Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#501

Post by __jal »

colordrops wrote: post #175
8ytecoder wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very cynical view of things. I'm not a product manager - but I can't imagine one sitting in a room thinking about all the evil ways to make the feed harder for people to find relevant posts. I can, however, perfectly imagine a PM who is "extremely numbers driven" to look a bad version of the algorithm that increases the time users spend shifting through shit and assume that the algorithm is a huge success b…

Well to be frank I've been in these meetings and yes people do intentionally think of dark patterns. If people are willing to sit in war rooms to murder people and Wall Street board rooms to steal pensions, it shouldn't seem so unbelievable that someone could intentionally obfuscate a social media timeline. In fact they use more technical language, such as "engagement", to discuss these topics so that it seems less r…

Yes, jargon is a very important aspect.

"Lard it up with debt, fire down to a skeleton-crew and stop all maintenance" sounds bad, like you're killing the company or something. "Unlocking value", hey, doesn't that sound better?

Similarly, "Let's get rich creating the second-coming of AOL by building a tacky nextgen panopticon" doesn't sound that great. "Creating a community of technical greats to bring people together and foster blah blah blah", while a completely bullshit nothing-statement, seems to shift focus off of the surveillance capitalism. For a bit.

Eventually, though, if you make your living sniffing other peoples' panties, eventually they notice and they take measures to limit your access to their laundry. FB and Google are both blocked entirely by IP at my gateway (along with a bunch of other surveillance shops), and the internet at home is so much nicer than what I see other people putting up with.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#503

Post by srtjstjsj »

spenczar5 wrote: post #449
fipple wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it hard to believe the quote? This has been the MO of mass entertainment since the gladiators fought the lions.

It's just so bald. I hadn't seen anyone at Facebook so openly describing things like "exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology." They usually say stuff like "bringing people together," "connecting the world," etc.

Sean Parker wasn't at Facebook during that interview. This was after his unamicable separation.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#504

Post by Macha »

Twirrim wrote: post #350
zmmmmm wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, people keep rewriting the history, but I remember it exactly: there was enormous enthusiasm and hype around G+. Developers, tech enthusiasts everywhere were "queuing around the block" to get on board with it and to stick it to Facebook. Then Google did two things: - announced no API access - real names policy debacle Between those two things they completely destroyed all good will and within months it was essent…

They could have survived the real names policy debate, if the API had been there. But that was one hell of a double-whammy.

I especially found it interesting how supporters portrayed it as an issue that people would get over, but in the end G+ never took off and YouTube users nearly revolted over it and they also found it did nothing to improve discourse on YouTube even when many users relented.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#505

Post by buboard »

mindgam3 wrote: post #373

RIP. Like so many of Google’s high profile efforts (anyone remember Wave? Glass, etc), a bunch of good ideas and great tech brought down by an utter failure to understand the human element/social psychology angle. Google+ was dead in the water from day one. You don’t beat Facebook at social by building a slightly different product with some cool ideas like Circles. Going for feature parity was a mistake. Instead they…

> finally admitting defeat.

Not so much defeat , but more avoiding future liability. They sure could afford to run it , but under the current circumstances, a data leak like the one they claim they didn't have would be very damaging to their image and their moneymakers.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#506

Post by srtjstjsj »

anonacct37 wrote: post #359
pkulak wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even have to be intentional. Imagine endless ABX testing to increase ad views and session time, cycling through countless feed algorithms. The winners could very well end up being the ones that are most frustrating for the user, but with product and engineering just thinking they are running some tests and reaching goals.

I strongly believe stuff like this doesn't happen by accident. It's easy to write pieces about how a soulless algorithm is determining stuff and we can all be sad about it, but in my experience, that's rarely true. There's almost always at least a software developer (or technical person of some sort) calling out "Hey, are you sure we should rank by $X? It will have this edge case in situations $Y and $X?". Usually th…

Why would people intentionally use an ad-hoc solution that is less effective than the one determined by machine learning?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#507

Post by srtjstjsj »

Yhippa wrote: post #364
adrianmonk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No you don't. You can can walk around the outside so you only see the cheap raw produce, bakery, and dairy. There are also plenty of low margin items in the middle (canned beans) and high margin items in the back (meat and fancy dairy)

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#508

Post by srtjstjsj »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #243
adrianmonk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Our local station started doing this where they would list the stories coming up on the right hand side of the screen. They held to it for about two weeks. Then they kept it, but then continually shifted the stories during commercial breaks. After many, many complaints, they finally got rid of it. Other networks I watch, they still do the same thing. On the NHL Network, you'll see a story about a big trade coming up…

Why do you watch and wait if you can get the headlines from websites?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#509

Post by mindgam3 »

bcherny wrote: post #494
mindgam3 wrote: post #373

RIP. Like so many of Google’s high profile efforts (anyone remember Wave? Glass, etc), a bunch of good ideas and great tech brought down by an utter failure to understand the human element/social psychology angle. Google+ was dead in the water from day one. You don’t beat Facebook at social by building a slightly different product with some cool ideas like Circles. Going for feature parity was a mistake. Instead they…

> Instead they should have tried to identify a niche where Facebook was failing (say, intimate private sharing, or the antithesis of the narcissist fest) and build up a loyal core of rabidly passionate users, then slowly expanded from there. Great advice for a YC startup, but not how big companies that already have large user bases operate. Big companies have a metric they want to drive, then look for big opportuniti…

Right. But the reason big companies fail at this is because they don’t have the balls to pursue optimal longterm strategy in the face of quicker near term wins. There’s nothing preventing a big company from thinking like a nimble startup, other than fear/lack of vision coming from the top. If the CEO stuck to his or her guns, they could outcompete startups for these opportunities.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#510

Post by srtjstjsj »

nostrademons wrote: post #267
notahappycamper wrote: post #217

Earlier 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…

Most people, given the choice, consume more than only milk.
Post reply on HN