What happens to the old content?
(Also, small thin sans-serif grey body font means you hate your readers' eyes.)
Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
181–190 of 733 posts
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#182Funny how they low-key slip through, the fact that they had an open security vulnerability for 3 years. Like "Hey, we are shutting down Google+ ... Btw, your data may have or may have not been exposed..."
I think that's the bigger issue here. For 3 years there was a vulnerability. And when they did find out about it, they chose not to disclose the information. Why? B/c there wasn't that many people using it. And so because of that, let's shut down G+, rather than be scrutinized about how they chose not to let it be know, that users information were available through this vulnerability.
this is the same company that threatens other companies that if they don’t patch a vulnerability fast enough, the time will release it to the public. class act
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're shutting it down precisely because no one was depending on it. How would anyone depend on a social network without any users? It did have users. I have no idea the exact number, and clearly it wasn't as many as Facebook, but it wasn't the ghost town people always made it out to be. Some of the Communities were actually quite active.
Where are these Communities, exactly?
They're niche, often private, but they do exist.
Their only advantage to Facebook groups was more natural (temporal, not recommended) sorting of data.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're shutting it down precisely because no one was depending on it. How would anyone depend on a social network without any users? It did have users. I have no idea the exact number, and clearly it wasn't as many as Facebook, but it wasn't the ghost town people always made it out to be. Some of the Communities were actually quite active.
Where are these Communities, exactly?
Photography. Always lots of nice photos.
Some Linux kernel devs IIRC (I do not hang there).
Some local people.
One user I followed who was very into clean energy solutions.
Gardening (vegetables, chilies, general).
Ham radio.
The thing I never saw on Google+ was politics (I guess it is there but I never looked for it and never found it : )
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#185What exactly does "sunsetting consumer Google+" mean? The blog post wasn't particularly enlightening. Are they shutting down Google+ as a social network?
What exactly does "sunsetting consumer Google+" mean? The blog post wasn't particularly enlightening. Are they shutting down Google+ as a social network? FTA: Action 1: We are shutting down Google+ for consumers. seems pretty obvious that's the case.
I mean, I get the term "sunsetting" - that isn't the problem. I don't know what "consumer Google+" means. I can guess that it might refer to the use of Google+ by ordinary people as a social network, but I'm far from certain of that interpretation.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#186I liked Google+, but this is one of the reasons why I stopped using it. I think it was around the time they cancelled Google Reader. By randomly cancelling products that are still used by lots of people, they're dooming other products before they even launched.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no way Facebook would ever implement something like this. The whole point of the Facebook feed tinkering is to force you to wade through a river of shit to find the nuggets you are interested in. The feed algorithm is all about making that river just slightly short of unbearable, because the river is where they stuff all the ads. If they provided you with useful filters it would make the revenue opportunitie…
The milk is always at the back of the store.
I am not so sure this matters. At least in my experience if they put the milk in the front of the store I would run through it and be confused.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no way Facebook would ever implement something like this. The whole point of the Facebook feed tinkering is to force you to wade through a river of shit to find the nuggets you are interested in. The feed algorithm is all about making that river just slightly short of unbearable, because the river is where they stuff all the ads. If they provided you with useful filters it would make the revenue opportunitie…
I'd like to think that's not true, but it wouldn't be the first time such a technique has been used, apparently successfully. Witness the local TV news which is always teasing that some story is coming up next, only to put it at the very end of the broadcast so that you have to watch the whole 30 minute program (including commercials) to hear the 1 minute you care about.
[deleted]
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a Xoogler I agree completely. The whole social debacle distracted the company from a more important goal (cloud) and now google has to play catch up to AWS and Azure. This was a case where a very large number of Googlers tried to advise leadership on some of its more boneheaded decisions and had to work overtime to deal with the problems and fallout.
Very good insight. If you think about it, Google benefits from proliferation of third party websites, thus cloud business is synergetic with Google search. Facebook and Google+ are competitive with Google search since they centralize the web. For many, Google search reduced to a search engine for Wikipedia and StackOverflow and a couple of other big sites. This poses a long-term threat for search.
When I was at google, the one thing I took away was that most of the terrible decisions such as described above were very widely panned before being released inside the company. Everyone one of them. That doesn't mean the group of engineers was always right, but they were very good at pointing out bad, controversial ideas.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absolutely a weasel word, because there are plenty of common and clear ways to say this. The only reason it exists is so companies don't have to use words that connote a lack of success.
I think it exists because it's a concise way to communicate "this is ending, and will end in a predetermined amount of time, but it has not yet ended" in the same manner that sunset indicates that a day is ending but has not ended yet.
I'm a non-native speaker and sunsetting is not clear to me. I guessed what it means because I know Google and how popular Google+ is (in relative terms, I'm sure there's still hundreds of thousands of people who will lose contacts over this), but if someone had said Cloudflare is sunsetting, I'd just not have known what it meant.
And even knowing what it means, as I do now, I wouldn't say that sunsetting is any clearer in communicating that it's "going to" end than "shutting down" or "stopping" Google+. It's not as if the proposal said "ended" or "shut down" Google+, the "are" in something like "We're shutting down Google+" signals continuation to me.