21–30 of 32 posts
Did I really want this generations monopoly in on my social data as well? If Search== Windows and Apps == Office do I really want Google having access to my social data too? A healthy skeptic, getting more and more paranoid....
Did I really want this generations monopoly in on my social data as well? If Search== Windows and Apps == Office do I really want Google having access to my social data too? A healthy skeptic, getting more and more paranoid....
Did I really want this generations monopoly in on my social data as well? If Search== Windows and Apps == Office do I really want Google having access to my social data too? A healthy skeptic, getting more and more paranoid....
Don't post private information online and you should be fine.
I don't know if Google announced this earlier, but this post just released more granular active (I assume monthly) user numbers for G+ than I've seen: "More than 500 million people have upgraded, 235 million are active across Google (+1'ing apps in Google Play, hanging out in Gmail, connecting with friends in Search...), and 135 million are active in just the stream."
I don't know if Google announced this earlier, but this post just released more granular active (I assume monthly) user numbers for G+ than I've seen: "More than 500 million people have upgraded, 235 million are active across Google (+1'ing apps in Google Play, hanging out in Gmail, connecting with friends in Search...), and 135 million are active in just the stream."
I thought it was very odd that Google inserted this paragraph in the beginning of a feature announcement blog post. I think it only reaffirms the inferiority complex of G+ by explicitly explaining that they are indeed a vibrant community.
Facebook does that too.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/23/facebook-announces-monthly-...
Remember when people knock Google for not announcing Google+ numbers? They are saying Google is announcing numbers because they are bad.
I don't know if Google announced this earlier, but this post just released more granular active (I assume monthly) user numbers for G+ than I've seen: "More than 500 million people have upgraded, 235 million are active across Google (+1'ing apps in Google Play, hanging out in Gmail, connecting with friends in Search...), and 135 million are active in just the stream."
I thought it was very odd that Google inserted this paragraph in the beginning of a feature announcement blog post. I think it only reaffirms the inferiority complex of G+ by explicitly explaining that they are indeed a vibrant community.
I don't think they're trying to imply anything. What's wrong with just giving you some numbers without any motivation behind it?
I am not sure if I'm following. These Communities appear to be as same as Pages with a +Name in the URL. I thought they released the feature of Pages and the + Name a while ago. So what makes Community different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm okay with that personally. The thing that bugs me is that it doesn't support multi-accounts yet. At work we use Google Apps, which I have signed in simultaneously with my personal Google account. I can pop between my personal and company GMails easily. Whenever I click on a G+ link it insists on using my company account, telling me I can't get Google+, etc etc. There's no way to switch over to my personal account…
I have exactly the same problem. My half-baked solution is to use my Google+ account in my secondary browser (e.g. Safari) and use the Google Apps accounts in the other one. It's not perfect and it's frankly the reason why I don't check into G+ that often.
The problem with this I feel and one of the advantages of Twitter is that if a certain company controls their community page (e.g. Audi USA) and I go to post some sort of customer service complaint, they have the option of removing it. With Twitter, I can just add a hashtag or @message them and it'd be visible globally with search.
You can still make a public post not in the group with +Audi or #Audi and it will function the same way Twitter does.