I survived the 4 years they blasted Google+ signups at me without signing up once with my account. Luckily that dissipated after a while and things got less annoying every time I signed in. I imagine most people clicked "I agree" and created their public page. But it was really awful for the rest of us that didn't want that.
Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
361–370 of 733 posts
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#362Related discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 . Edit: here are some other articles providing coverage: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17951914/google-plus-data... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/08/google-reportedly-exposed-pr... https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/google-plus-hack/ https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45792349 https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/google-plus-shut-down-... htt…
This is not a news article, though - it's a one-sided PR piece that greatly minimizes important points about the story and completely ignores other points (e.g. the regulation angle). You should have let another news story take its spot; there are plenty others that are not paywalled.
In my opinion the entire privacy breach is a non-issue. Here is what I think happened:
Some engineer at Google found a bug in Google Plus that could be used to access private data. The issue was investigated by the security team. They find that no harm was done. Incidents like this happen somewhat regularly at any tech company. Normally nobody thinks twice about it or even thinks about disclosing it to the public.
However, Google wanted to shut down Google Plus and wanted to avoid a backslash like with Google Reader. They used this bug as a pretext. Before Google releases this blog post, the post gets leaked the WSJ. The WSJ then puts a spin on it that Google didn't expect, because the narrative fits well into the current news cycle.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#363LOL, one more example of why one should never depend on anything from Google. developer adoption Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because they never released a usable write API and were basically just a little less developer-hostile than Twitter? G+ had a lot of potential, had Google chosen to truly embrace Open Standards, federation, and usable API's. As it is, they shot themselves in the foot by creating JAWG (Just Another…
> never depend on anything from Google They're shutting it down precisely because no one was depending on it. How would anyone depend on a social network without any users?
Loads of people are depending on it, in spite of all Google's constant attempts to kill it. It started out as the best social network, and I've gotten to know tons of great people, projects and products there. It has really enriched my life in a way I don't see Facebook or Twitter doing. My Google+ friends and I will definitely miss it.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#364Earlier 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.
Just like grocery stores putting milk and bread way in the back so you have to walk by all those high margin items.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many FTEs do they have running G+? There are a bunch of OSS people that use it because Facebook sucks and Twitter is toxic. The good will from the OSS community in maintaining G+ can be easily paid for in the 250% growth you referenced. And please, save me from the 'we need to double down and focus on products that matter' - no, you need to maintain some credibility for your product ownership. That's why I don't…
Shouldn't the OSS community be using an OSS social media network like Mastodon anyway?
Not if they want a reasonable amount of people to actually see what they’ve written...
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#366Google+ had terrible marketing and release, but it had some decent ideas that I wish other networks had carried over. The idea of "circles", where you had a circle for "acquaintances" "friends", "family" would be great on, say, Facebook, as it would allow me to filter down my feed to just the people I really care about but still have a connection to more distance acquaintances. Currently on Facebook the news feed is…
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…
[deleted]
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
> never depend on anything from Google They're shutting it down precisely because no one was depending on it. How would anyone depend on a social network without any users?
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.
For one thing, it was known as the best RPG community on the Web. It was also very popular with photographers, I believe.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#368Earlier 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.
I hadn't watched broadcast TV for a while (lack of time), but when I did I'd just google whatever the teaser was, to see if it was worth waiting for. Very seldom would they have an exclusive breaking story that wasn't already all over the internet.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is where the loading bays are, so they keep the fridges nearby so cold items have less chance to heat up. Plus milk is often stocked from behind, which can only be done where they have the extra space at the back of the store.
I could buy this on smaller or older grocery stores, but the Safeways near me have 2 full aisles of frozen goods (and one additional one of refrigerated goods). These aisles extend all the way from the back to the front of the store, and are located in the center of the floor plan. The milk is still in the back, along with perishable juices. The difference between them and the aisles is that processed foods (frozen d…
Eh. Most grocery stores I’ve been to have a small milk fridge at the front near self checkout for convenience.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45792349 > "The consumer version of Google+ currently has low usage and engagement: 90% of Google+ user sessions are less than five seconds." While i'm sure power law applies, 5 seconds is a hilariously low amount of engagement for the 90%
5 seconds is literally "I clicked the wrong link from Gmail."
Yeah, I think those stats are polluted by Google's own misguided attempts to integrate it with everything.
For active users, Google+ is basically the hub from which they strike out to the rest of the Web.