Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

news.ycombinator.com

261–270 of 282 posts

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#261
post #196
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It leads to idiotic decisions like killing Google Reader instead committing to serving a long tail of diverse communities. Reader was even more significant than that: had they actually been trying to make Google+ a desirable service, first-class integration with Reader would have brought a large, very active core of G+ users to launch the new service. Instead, they shipped something which had obviously had almost n…

I've had nothing buy a joyous experience there. Spam? Don't add spam to your activity feed. Just remove it from your circles, gone. An intern built it? It's one of the most finely crafted, expensive looking pieces of social software that has ever been built. Excuse me but what the hell is this fantasy about Google plus? I'm not convinced that Reader was shut down and that Google plus was meant to be its replacement,…

> Spam? Don't add spam to your activity feed. Just remove it from your circles, gone.

For the first couple years, there was no way to avoid notification spam if, say, “Real Russian Pharama” added you to a circle. This included push notification spam for at least a year – they added a setting after ~6 months but it didn't actually work, requiring the iOS app to be uninstalled to stop it.

> An intern built it? It's one of the most finely crafted, expensive looking pieces of social software that has ever been built.

a) Scrolling the G+ timeline would show this is a very rosy depiction: notice how it's jerky even in Chrome? Hit the spacebar and notice how, unlike almost every other page on the web, you can't scroll? Now try touch scrolling on WebKit and notice that it's being faked in JavaScript, which is why it's incredibly janky.

b) I was specifically referring to the Google+ integration they replaced Reader's social features with: it went from something which provided a simple way to share items, see other public shares and comments on the same item and see what your friends had shared to a simple button which didn't work on mobile devices (the dialog was clipped so none of it was visible) for at least a year and there was no attempt to see other shares of the same item, aggregate the same item being shared by multiple people you follow, or make it possible to see Reader shares separate from, say, status updates by people in your circles.

> And a flamboyant hate for a product they refuse to use no matter what, which is a very carefully designed and free social product.

I tried using it heavily when it first came out. I still use it more than most other people I know but … much as I might have wanted Google to give Facebook competition, they just failed to produce a quality product. I was willing to put up with bugs at launch but when there were basic QA oversights which took a year to fix (i.e. notification spam above) it was really obvious that it's about making something they want to push as a wedge against Facebook rather than something you'd choose to use — when anyone who actually uses it could find basic bugs in a few minutes, so it's unbelievable that nobody at Google noticed or was able to fix them in anything like their normal timeframe.

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#262
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you missed this: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115668950429167517685/posts/hTe4...

I'm entirely confused by this. I have my G+ account linked with youtube. Just now I unlinked them, and changed the visible name from one that was obviously mine to a more anonymous name and posted a comment with absolutely no issue. No picture, no name, no link to me. And this is from after linking the accounts and then unlinking them (which took under a minute to do and was pretty easy to find).

So I guess you also missed the part where her comment showed up on her real name and it surprised her?

(and let me ask in advance not to give me that "she may have accidentally clicked some button on one of those popups and given permission" crap. That's like seeing the vampire's fangs in someone's neck and saying "But you invited him over for dinner!")

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#263

Internally, G+ is marketed as a unified login/account system. Management's stated reasoning goes something like: * It's silly to force users to have separate accounts for Google services because most users would prefer to have Gmail, Docs/Drive, YouTube, Calendar, and so on under the same account/identity. * Users who want to have separate public identities will create pseudonymous "Pages" for each of their identitie…

But it's obviously more than that. One example; YouTube content creators now get notified of comments to their videos on G+ instead of directly on YouTube (I have yet to actually find these notifications on G+, but that's another issue). So this is an obvious grab for more G+ users/activity. No one actually believes that this nonsense is all being done to provide a single sign-on.

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#264
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm entirely confused by this. I have my G+ account linked with youtube. Just now I unlinked them, and changed the visible name from one that was obviously mine to a more anonymous name and posted a comment with absolutely no issue. No picture, no name, no link to me. And this is from after linking the accounts and then unlinking them (which took under a minute to do and was pretty easy to find).

So I guess you also missed the part where her comment showed up on her real name and it surprised her? (and let me ask in advance not to give me that "she may have accidentally clicked some button on one of those popups and given permission" crap. That's like seeing the vampire's fangs in someone's neck and saying "But you invited him over for dinner!")

BTW I have my own story about this.

I actually have two Google accounts, my "real" one and the one I use to joke around on video game clips on YouTube. When Google strongarmed the second one into g+, I knew that even if I decided I wanted g+ for some reason, I would never, ever, ever want a g+ page on that YouTube account.

So imagine my surprise when I received an email beginning:

"This email was sent to you because you indicated that you'd like to receive Google+ Pages performance suggestions and updates"

Go to Hell, Google. I asked for no such thing, and if you somehow tricked me into accidentally not opting out of any such thing, you can still go to Hell. So if anyone says g+ tricked them into something, I'm going to believe them barring hard evidence to the contrary.

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#265
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an admittedly harsh critic of G+ (though I very honestly wanted to like it). Someone who's more inclined to be favorable is Robert Scoble. He worked under Vic Gundotra at Microsoft, and joined the service early. He's also had a long list of rather frighteningly consistent complaints: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/9mA8XCdu... https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/BKwDFRxJYqT https://plus.…

Wow that is awful what you made. What?

Care to be specific?

I'd accept a value judgement, but I'd be very curious as to what you do or don't like in particular.

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's equally silly to force users who'd established and clearly indicated they wished to maintain separate accounts for separate services, to integrate these. Doing so where the user had clearly indicated they didn't wish that to happen was even worse. Forcing users to not be able to independently toggle whether or not services were enabled for an account is another. I neither want my pseudonymous G+ account ("Edward…

> A proxy front-end to YouTube would be helpful seen http://fixyt.com ?

Thanks. I just saw that earlier today elsewhere. Think I may start using it.

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#267
post #261
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had nothing buy a joyous experience there. Spam? Don't add spam to your activity feed. Just remove it from your circles, gone. An intern built it? It's one of the most finely crafted, expensive looking pieces of social software that has ever been built. Excuse me but what the hell is this fantasy about Google plus? I'm not convinced that Reader was shut down and that Google plus was meant to be its replacement,…

> Spam? Don't add spam to your activity feed. Just remove it from your circles, gone. For the first couple years, there was no way to avoid notification spam if, say, “Real Russian Pharama” added you to a circle. This included push notification spam for at least a year – they added a setting after ~6 months but it didn't actually work, requiring the iOS app to be uninstalled to stop it. > An intern built it? It's one…

  > For the first couple years, there was no way to avoid
  > notification spam if, say, “Real Russian Pharama” added
  > you to a circle.
Plus launched on September 20, 2011 -- that's just over two years old. The default notification setting changed from "everyone" to "extended circles" in October 2011, which blocked notifications when strangers mention you in a post.

The default for being added to a circle is still to notify you regardless of whether you know the other party, which seems to match the behavior of most other social networks (people like to know who's watching them).

  > Scrolling the G+ timeline would show this is a very rosy
  > depiction: notice how it's jerky even in Chrome? Hit the
  > spacebar and notice how, unlike almost every other page
  > on the web, you can't scroll?
Scrolling is smooth for me in Chrome on MacOS. The spacebar pages down properly, and shift+spacebar pages up. You might want to verify whether the behavior you're seeing is due to a misbehaving browser extension or user script.

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#268
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. The only system with a separate login was ever YouTube, and I think that may have only apploed if your account was ancient anyway.

> The only system with a separate login was ever YouTube Rewrite history much? Every platform Google ever acquired had it's own login, and Google didn't have a login for a loooong time. But all of that is besides the point. This is not about SSO, this is about an SSO fully integrated with a service geared at destroying anonymity and privacy. I wouldn't mind a single Google login if that was what it was: a login, a us…

OK, look: the other people who responded about orher systems Google had that had other login systems (hours before you) were both constructive (showing specific examples) and general not jerks about it... They also kept this thread about SSO on topic--jmillikin specifically states "unified login/account system"--nor did they then decide to respond this negative without any real argument. The whole point of this Ask HN was that a bunch of us dislike G+, but the goal was to discuss the reasons why G+ was being pushed internally at Google, and some people from Google were nice enough to actually respond, so let's do away with the random "service geared at destroying anonymity and privacy" rhetoric for a minute.

So: I'm sorry. I did mess this one up. I don't think, however, that my mistake was actually important from the perspective of the article. I've been using some of the services people are saying had third party login support now for many many years, and unlike YouTube I do not remember ever seeing any kind of disconnection between account models used on each. Maybe they were just integrated faster, or maybe its because I had a YouTube account that was ancient and had options that others long since did not.

But either way: it doesn't seem like SSO is an argument for Google+. Google already had single sign on, and to the extent to which it ever had separate login systems that it maintained for its acquisitions they were all rapidly merged. Maybe even in the case of YouTube (which I still feel was different, give that as recently as a year ago I remember still having the ability to manipulate my underlying YouTube account).

Forcing the account to use G+ does make it get forced to use the underlying picture and name from the other account. I can see that as being vaguely interesting. But that goes beyond a "unified login/account system".

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#269

Not a google employee, but this disgusting mistreatment of its users may actually be a good thing if it blows up in their faces. My prediction is that the change to automatically showing the users g+ profile pic next to comments will be what gets them in hot water by empowering stalkers and trolls. Here's a simple example, if you go to the video for Miley Cyrus - Wrecking Ball, there are the usual back and forth comm…

Doesn't Facebook comments also show users profile picture? I've never seen anyone criticize the use of Facebook profiles for commenting, and I really don't see the real difference between this and using Google+ for commenting.

Re: Ask HN: Google employees, why is G+ more important than your users?

#270
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTF !? I see on the dashboard I now can "manage my devices", click on it and ... get something like "Authorize the manager to use geolocation data" with _only_ an accept button. I can't even say No ! This is way out of line. They lost it. It's not mismanagement, it's concious dark pattern all over the place. It rubs me the very wrong way.

Uh, looks like there is a misunderstanding about what that manage devices link is for. It takes you to the device manager, which allows you to track the location of your Android devices (which you've enabled it on). So it does need location data, that's not unreasonable.

Well, it that's the case Google should really start to be very careful about wording and explanations. How I am suppose to know ? After the fact by accepting something I don't want to ? Discovering it by bitching on HN is not the solution. If I want to manage my device, I don't want to locate it. At best a locator is a inner functionality a device manager. But the real question here is : is it misunderstanding on my side or misleading on Google's ?

It's ambiguous and given Google's recent trend I am a very lot less forgiven than i used to be. The more pushee they are, the less forgiven people will be, even the small mistakes will be less well received.

That's my strong and unobjective opinion. Google is getting too pushee to my taste. I pushback.

Post reply on HN