Success is what you make it Internet marketing on the next level https://souniqueincome.com
Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
81–90 of 733 posts
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that was by design. Trying to sweep it under the covers to avoid outrage. I share that article with friends and they're likely to read the first half of the headline and not bother reading it.
Serious question, is anybody going to be outraged by sunsetting G+?
I'm not outraged, but I do use it and I will need to figure out a replacement for the conversations I currently have there.
But I only have those conversations with a small number of people, so I can't argue against Google's usage conclusions.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#83The use of the word "sunset" as a verb in posts like this is fucking infuriating. Yes, software types know what it means, but this is a consumer product with tens of millions of users, who have no familiarity with that term. It's a weasel word. The way to say this is in plain English. We're closing, shutting down, turning off, discontinuing, or something.
What? Sunsetting something is used outside of software. Hell, it's even used to describe temporary laws ("sunset law"). It's also used for brands and business policies. And, sure, it might not make the top list of 1000 words you might hear on the street on any given day, but it's also very easy to search for. That doesn't make it a weasel word.
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.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#84I wonder what G+ could have done to pivot after its terrible release. They had some good ideas, and usually Google takes those good ideas of a failed product and rolls it into successful products. Remember Google Wave, where you could work on a document _at the same time_?
Something like the automatic generation of circles in Google Mail, and integrate some kind of generalized wall posts for Google Mail users.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#85So, does it mean they will bring "+" back to search to make it usable again?
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#86The use of the word "sunset" as a verb in posts like this is fucking infuriating. Yes, software types know what it means, but this is a consumer product with tens of millions of users, who have no familiarity with that term. It's a weasel word. The way to say this is in plain English. We're closing, shutting down, turning off, discontinuing, or something.
That's not true. Sunset years - to mean "a period of decline, especially the last years of a person's life" - is pretty well known. Irrespective of my background that's the first thought that pop into my head.
That's an adjective. "Sunsetting" as a verb is an obnoxious use of language to avoid saying "we failed and are closing"
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#87Earlier 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…
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…
Seems to me like PM's would think in the most positive terms about the same issue, e.g. what is the maximum amount of ad space that we can use before users lose interest?
No one would directly attempt to be evil, it'd just turn out that way.
“The truly terrible thing is that everybody has their reasons.” ― Jean Renoir
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#88"it has not achieved broad consumer or developer adoption"
I bet G+ has more active users than your average indie developer could ever dream about. But Google is not that kind of company. It's all or nothing. World domination or shut it down and try again (or buy a company that succeeded).
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#89Earlier 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…
Erm, Facebook did implement something like this. Shortly after Google+ came out. You can still assign friends to different groups.
>Shortly after Google+ came out.
I remember Facebook having it first; this blog post (https://jessicavitak.com/2011/09/01/facebooks-circles-how-to...) confirms that.
Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers
#90Google+ 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…
It's a nice idea in theory but I prefer the current solution of completely separating your circles into different apps.
Work/Career - LinkedIn, topics of interest - Twitter/Reddit, personal stuff - FB, etc.
If your feed is spammy you should unfriend/unfollow the users who you don't want to see.