put a sarcasm tag?

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

#75

Post by rtwtlkj »

xradionut wrote: post #62

Wow! Google appears to be out of touch if they haven't actively been doing user research and surveys. Makes me wonder if it's not arrogance...

>>Makes me wonder if it's not arrogance...

Trying to parse this sentence, you are implying that you thought their actions could be explained by arrogance and now you think it is something else. Correct?

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

#76

Post by roc »

scott_s wrote: post #70
roc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, I assumed it was a PR move to make Google appear responsive when they inevitably add an RSS-ish feature to syndicate news subscriptions into google+ feeds, as opposed to appearing like a malevolent plan to kill a beloved service to push more people into google+. Hence it's counter-productive to mention the shutdown in negative terms, as that associates the two efforts in a way that underscores the latte…

If it came from an executive or a press release, perhaps I would have assumed that. But it came from an engineer.

"an engineer", Chief Architect, same difference, right?

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

#78

Post by tbatchelli »

What I find most interesting from this post is his belated admission of the brokenness of G+ when he writes "(NB: If you're seeing this via a reshare, please remember to comment on the original post if you want me to see what you're saying!)"...

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

#80

Post by xradionut »

rtwtlkj wrote: post #75
xradionut wrote: post #62

Wow! Google appears to be out of touch if they haven't actively been doing user research and surveys. Makes me wonder if it's not arrogance...

>>Makes me wonder if it's not arrogance... Trying to parse this sentence, you are implying that you thought their actions could be explained by arrogance and now you think it is something else. Correct?

I'm not sure if it's arrogance or ignorance. Consider that Google has access to an extreme amount of user data and usage data. Did they analyzed that, then draw conclusions? Did they "assume" they knew best, since they are some of the smartest folks around? Actually asking users for opinions after the deciding to shut Reader down and getting a backlash seems to be a misstep on their part...
Post reply on HN