Slashdot Mirror


Google Launches Google+ Social Network

Randyll writes "Today, Google announced its decisive entry into the world of social networks by introducing Google+, a social network tied around Google services. Its aim is to be different from other networks with emphasis on privacy and a different kind of social networking. Instead of connecting with your friends, Google+ aims to center connections around specific groups—colleagues, projects, or groups of friends—with the ability to use high-quality video chats and a unique and rich web-based user experience. It is currently in beta with opt-in invites." Several other readers submitted speculation about another mysterious new Google service as well.

368 comments

  1. Wait, there are Google services NOT in beta? by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is currently in beta

    Am I to understand that this is notable information?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Wait, there are Google services NOT in beta? by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Informative

      The summary should have really said "limited release" rather than beta...

    2. Re:Wait, there are Google services NOT in beta? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Some of them could still be in alpha

    3. Re:Wait, there are Google services NOT in beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, Orkut may have been the beta.

    4. Re:Wait, there are Google services NOT in beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://shh.sh/ -> hyper-private social networking.

    5. Re:Wait, there are Google services NOT in beta? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Kind of. You'd thought they have learned by now that making something accessible to first a few Americans, then all Americans, then Britons, then Singaporeans for some reason, then the rest of the world a couple of years down the road ... is NOT the optimal way to exploit good PR.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  2. Couldn't be worse by Afforess · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook. With Google's transparency with privacy, and already working business model (has facebook ever posted a profit?), I'd trust them over Facebook in a heartbeat.

    Facebook screws me over daily. No, I don't want any facebook credits. No, I don't want to play farmville. Disgusting...

    --
    If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    1. Re:Couldn't be worse by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook

      It could be Orkut.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Couldn't be worse by Robotbeat · · Score: 2

      It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook. With Google's transparency with privacy, and already working business model (has facebook ever posted a profit?), I'd trust them over Facebook in a heartbeat.

      Facebook screws me over daily. No, I don't want any facebook credits. No, I don't want to play farmville. Disgusting...

      And yet you still use Facebook, daily?

    3. Re:Couldn't be worse by Afforess · · Score: 1

      It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook. With Google's transparency with privacy, and already working business model (has facebook ever posted a profit?), I'd trust them over Facebook in a heartbeat.

      Facebook screws me over daily. No, I don't want any facebook credits. No, I don't want to play farmville. Disgusting...

      And yet you still use Facebook, daily?

      Do I have a choice? Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.

      --
      If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    4. Re:Couldn't be worse by revlayle · · Score: 1

      "has facebook ever posted a profit?" - who knows, they're a private company, they don't have to post a thing :)

    5. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you learned how Facebook worked these problems wouldn't be so hard to deal with. Such a n00b troll you are.

    6. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pathetic.

    7. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could go back to the original release of Buzz.

    8. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I deleted my facebook account almost TWO (2) years ago now... You'd be surprised at how people are not insulted if you're not on Facebook to "like" their crap in the first place....

      But to answer your question, YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE (except in cable operators, thanks to Government Granted Monopolies...and even then, you could choose NONE)

    9. Re:Couldn't be worse by Abstrackt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do I have a choice?

      Yes, you always have a choice. It may not be a good choice, but it's there.

      Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.

      It sounds like your friends list could use a trim. A good metric is to ask yourself who you would have coffee with. Anyone who doesn't pass that test and isn't family probably shouldn't be there. If your friends and coworkers get annoyed that you don't comment on what they post online just tell them politely that you would much rather communicate with them in person as you value your relationship with them.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    10. Re:Couldn't be worse by jschmitz · · Score: 0

      delete your acct - I did - I know they still have my stuff - but I know longer use it

    11. Re:Couldn't be worse by nappingcracker · · Score: 1

      Do I have a choice?

      Of course you have a choice. You chose to use facebook, despite the fact that it screws you over daily.

      --
      |plastic....or gasoline?|
    12. Re:Couldn't be worse by Americano · · Score: 1

      You should really get some better, or at least more interesting, friends then.

      Seriously.

    13. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Orkut really that bad? I never met anyone who used it, so I've had no excuse to either.

    14. Re:Couldn't be worse by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook.

      Back in MY day, we only had myspace. Instead of yer "farmville" we had REAL farms (in civ) and instead of "poke wars" we had "annoying music blaring anytime you load someone's profile."

      Instead of friend requests, we had annoying garage bands from New Jersey constantly urging us to check out their new hip hop album.

      And we liked it! We loved it! You had exactly 10 friends that mattered and everyone else knew you didn't like them, and you got on with your life rather than wasting time posting cute animal pictures from the huffington post!

    15. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used it awhile way back in the day. It wasn't that bad, just slow and a bit confusing

    16. Re:Couldn't be worse by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      My God, I never thought I would see a, "Back in My day," post about MySpace....I really am getting old. :*(

    17. Re:Couldn't be worse by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Back in my day we refused to use MySpace because it looked like someone had vomited on the Internet. We used LiveJournal to write notes that no one ever read instead.

    18. Re:Couldn't be worse by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Don't feel too old, that was half the joke, it's only been about 5 years since I switched.

    19. Re:Couldn't be worse by jitterman · · Score: 1

      You do have a choice (don't read this with any hostile overtones). I stopped using FB over a year ago. Real friends bitched at first (and longest), "friends" mentioned it a couple of times. Eventually, they all stopped. If they're offended that I don't comment or whatnot, honestly they can get stuffed. You do mention that friends in this case is a loose term - my humble advice is, don't let the opinions/attitudes of those you don't esteem hold you hostage. I haven't lost contact with anyone I care about as a result.

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    20. Re:Couldn't be worse by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Back in my day we only had CompuServe.

      GET OFF LAWN!!!!

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    21. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to cut down on that, you have a couple of options that shouldn't piss off too many people.
      1. Quite Facebook entirely. Tell people it's just taking too much time, and you're quitting cold turkey. Give them your email address or blog link if they want to stay in touch.
      2. Pare down your contact list dramatically. Restrict it to family and immediate coworkers only. Again, give out an email address or blog link, for those who are desperate to stay in touch.

      In each case, the people you are dropping are part of a large and well-defined group, which makes the unfriending less a personal rejection and more a matter of simple administration. And you are providing them with an option if they want to keep in touch. Most people won't use it, of course, but it's there, and that matters.

    22. Re:Couldn't be worse by Spellvexit · · Score: 1

      I used it. It was fairly functional and effective for its day, but the problem was the Brazilians. When you tried to start up an interest group, even if you specified English as the language, it was more often than not overrun with posts in Portuguese, many of them stating not much more than "Hey, who else out there is Brazilian!?!!" I've got nothing against Brazilians -- it could just have easily been the Vietnamese or the Indians. I think no small number of English speakers felt alienated by an increasing number of semi- or fully-nude torsos trivializing their pages with banter they couldn't understand. A lot of these alienated users jumped ship early to a more comforting platform and didn't return. Perhaps the site has much better controls now -- maybe it's better than Facebook even, but every time I think about Orkut, those images of tan, funloving Brazilians clogging up my pages leer back at me.

      --
      The moon may be smaller than the earth, but it's much farther away!
    23. Re:Couldn't be worse by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      So...why are you worried about friends who pester you with their inane ramblings? Just delete the account, make up a reason (inane ramblers don't care about the content of the reason, having one at all i.e. "Pluto isn't a planet anymore so I'm deleting my account" will satisfy them) and they'll leave you alone anyway.

    24. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just unintentionally gave Orkut the best advertisement in history :D.

      Facebook: endless baby photos.
      Orkut: hot Brazilian babes?

      Best social networking website ever!

    25. Re:Couldn't be worse by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Back in my day I had to throw rocks at my friend, Robby Joiner, until they invented the internet.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Couldn't be worse by vbraga · · Score: 1

      (I'm a Brazilian)

      So, be warned: almost everyone I know migrated from Orkut to Facebook in the last few months.

      I think in the end even Brazilians couldn't stand the mess Orkut became.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    27. Re:Couldn't be worse by centuren · · Score: 1

      It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook. With Google's transparency with privacy, and already working business model (has facebook ever posted a profit?), I'd trust them over Facebook in a heartbeat.

      Facebook screws me over daily. No, I don't want any facebook credits. No, I don't want to play farmville. Disgusting...

      And yet you still use Facebook, daily?

      Do I have a choice? Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.

      Delete your account. Then promptly give your email address to anyone who complains and tell them to write some actual correspondence once in a while. If a photograph isn't worth attaching to an email and including a personalised message relevant to it, I don't see any merit to complaints that I'm not there to "Like" it.

      I often liken Facebook to a bulliten board located at a hypothetical YMCA (or some sort members-only place, I've never actually seen a YMCA). It'd be ridiculous for me to write a Christmas letter to all my family and expect them to all become members, go to the Y, and read it. Or if you like, it'd be ridiculous for my sister to only post pictures of my niece there, and expect me to get a membership and visit to see it. Bulliten boards, and Facebook, are good for events or notifications, but I don't sympathise with any notion of Facebook replacing personal communication. I'm quite content catching up once in a while rather than a constant, less-personal drip of information.

      Oh, and get off my lawn maybe? I'd like to think I have a justified distaste for the Facebook model, rather than being a grumpy old man in his 20s.

    28. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook. With Google's transparency with privacy, and already working business model (has facebook ever posted a profit?), I'd trust them over Facebook in a heartbeat.

      Facebook screws me over daily. No, I don't want any facebook credits. No, I don't want to play farmville. Disgusting...

      And yet you still use Facebook, daily?

      Do I have a choice? Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.

      Yes, you do. Delete your account. You'll realize just how little it actually gave you once you do that (especially in comparison to how much you give Facebook, particularly in personal and behavioral data).

    29. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I miss the good old virtual world too,

    30. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia says Orkut's big in India now, I guess the Brazilians found out what it's like to have a bunch of people running rampant in their groups speaking a language they don't.

    31. Re:Couldn't be worse by buswolley · · Score: 1

      I was poor and had Prodigy

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    32. Re:Couldn't be worse by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Is that even a question ? Offcourse you do. I deleted my facebook-profile more than a year ago.

      If someone doesn't want to know me, because I don't use Facebook, then it's my opinion that I'm better off without them, I don't need "friends" of that quality.

    33. Re:Couldn't be worse by SomeStupidNickName12 · · Score: 1

      Its a lost cause, trying teach slashdotters basic social skills is impossible. They are like the trolls living under bridges from old fair tales.

    34. Re:Couldn't be worse by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Back in my day we refused to use MySpace because it looked like someone had vomited on the Internet. We used LiveJournal to write notes that no one ever read instead.

      Back in my day we refused to use LiveJournal (too popular), and used DeadJournal instead. No one ever seemed to read the poetry.

      (I only ever made one post, and I can't even remember my username. A couple of friends were pretty serious about their goth poetry though.)

    35. Re:Couldn't be worse by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      When mobile phones became popular at first I resisted getting one, but then I noticed that all my friends were organising things via text message and I was (unintentionally) being left out of the loop until the last minute when someone remembered to email me.

      Facebook is doing the same thing. People organise get-togethers on it without really considering that non-Facebook friends might be left out. For that reason I maintain a profile, full of blatant lies and devoid of any personal information beyond my name, just so I can keep in touch with people.

      In both cases I had to give up something. My mobile phone tracks my movements which are logged by the phone company. Facebook is willing to sell your soul to the Satan (marketers). That appears to be the cost of a social life these days.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    36. Re:Couldn't be worse by q.kontinuum · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your family could use a trim. A good metric is to ask yourself, who you would have as a friend. Anyone who doesn't pass that test should either not be family or the relationship should be worked on. SCNR ;-)

      --
      Trolling is a art!
    37. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those stories I heard under the ferris wheel...

    38. Re:Couldn't be worse by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Back in my day, we only had the BBS. We had to fill out applications to join and had to lie about knowing who ACiD and AAA were because we didn't have "search". We kept 8bit porn as our digital trading currency, and uploaded them to gain enough download credits for free software. And we worshiped the Sysop as a god and kissed his ass or we were cut off from the entire network. And we rolled our dice to win more than 10 minutes a day "online" so that we could spend 30 minutes playing Legend of the Red Dragon and beat other players to death in their sleep. Farmville is for pussies. We killed beasts and men in text based games!

      And we liked it that way! Get off my lawn!

      --
      I8-D
    39. Re:Couldn't be worse by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Its a lost cause, trying teach slashdotters basic social skills is impossible. They are like the trolls living under bridges from old fair tales.

      I'm trying to teach basic social engineering skills. ;)

      When you tell someone you'd rather not do what they're asking ending on a positive note tends to work best; it validates the other person's emotions and helps establish and maintain rapport. Sites like Facebook work so well because people feel validated for almost zero effort (i.e. "I have over 9000 friends!"). My pet theory is that you sometimes end up with sort of a Dr. Jeckyll & My Hyde scenario where it takes more and more acknowledgement for a person to feel validated, if they don't get enough they go completely off the rails.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    40. Re:Couldn't be worse by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Touché.

      Before I came up with the coffee test my brother said you should delete everyone you wouldn't help move. Two days later, I got a call: "you bastard, why'd you delete me?"

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    41. Re:Couldn't be worse by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Do I have a choice? Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.

      Wow. I know you won't like hearing this, but: did you know that you're part of the problem?

      Seriously, you really can just say no. There are no negative consequences to doing that. Really, I promise. Give it a try.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    42. Re:Couldn't be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orkut was actually kinda neat, but it was just didn't offer any tools to help filter out the deluge of Portuguese that happened seemingly overnight. It went from a usable site to one where 90% of the comments in the groups were in Portuguese and trying to use English was like shouting into the wind. Now it's basically only used by people in Brazil.

    43. Re:Couldn't be worse by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

      and isn't family

      and there you have it in a nutshell.

      What I asked myself is 'is there *anything* about my *private* life that I'd want my parents, siblings, cousins, or Others to know about'.. The answer was 'very little; some, but not much'.

      I locked my FB account down on the first day; posts only visible to Friends; can only be seen my Friends of Friends (pity my mother is now a friend of a friend.. can't be helped).

      I like your metric. I will use this in future. It's a good question to ask.

      Meanwhile, a friend (yes, someone I see IRL and have lunch with on occasion) invited me to a Group via FB recently.. very.. interesting.. it looks like FB is already responding to this..

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    44. Re:Couldn't be worse by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      Seconded.

    45. Re:Couldn't be worse by TMB · · Score: 1

      Oh my, that brings back memories... thank you. Or maybe damn you. I'm not sure.

  3. not first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because I had to wipe the milk (sue me, I'm a wimp) of my screen first when I read "emphasis on privacy" about a google product.

    1. Re:not first post by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Yes, "emphasis on private information"! Everybody knows that the only two things Google does well are search (getting worse though) and statistics for targeted ads. Of, _sure_, they will "anonymize" and "protect your privacy", unless some law enforcement or other organization wants your data. The only protection is not to give it tom them (or the other vultures) in the first place.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. This is will be like wave! by Daniel_is_Legnd · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is going to be just like Google Wave. Only Bigger!

    1. Re:This is will be like wave! by city · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google Tsunami?

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
    2. Re:This is will be like wave! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who tried it were positively glowing.

    3. Re:This is will be like wave! by iONiUM · · Score: 0

      Too early.

    4. Re:This is will be like wave! by pavon · · Score: 1

      Well, the team lead had a copy of this painting made as a mural on campus to inspire the folks working on it.

    5. Re:This is will be like wave! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not early enough. There; we've canceled each other out in the opinion balance.

    6. Re:This is will be like wave! by Nidi62 · · Score: 0

      Google Tsunami?

      Too soon, man. Too soon.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:This is will be like wave! by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Google Tsunami?

      This thing is going to kill in Japan.

      There goes my dreams of working for Aflac.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    8. Re:This is will be like wave! by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there will be any fallout from this...

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    9. Re:This is will be like wave! by auLucifer · · Score: 1

      Seriously? If 6.5 years isn't long enough then when can we start talking about this natural phenomenon?

      --
      If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
    10. Re:This is will be like wave! by psithurism · · Score: 1

      I'm probably about to get whooshed, but where's your love for the Japanese?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami

    11. Re:This is will be like wave! by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Too soon.

      Besides, it would be Tsoooooonami.

    12. Re:This is will be like wave! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This service will be hueg in Japan
      *ducks*

    13. Re:This is will be like wave! by xtracto · · Score: 1

      No! it is going to be like Google Buzz... only noisier!

      Really, google has tried (and failed) to enter the social network bandwagon for some time now. I suspect this will have the same future as Buzz or Wave.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    14. Re:This is will be like wave! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is going to be just like Google Wave. Only Bigger!

      I hope it falls like that. I cannot possibly adhere any more social networking madness.

    15. Re:This is will be like wave! by jseale · · Score: 1

      Google Wave 2.0

    16. Re:This is will be like wave! by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      Not wooshed, but rather washed... By a rather large mass of moving water.

      --
      ^_^
    17. Re:This is will be like wave! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google Tsunami hits japan. Millions of people affected."

    18. Re:This is will be like wave! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Everybody around me was really enthousiastic about Wave, but nobody actually used it. Google+ on the other hand, is already a pretty big hit. Several people have announced they're going to abandon Facebook for Google+, and some of my friends who never joined facebook are pretty active on Google+. So it really looks like Google is going to succeed this time. I certainly hope they do.

  5. I dunno about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is taking over the world. Though I admit this is probably better than Facebook.

    1. Re:I dunno about this by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Though I admit this is probably better than Facebook.

      Well, that's not hard. Anything better than rubbing your face with a running chainsaw is better than Facebook...

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    2. Re:I dunno about this by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Google is taking over the world.

      Huh? How so? Other than their search engine, and android, google doesn't have much of anything that's especially popular. And neither of those are monopolies, or lead to any sort of vendor lock-in.

      If you want to get a in wad about a software company "taking over" should you not be more concerned about a company that was convicted of abusive monopolistic practices.

      I don't see google patent trolling, or astroturfing.

    3. Re:I dunno about this by allo · · Score: 0

      try leaving your cave.

  6. Mysterious BS by petteyg359 · · Score: 0

    BS on the "mysterious new service". A basic check on the whois data says that somebody is faking the Google association.

    1. Re:Mysterious BS by Selfbain · · Score: 1
      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    2. Re:Mysterious BS by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      BS on the "mysterious new service". A basic check on the whois data says that somebody is faking teh wentire Google oh NOES!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  7. isn't "+" a search query modifier? by Hadlock · · Score: 2

    how did this name ever make it through marketing? are they that dense?
     
    being nerds, maybe call it ++ or plus plus at least? i get that they're trying to knock off the "like" feature, but really....

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:isn't "+" a search query modifier? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      In urls have a clear meaning. Wonder which Googlers put that symbol for it thinking in the final frontier.

    2. Re:isn't "+" a search query modifier? by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmm....if only you had access to the biggest search engine in the world's code base so that you could work around this issue. That would really solve the problem.



      /tinfoil Maybe putting a + at the end makes it harder for other sites/people to aggregate and crawl the data? Maybe Google wants it that way.

    3. Re:isn't "+" a search query modifier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as they own the search engine. It looks like they are able to specify it as a literal character for this purpose. :)

  8. Incorporating Buzz, +1, etc? by Kelson · · Score: 1

    Presumably the +1 button rolled out a few months ago will become the "Like" of this new network.

    I have to wonder...is this an attempt to salvage or replace Buzz?

  9. There was a time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when I'd jump on any new service, especially if it was from Google. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I have 0 desire for this.

    1. Re:There was a time... by creat3d · · Score: 1

      ...when I'd jump on any new service, especially if it was from Google. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I have 0 desire for this.

      Why did you even do this in the first place?

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  10. WaveBuzz! by rueger · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just BUY Facebook, maybe fix it to be less loathsome, and work from there. I see nothing new or innovative, which suggests that this too will crash and burn.

    Aside from which, Facebook seems to have peaked, MySpace is in decline, and I'm betting that Twitter is about to begin its own downward slide.

    IMHO the problem is that the things that make social media really attractive are not the things that make them really profitable.

    Well, except Farmville.

    1. Re:WaveBuzz! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      I suspect that most of Facebook's current growth, at least within the US, consists of fake/spam accounts... so yeah, definitely peaked out. Not sure how they'll do in other parts of the world though, there might be more opportunity there for them, though other parts of the world seem to have their own popular social networking sites already.

      Let's just say I wouldn't be too quick to give Facebook a 10, or 70 or whatever billion dollar valuation.

    2. Re:WaveBuzz! by sribe · · Score: 1

      I suspect that most of Facebook's current growth, at least within the US, consists of fake/spam accounts...

      Uhm, apparently you missed the news... Facebook shrank in the US last year.

    3. Re:WaveBuzz! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I agree. The social-networking fad is over. Now it is just for teenagers with nothing better to do.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:WaveBuzz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it as VERY innovative, in that you can segrigate your groups of friends. It means your friend's friend's daughter that just HAD to be your FB friend won't see photos you took at your other friend's gay pride march unless you want them to. It means you can add people from work and still have photos/comments you might not want them to see. That alone is long overdue and much needed.

      Buying facebook would be good in one sense, though, they could de-suckify it. Even if they "win" the SNS market in the markets where facebook is popular now (US and western Europe, it seems), Facebook would still be around a long time and die a slow death, which means it's suckyness would have to be tolerated by all for some time to come.

    5. Re:WaveBuzz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And most of its shrinkage is real people.

    6. Re:WaveBuzz! by Mad+Sprinkles · · Score: 1

      You can't make Facebook not loathsome. It's kinda like HAL, It's spinning out of control and you need to deactivate it as it pleads for its own life.

  11. Oh my. by milbournosphere · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Google seems to fail at social networking. Didn't they learn from the flop that was Google Wave? Granted, Wave was a collaboration-based network, but it was still focused around a small group of friends or colleagues. The fact that it's based around real-time communication is interesting (and really cool for businesses not using MeetingPlace), but it would seem like this approach will fail just like Wave did.

    1. Re:Oh my. by Altus · · Score: 1

      That's just it, Wave wasn't really about social networking, it was about social collaboration. Now I'm not honestly sure if it was good for that, because nobody ever used it but what it comes down to is, people do the social networking thing but aren't generally that interested in collaborating to create anything.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:Oh my. by Elfez · · Score: 1

      Doesn't help that they always require new users have a gmail account. Can't think too many prospective users are happy at the prospect of having yet another email account to monitor / manage.

      I know none of my non-gmail using friends would be interested in testing any google service that requires they get such an account.

    3. Re:Oh my. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wave was in my opinion pretty awesome. but didn't get the adoption quick enough. i still wonder why they dropped it so quickly. should have waited some longer.

    4. Re:Oh my. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      google account != gmail

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyYv4H4zTxs

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    5. Re:Oh my. by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      We'll have to see, however there is one thing that Facebook sorely lacked that Google is addressing. The abilility to seperate people into different social "Circles" to control what you want to share with who. How many stories have we all heard about posts causing issues for a person because Facebook putting all your posts and friends all in one bucket.

      To me, it seems like a no-brainer. The things I want my family, friends, highschool and college acquaintances, coworkers, and potential dating partners to see are quite often different enough that I don't bother saying anything at all.

      I dislike Zuckerburg, Zynga, and the many other sleazy players involved with the scene. I have an account, and I use it as little as I can. Unfortunately, it has become so prevalent that ignoring it completely effectively makes one a pariah these days.

      Not to suggest that this is unfamiliar territory for many of us here. ;-)

    6. Re:Oh my. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I used Wave for social collaboration once - it got unwieldy very quickly.

    7. Re:Oh my. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... except Facebook does have that feature. They just do not make it prominent.

    8. Re:Oh my. by Elfez · · Score: 1

      Well I stand corrected. Thanks!

    9. Re:Oh my. by rnaiguy · · Score: 1

      Not only is it not prominent, it's a pain in the ass and very awkward to use. This is a much better solution.

    10. Re:Oh my. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Facebook Pariah...
      I'm also a Golf Pariah, and not being on the links on weekends has affected me just as much as not being on Facebook... pretty much not at all. People who are truly my friends have many many other ways to contact me. If they can't be bothered, then I've got plenty of other things to do with my time.

    11. Re:Oh my. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Do you realize if you did that in real life you never would have made friends at all?

      At some point you had to meet someone who didn't know.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Oh my. by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but failing a dozen times before success is still success. With deep pockets, Google can keep trying, and trying, and trying, until they get it right.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    13. Re:Oh my. by Sygnus · · Score: 1

      We'll have to see, however there is one thing that Facebook sorely lacked that Google is addressing. The abilility to seperate people into different social "Circles" to control what you want to share with who. How many stories have we all heard about posts causing issues for a person because Facebook putting all your posts and friends all in one bucket.

      To me, it seems like a no-brainer. The things I want my family, friends, highschool and college acquaintances, coworkers, and potential dating partners to see are quite often different enough that I don't bother saying anything at all.

      I dislike Zuckerburg, Zynga, and the many other sleazy players involved with the scene. I have an account, and I use it as little as I can. Unfortunately, it has become so prevalent that ignoring it completely effectively makes one a pariah these days.

      Not to suggest that this is unfamiliar territory for many of us here. ;-)

      I don't see the issue. You can do that on Facebook with friends lists.
      Example: you work with Joe, Bob, Marge, and John. Tom is your boss. You, Joe, and Bob are drinking buddies whereas you don't socialize with Marge and John.

      You can have lists such as:
      Work: Joe, Bob, Marge, John, Tom.
      Buddies: Joe, Bob
      Family: all your relatives
      Friends: Everyone else
      Do Not Share: Marge, John, Tom, Mom, Dad

      When you post a status update, you can customize who sees it. For example, you could post something that you only wanted your Work and family lists to be able to see, but then under "Hide this from," you enter the Do Not Share list. Your family members, Joe and Bob will be able to see the post; but Marge, John, Tom, Mom and Dad won't (even though they also belong to your Work and Family lists).

      All this complaining about Facebook allowing posts to be viewed by everyone is a result of not knowing how to use the privacy settings. It's not that difficult.

      --
      First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting. :) -- Illiad
    14. Re:Oh my. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you need a "do not share" list for every combination of other lists that you might to post to? If you want to post something for friends and family, you need to hide from the "everyone but friends and family" list, and if you want to post something for friends and coworkers, you need to hide from the "everyone but friends and coworkers" list?

      While friends lists can be added together, inverted lists cannot. You need to take the intersection instead.

    15. Re:Oh my. by spiralx · · Score: 1

      No, you can include or exclude any combination of individual users and friend lists on anything you post.

    16. Re:Oh my. by aug24 · · Score: 1

      I used it with reasonable success. It depended strongly on the people you were collaborating with being good at putting their input into the right place in a document. We had one user who just brain-dumped into the last document he had had open, which reduced functionality almost to zero. I won't be at all surprised to see some elements of Wave turn up in Google+.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    17. Re:Oh my. by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      But you can't control who gets to see what *others* post on your wall though, AFAIK. It's either on your wall your can hide it, but I'm not aware of getting to choose which groups get to see posts made by others.

  12. Google to take over the world? by Rayveniael · · Score: 1

    This is probably a scenario far better faring for us than Facebook's global domination.

    1. Re:Google to take over the world? by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at least I don't puke a little in the mouth every time I see Sergei or Larry. Now, Imagine watching Zukerberg's face every day in every billboard as the truly new Big Brother 2.0.

      To paraphrase Homer Simpson

      .. You can see the soulless emptiness in that Sharks eyes

  13. 3660 GET by tepples · · Score: 1
    Congratulations on the repeat GET (#36603660).

    Why don't they just BUY Facebook

    For one thing, what's the asking price? And for another, would government agencies that regulate competition in each of Facebook's markets approve?

    1. Re:3660 GET by creat3d · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on the repeat GET (#36603660).

      Hmmm... why?

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    2. Re:3660 GET by callmebill · · Score: 1

      And `grats to YOU on your prime number UID get.

    3. Re:3660 GET by kvvbassboy · · Score: 1

      I admit, that is pretty damn badass! Not just that he has a prime number UID, but the fact that you actually knew and realized it was a prime number.

    4. Re:3660 GET by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      There's way too much information to decode Slashdot. You get used to it, though. Your brain does the translating. I don't even see the code. All I see is prime, non-prime, non-prime, non-prime, non-prime (yeah that keeps up for a while), prime. Hey uh, you want a drink?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:3660 GET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget it, Jake. It's Slashdot.

    6. Re:3660 GET by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on the repeat GET (#36603660).

      Ah, this is the UID competition I win. (Years ago someone told me they liked the symmetry with the number and the name, I hadn't notice it myself.)

    7. Re:3660 GET by rueger · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on the repeat GET (#36603660).

      Thank you. Thank you very much.

      But will it impress the kiddies who think that a First Post is a big deal?

  14. In on day 1! Whee! by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 1

    So far, photo sharing doesn't work right for me (I think it's an issue with window sizing interactions with the HTML5/CSS), but otherwise the interface is pretty slick. The GUI for adding contacts to "Circles" is very slick and intuitive. If this makes it as easy to do on-the-fly easy content sharing permission groups as it seems, I think this could really take off...but I'll reserve judgement until there are more people using it.

    --
    The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
    1. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by DoomHamster · · Score: 1

      Do you have any spare invites?

    2. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      Once it gets integrated into Android, it will take off. I bet the GUI was designed with touch phones in mind (IE I show you four circles, you drag the content through whichever circles you want it associated with (kinda like swype(sp?) typing).

    3. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 1

      Not yet, sorry.

      --
      The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
    4. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would make sense of some of what I'm seeing. I bet it looks nicer in Chrome than in Firefox, too.

      Oooo...I need to try it in Safari on my iPhone...

      OK, that is pretty slick. I'm gonna go home and post some screenshots...

      --
      The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
    5. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by AngryNick · · Score: 1

      Instead of connecting with your friends, Google+ aims to center connections around specific groupsâ"colleagues, projects...

      I see that Google doesn't count their Google Apps customers among those having colleagues or projects on day 1. It won't let my org join. But that's ok...Apps users are used to being shunned...no Buzz, GV months after everyone else, etc.

    6. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by Zugok · · Score: 1

      There is already an Android app for it https://market.android.com/details?id=com.google.android.apps.plus&feature=search_result. Installing it doesn't get you a space in it yet, though.

      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    7. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Don't complain, we non-US users don't have GV at all :|

    8. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 1

      If anyone's curious I've got screenshots of the iOS Safari WebApp up.

      --
      The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
    9. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by enoz · · Score: 1

      Oops... you need a Google Profile to use this feature.
      Google Profiles is not available for your organisation.

      Damnit google, after The Transitioning we thought you were going to take your Apps users seriously. Google Profile is not available to Apps users.

    10. Re:In on day 1! Whee! by DoomHamster · · Score: 1

      np. thanks for the reply.

  15. Sounds familar by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    Except for the part where Google hosts all the data, a lot of the features sound a lot like Diaspora. That project sounded quite interesting. Too bad it seems to have not moved anywhere in a very long time.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Sounds familar by jojoba_oil · · Score: 1

      What do you mean Diaspora hasn't moved anywhere in a long time? Their blog (http://blog.joindiaspora.com/) didn't get updated from January to May, but they stated that they've been bad about updating the blog because they've been busy on Github.

      Check out the commit log if you want to see progress: https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/commits/master

      Instead, I'd say Google hasn't gone anywhere with their social networking attempts in a very long time. I'd be surprised if this newest incarnation is any better than Orkut or Buzz...

    2. Re:Sounds familar by glwtta · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with Orkut?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:Sounds familar by Zugok · · Score: 1

      I installed diaspora the other day, I hadn't realised that the alpha was out. It still needs a lot of work but I think its promising.

      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    4. Re:Sounds familar by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I installed diaspora the other day, I hadn't realised that the alpha was out. It still needs a lot of work but I think its promising.

      Just curious - what type of system did you install it on? I tried on Fedora 14 back around February and it was hairy enough to make a seasoned admin give up half-way through.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Sounds familar by Zugok · · Score: 1

      I installed the server on Debian Squeeze. The instructions for Debian (here https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora/wiki/Installing-on-Debian) were pretty straight forward though I would have like just one 'sudo apt-get install ...' and had a few problems but nothing like compiling VLC for Android.

      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    6. Re:Sounds familar by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I tried to install it on my shared host. Didn't get very far. I may try again. That's what they really need to work if they want it to take off. People need to be able to easily host their own nodes.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:Sounds familar by Zugok · · Score: 1

      Well diaspora is still in alpha state. Once I did get it installed and arguably 'running' I still couldn't do much with the little skills that I have.

      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    8. Re:Sounds familar by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Diaspora rejected the offer to share an open protocol. All 3 (FB, Google & Diaspora) want to own you and your data.

      I wish more people knew about Appleseed.
      http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/

    9. Re:Sounds familar by Pahroza · · Score: 1

      Everything, if you don't speak Portuguese.

  16. What do you love? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 0

    about another mysterious new Google service as well.

    Google's new "What do you love" service was particularly useless when I entered pussy. Most of the results were "no results were found", and the geographic suggestions were out by more than 1000km!

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:What do you love? by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      Very comical to enter "Ninjas" or "Assassins" ;)

    2. Re:What do you love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Someone spent an enormous amount of time on that, and it is fucking terrible. It kind of looks like what regular google search results would look like if you pumped shit into them until they exploded.

    3. Re:What do you love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives quite different answers with "bicycles" vs. "bicycle"...

    4. Re:What do you love? by jaeric · · Score: 1

      According to the description meta tag: "Get more of what you love by searching across numerous Google products with one click."

    5. Re:What do you love? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2
      Access vagina stuff on the web, faster with Chrome

      Great Tip!

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:What do you love? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Very comical to enter "Ninjas" or "Assassins" ;)

      That was great!

      "Find Ninjas nearby"
      "Scour the earth for Ninjas"
      "Call someone about Ninjas"

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:What do you love? by Plombo · · Score: 1

      As my first answer, I typed "sanity". So the site offers to help me "find sanity nearby", "explore sanity in 3D", "find patents about sanity", "measure the popularity of sanity on the web" (very low), and my personal favorite, "scour the earth for sanity".

  17. Bizarro Buzz by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's the polar opposite of Buzz. You have to add friends manually, and manually assign them to one of four "circles" (Family, Friends, Acquaintances, Following.)

    Then with EVERY damn thing you post, you have to assign to one or more groups.

    So you get very fine-grained control, but at the cost of usability. It really is the opposite of Buzz in that way.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Bizarro Buzz by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      From what I’ve seen in the tour, one person cannot belong to more than one circle. Which is... strangely limiting.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:Bizarro Buzz by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you're seeing that. I was able to add someone to two circles with no problem.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you can put someone in as many circles as you like.

    4. Re:Bizarro Buzz by geekoid · · Score: 1

      In the tour, when you move someone picture to a circle, it disappeared from the list.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are there really only four circles? Can you not make new ones? That seems quite limiting.

    6. Re:Bizarro Buzz by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      It's the polar opposite of Buzz. You have to add friends manually, and manually assign them to one of four "circles" (Family, Friends, Acquaintances, Following.)

      Then with EVERY damn thing you post, you have to assign to one or more groups.

      So you get very fine-grained control, but at the cost of usability. It really is the opposite of Buzz in that way.

      Sounds like what I've been wishing facebook would adopt for ages...

      hopefully it works well..although they will most likely continue to make changes throughout the "beta" period.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    7. Re:Bizarro Buzz by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can create new Circles.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    8. Re:Bizarro Buzz by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      I think they finally "get it" with Plus; users want Facebook with better privacy controls. It's an evolutionary step.

      But I'd estimate Plus has maybe 2-3 months of glitches to fix before it hits an open beta.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    9. Re:Bizarro Buzz by cjHopman · · Score: 1

      From someone who has used it, you are quite wrong.

      1. Adding people to circles is manual, but the ui for it makes it quite easy.
      2. A person can be added to more than 1 circle.
      3. You are not limited to those 4 circles, they are just the defaults, you can add whatever circles you want.
      4. When you post, you can assign it to be shared to whatever combination of groups/individual people/special categories that you want. However, the UI is simple and will remember your previous choices and default to your last one.

      Honestly, without actually trying it, you shouldn't have made those claims.

    10. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It definitely can. I am playing with it right now and I can add one person to any circle I want.

    11. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People can be in as many circles as you want. You can also create circles beyond the default ones.

    12. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      They must realize, that you can do this with facebook already.. right? You can sort your friends into groups, then select which group you'd like a comment to be posted in. You can even have it just for yourself, if you just want a note-to-self.

      You can also have groups, so.. why?

      If I can use the google tool with my facebook login, or openID, or google login (i.e. no need to register for something) and I can add facebook friends, or openID friends, or emails, or keep it open but have a simple password to a conversation (and a link I give people), then great, I might check it out.

    13. Re:Bizarro Buzz by slyrat · · Score: 1

      Are there really only four circles? Can you not make new ones? That seems quite limiting.

      The preview videos showed multiple circles. One of the videos even showed creating a circle. I am guessing that the four listed are the ones you start with.

    14. Re:Bizarro Buzz by technomom · · Score: 1

      If Google wants to stop incorrect rumors from spreading, it ought to open up the friggin' beta already.

    15. Re:Bizarro Buzz by technomom · · Score: 1

      Facebook's UI does not make that function very discoverable. It's a hassle, so most people don't even bother to use it. The UI is much, much friendlier in Plus.

    16. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can add people to multiple circles.

    17. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is incorrect, you can have one person in multiple circles. So you can add a friend to both 'college buddies' and 'hockey teammates'

    18. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible

    19. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a shortcoming in the design of the tour - you most certainly can add people to more than one circle.

    20. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true! Circles are arbitrary subsets of people.

    21. Re:Bizarro Buzz by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Quite so.
      Well, I’m looking forward to playing with it sometime I get an invite.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    22. Re:Bizarro Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. You can put someone in a million different circles.

      also, it defaults to your last used audience circle, so unless you se nd exclusive messages a lot, you never have to bother changing anything.

    23. Re:Bizarro Buzz by mcvos · · Score: 1

      You can have as many circles as you like, and you can put people in as many circles as you like.

  18. Can't trust the circles by FencingLion · · Score: 1

    Circles sound like a really great way to accidentally (by Google's fault or my own) to share info with the wrong people. No thanks.

    --
    Just keep swimming.
    1. Re:Can't trust the circles by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, google can't keep you from making bone headed mistakes.
      Also, email won't stop you from sending a stupid email, so no thanks.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Can't trust the circles by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yes, google can't keep you from making bone headed mistakes. Also, email won't stop you from sending a stupid email, so no thanks.

      GMail has an "Undo Send" feature in Labs.

      What it actually does is delay sending for a few seconds, giving you a brief chance to "undo".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  19. invite by jc87 · · Score: 0

    Im interested in testing google+, if someone here has an invite for it please PM me.

    --
    def greetings(x): return {'friend': 'Howdy', 'enemy': 'Dye [sic]'}.get(x, 'g0 4w4y, l4m0r')
    1. Re:invite by dch24 · · Score: 0

      PM sent.

  20. I, for one... by reeno49 · · Score: 1

    welcome our new social networking overlords!

    Honestly though, if this thing succeeds, which is no guarantee, it'll take a while. I imagine that they'll integrate it heavily into Gmail, which will certainly help.

    Personally I have absolutely no problem closing out my Facebook account in favor of Google+. I hate Facebook as much as the next guy (privacy concerns being the major sticking point). My Facebook profile has nothing really about me, aside from my name and a picture of my hat (my hat is custom made and very distinguishable).

    Now if only I can get friends to use this service instead of Facebook, I'll be able to actually use social networking without cringing every time I log in.

    --
    I should have been a girl, with the way I can dance... my moves are amazing!
    1. Re:I, for one... by vlm · · Score: 4, Funny

      and a picture of my hat (my hat is custom made and very distinguishable)

      I LOL as I remember an oldie, but a goodie...

      "I put on my robe and wizard hat"

      http://bash.org/?104383

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:I, for one... by reeno49 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it wasn't a wizard hat. ;)

      Also, t'was a goodie. Very goodie.

      Anyone else listening to Billy Joel? I am.

      --
      I should have been a girl, with the way I can dance... my moves are amazing!
  21. Re:Fuck Google. by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 2

    They are not your fucking friend.

    Looks like you could use a fucking friend.

  22. Instant Upload by ecliptik · · Score: 2

    Don't over look the Instant Upload feature, it allows you to store photos and video directly to your Google account from your phone.

    Handy in situations when the cops see you recording them and try and destroy your phone

    1. Re:Instant Upload by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Don't over look the Instant Upload feature, it allows you to store photos and video directly to your Google account from your phone.

      Handy in situations when the cops see you recording them and try and destroy your phone

      Use Qik for that.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  23. Didn't Microsoft have a tiny announcement today... by kervin · · Score: 1

    as well?

  24. You are the problem... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 0

    And yet you still use Facebook, daily?

    Do I have a choice? Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.

    Yes, you have a choice. And your "friends" sound more like bullies than friends. Tell them to sod off and communicate via email like most of the world. Big hint: email users vastly outnumber facefuck victims like yourself.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:You are the problem... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hint: most of the online world communicates through facebook.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:You are the problem... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Hint: most of the online world communicates through facebook.

      Are you sure? My friends and I all communicate via a Bitnet we have set up on our PDP-11 emulators.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:You are the problem... by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Hint: most junior high students communicate through facebook.

      Fixed.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    4. Re:You are the problem... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Hint: most of the online world communicates through facebook.

      This clearly involves a new definition of the word "most". About half the online world is in Asia-Pacific, where Facebook penetration is barely 17%. Your statement implies its penetration is at least 83% over the rest of the world, and it's nowhere close to that (even in the USA, where it's highest).

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    5. Re:You are the problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to check your facebook penetration statistics again. Iceland has been on top the last few years.

  25. GBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a Not Like button?

  26. Re:Fuck Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I regularly defend* Google, but I'd agree. TBH there's nothing noteworthy coming out of these corporations (Google, Microsoft, Apple) to justify a story except maybe twice every three months. At 1-3 per day it's become ridiculous.

    * on average. I've flamed them occasionally and I think most of their online services suck.

  27. It depends by billlava · · Score: 1

    If you have the ability to take something back it might not be so bad. Also, it seems like it would be pretty easy to tell who you are sharing with and avoid sending the wrong people (like your gay black boss) your inflammatory homophobic racist rants.

  28. Good Opportunity by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Facebook has been making too many mistakes. This is the perfect opportunity to bring back wave in a context that fits. Like Facebook though, I don't think I'll participate. I've never understood the desire to make personal information about yourself public. I had a near miss with an employer that wanted everyone constantly available through skype, twitter, and facebook. If I wanted to share my personal life, phone conversations, and listen to someone's pointless babble I'd get back together with an old girlfriend.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Good Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook has been making too many mistakes. This is the perfect opportunity to bring back wave in a context that fits. Like Facebook though, I don't think I'll participate. I've never understood the desire to make personal information about yourself public. I had a near miss with an employer that wanted everyone constantly available through skype, twitter, and facebook. If I wanted to share my personal life, phone conversations, and listen to someone's pointless babble I'd get back together with an old girlfriend.

      JESUS CHRIST THIS IF THERE EVER WAS A MOD POINT.... -- Yes, I'm bitter and hateful guy -- FUCK OFF!!!!

    2. Re:Good Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point of this is you DON'T share your personal information with everyone.

    3. Re:Good Opportunity by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      The whole point of Google+ is that you don't have to make personal information public. You define specific circles of contacts and decide who sees what.

      Facebook actually has this ability as well, but it is so buried and unfriendly most people don't even know it is there. For example, when I post to Facebook, sometimes I say my family can see it, sometimes my work collegues, sometimes everyone, sometimes all 3, sometimes none (private info only for me and my immediate family).

      Google is taking this idea and making it user-friendly.

    4. Re:Good Opportunity by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never understood the desire to make personal information about yourself public.

      Well, it's no wonder you don't understand the desire to make everything about your life completely public, because for most people *total* exposure isn't a feature of the Facebook model; it's an unfortunate side effect.

      The problem with Facebook is that it assumes you have only *one* social network. That your work colleagues, family, and spouse swapping club are just different entry points into one big homogeneous social network. This is manifestly false, but Facebook wants every individual's social network to be as large as possible because that's more profitable. That's why Facebook's twiddling of its privacy controls only produces more confusion. Users can't *get* what they really want with Facebook's network model, so any attempt to impose security on top of that model only makes it harder to share what they *do* want to share with the people they want to share it with.

      The big question is how much of this is deliberate? Some think Facebook has a goal of training people to accept less privacy. I don't think that their goals are that long term. Still, I do not think Facebook is unaware that they're not providing the service that people want, nor do I think they are unable to give people what they want. The one homogeneous network model happened to be the one that maximized revenue in the short term. With the gathering backlash against Facebook's usability and security, I think users have figured what Facebook probably already knows: Facebook isn't the service they need.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Good Opportunity by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      I've never understood the desire to make personal information about yourself public.

      I realize it's fashionable to hate Facebook, but the average FB user has no such desire. It's just a tool for keeping in touch with people. Other than your name (which needn't be real), no other information need be public, or even included.

      If your friends are assholes, you'll have a bad experience. If your friends are not assholes, it's an innocuous -- and sometimes useful -- tool.

  29. Mysterious new service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.wdyl.com/#boobies
    Interesting.. Could be handy once they get everything working...

  30. Hilarity by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

    Best thing ever: go to the WDYL thing and put in "sex" for double-entendre fun.

    "Have a debate about sex!" "Find sex nearby!" "Watch videos of sex!"

    Bonus points for doing it with "goatse".

    1. Re:Hilarity by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      I'm a big fan of "Plan your sex events". I do admit, a calendar would be very useful for my plethora of sex events.

    2. Re:Hilarity by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 2

      My favourite one was when it suggested I make a photo album about muffdiving, which is frankly the best suggestion I've ever received.

    3. Re:Hilarity by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      "Call someone about sex."

      "Find patents about sex." -- that one turns up some real interesting results

      "Alert me about sex."

      "Access sex stuff on the web faster with Chrome."

      I thought all the dots that popped up on the map for "Find sex nearby!" were pretty funny. I had no idea there were so many local brothels.

      and then there is the truly awesome "Explore Sex in 3D."

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    4. Re:Hilarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Scour the earth for sex."

    5. Re:Hilarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I nearly shat myself laughing

    6. Re:Hilarity by swillden · · Score: 1

      I thought all the dots that popped up on the map for "Find sex nearby!" were pretty funny. I had no idea there were so many local brothels.

      There aren't. Those dots just track the nearby sluts.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Hilarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would definitely scour the earth for goatse using Google Earth

    8. Re:Hilarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually hilarious!

      • Explore goatse in 3D
      • Scour the earth for goatse
      • Organize a debate about goatse
        • Where is the best place to find goatse?
        • What is the best thing about goatse?
        • How do you feel about goatse?
        • What is the worst thing about goatse?

      At least there are no patents on goatse...

    9. Re:Hilarity by DavidKlemke · · Score: 1

      Whilst it might be extremely juvenile I got a good chuckle out of "your mother":
      - "Measure the popularity of your mother on the internet"
      - "Explore your mother in 3D" (uhhhhh)
      - "Alert me about your mother"

      Brilliant way to spend a Friday afternoon at work ;)

  31. Who cares by gweihir · · Score: 0

    not me

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  32. They were going to call it Google Me... by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    .. but I guess Marketing people didn't like it. A change for the worse, methinks

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    1. Re:They were going to call it Google Me... by ikirudennis · · Score: 1

      Marketing hated it because of what happened with Windows Me. [shudder]

  33. This is going to fail. by slasho81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Facebook specifically benefits from the lack of privacy of its users to generate attention grabbing content to as many users as possible. The endless time people spend on Facebook is not spent creating content or communicating - it's spent stalking other people. Facebook is like a super-tabloid or like gossip on crack.

    Businesses everywhere promote Facebook by requesting users to Like them. Most users are blissfully unaware that by Liking they aren't just anonymously adding 1 to the Like count, but they are also endorsing the business and giving permission to the business to spam them. The friend counter is like an addictive game with the aim to accumulate as many points as possible with shame built-in if you don't have as many points as others have.

    Facebook is a useful communication tool, but it's also evil. It takes advantage of its users in order to promote itself and its interests. If Google isn't ready to go full evil, they have no chance to compete in that arena. Sure, people will use the new awesome services Plus will offer, but it's not enough to get the attention Google wants for its advertising needs. People who can't kill will always be subject to those who can. Same thing applies to businesses who won't turn evil.

    1. Re:This is going to fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the most concise explanation of Facebook I've ever read. I started using it due to social obligations and have seen it all first-hand; Facebook is evil, but I love it. I like seeing what my friends are up to, I like that they can see what I'm up to. We are all each other's stalkers now. It's made life worse in some ways, but better in many others. It's also been extremely creepy, and occasionally embarrassing, but it's been worth it.

    2. Re:This is going to fail. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Google went evil a long time ago. See: Google's handling of Chinese censorship, Google Buzz's rollout, Street View data collection, Schmidt's comments regarding kids getting name changes when they're of age, Google killing three services in the last month (two of which I used every now and then), etc..

    3. Re:This is going to fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's handling of Chinese censorship

      Providing more resistance and transparency than any other company dealing with China, then all but leaving the country when they felt China just couldn't be fixed? Sounds good to me.

      Google Buzz's rollout

      Completely misunderstood, hysteria was all but totally unfounded, and they fixed any issues within days of release.

      Street View data collection

      Accidental, and they voluntarily came clean and cooperated with all investigations.

      Schmidt's comments regarding kids getting name changes when they're of age

      Obvious satire.

      Google killing three services in the last month (two of which I used every now and then), etc..

      I wasn't aware that companies shutting down unprofitable / broken products was "evil".

      You must have a pretty low bar for "evil" if these are the things that you judge.

      Microsoft is evil for actively trying to kill any company that crosses their path.
      Facebook is evil for deliberately trying to destroy privacy.
      Apple is evil for their censorship and for demanding that you only play by their rules on the devices that you purchase from them.
      Google, on the other hand, is one of the few user-focused large companies around, and stays true to their motto.

    4. Re:This is going to fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is a useful communication tool, but it's also evil. It takes advantage of its users in order to promote itself and its interests. If Google isn't ready to go full evil, they have no chance to compete in that arena. Sure, people will use the new awesome services Plus will offer, but it's not enough to get the attention Google wants for its advertising needs. People who can't kill will always be subject to those who can. Same thing applies to businesses who won't turn evil.

      I think there are key differences between Google and Facebook. Social is Facebook's core business and they have to reap as much value per user as they can. I'm not sure they've been particularly successful at it. Google, on the other hand, has other services that stand to benefit immensely.

      * Adds value to Android phones with slick integration
      * Google Deals has a platform on which to succeed
      * Revenue generation from Google Music/Videos, etc.
      * Advertising dollars, and Google is just damn good at targeting. Facebook knows I'm gay, yet shows me big-breasted women in ads for dating sites. WTF?

      And Google has built-in privacy controls, and it's encouraging it's users to use it as a core feature.

      Google can succeed without being "evil."

    5. Re:This is going to fail. by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Do you read anything besides /. headline regarding Google?

      I don't see anything evil about what your list; but I have the misfortune of knowing about them; had I been an ignorant twat bag, then I to would have the opportunity to be as incensed about nothing as you are.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:This is going to fail. by yuhong · · Score: 1

      IMO the real evil is not the push to overshare (which IMO is OK, IMO the illusion that celebrities are perfect needs to end), but the tricks they use to lead users to give up more information than expected, like this:
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/24/1222210/Facebook-Retroactively-Makes-More-User-Data-Public

    7. Re:This is going to fail. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do read news elsewhere, and you seriously don't see anything wrong with Schmidt's numerous comments regarding privacy and how little value he apparently places on it (only a fraction of which were reported here), or the fact that Google is just up and killing useful services (particularly the Google Translation API)? There's definitely an element of evilness associated with each of the things I listed.

      That said, I actually like Google, and, contrary to how you misinterpreted and read into what I said, I wasn't incensed by any of the things I listed. Rather, I'm just being honest with the fact that they are no longer the "don't be evil" company they used to be. There's nothing wrong with that, since that's simply part of business, but it sounds like you still have your head stuck in the sand and are unwilling to accept something that's become patently obvious in recent years.

    8. Re:This is going to fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as part of the field trial, it's an awfully nice product, and I could easily see it becoming quite popular just by being great. But you're saying that even so, it won't make enough advertising money?

    9. Re:This is going to fail. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      OTH plus has lots of colourful arrows which may appeal more to eleven year olds than the more subdued facebook UI. And for that demographic it may be an advantage to not be in a place where you could run into your grandmother.

    10. Re:This is going to fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "common people", at least the people I know who use FB and are not in IT, don't exactly give a fuck about privacy and especially spam, etc.
      They understand what's real and what's not real. What matters and what not; FB doesn't matter. It's imaginary.
      Data is real tho, but who am I to be oh so concerned ? What's really private and important to me is not sharable on FB, only superficial stuff is sharable. Music i listen, shows I watch.. etc. What's the problem ?

      If someone has a problem with what I listen, which shows I watch or don't like what I'm "fighting for", I honestly don't want to have anything to do with that person and/or organization. Even if it's a job. It's time for people to start standing up for them selfs, and not complaining all the time about everything.

      People can of course find reasons why "privacy" matters to them, everyone have a reason for everything, but try keep it real eh ? We all got FAR bigger problems (in real world) then damn facebook privacy settings. Share on facebook what you share in public, and you'll be good. You're not gonna use FB for posting pictures of your marijuana crop, or your sex videos with your gf. If you do, don't blame facebook and other businesses.. blame yourself.

    11. Re:This is going to fail. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The same could be said about search engines. Who would have guessed that google's plain, ad free, search home page, would take over Yahoo and other serach engines of the time.

      What your concerns boil down to, is how does one monetize a social network site. Its obvious that google has a very good track record monetizing things that other companies couldn't do without going 'full evil'.

      The could also afford to operate at a loss until the user base was gigantic. If the service is simple, useful, has unobtrusive ads, and works better than facebook, users will start migrating. Once the user base is large enough, momentum keeps it going, and that tiny targeted ad brings in serious cash.

  34. Focus on search by Animats · · Score: 2

    Google needs to focus on improving search. Blekko is doing a better job in some areas, especially health.

    Ads which appear in search results appear when the user is actually looking for something. This makes those ads valuable. On "social" systems, ads are annoying interference while talking to your friends. Facebook has a fraction of the ad revenue of Google.

    Facebook's period of growth is over. Facebook, like all its predecessors from AOL to Myspace, has peaked on user count and is now shrinking. They should have gone public before that happened. Now their value is far less.

    1. Re:Focus on search by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finding out what you're interested in would make google search better, wouldn't it?

  35. I'd be wary of Google services by Bloodwine77 · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are starting to rack up a nice stack a corpses made from discontinued Google services. Google Wave, Google Translation API, Google Health, and Google PowerMeter to name a few.

    I would hate to get too invested in a Google service only to have it disappear on me. As far as I am concerned, Google Search and Gmail are their only sure bets.

    1. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by rsborg · · Score: 1

      They are starting to rack up a nice stack a corpses made from discontinued Google services. Google Wave, Google Translation API, Google Health, and Google PowerMeter to name a few.

      I would hate to get too invested in a Google service only to have it disappear on me. As far as I am concerned, Google Search and Gmail are their only sure bets.

      Discontinued efforts are good. That means Google knows that it's not the end-all-be-all of tech, and have chosen their battles. I'm also glad Apple shut down their xServes and Microsoft shuttered the embarrassment that was Zune.

      btw, Google Translation API is available now, you just have to pay for it (since they couldn't justify it as a free service)... if you have a business model around that API, it's now priced appropriately (like others in the same market).

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    2. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are starting to rack up a nice stack a corpses made from discontinued Google services. Google Wave, Google Translation API, Google Health, and Google PowerMeter to name a few.

      I would hate to get too invested in a Google service only to have it disappear on me. As far as I am concerned, Google Search and Gmail are their only sure bets.

      Don't use any service that you can't get your data out of. Google has done a good job at this so far: They provide tools to get your data (http://www.dataliberation.org/), and if something is discontinued they tell the world months in advance.

    3. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In one of their video presentations they explicitly showed how you can delete your profile and download all the data associated with it.

    4. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely, I think it's telling that they're willing to take a stab at something and admit that it didn't work, and then try something new. Nitpicky: the translation API isn't going away from lack of use, but rather from quite the opposite.

    5. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I am concerned, Google Search and Gmail are their only sure bets.

      Yeah, they might get bored of Youtube at any time. It's got about as much future as Apple or BSD.

    6. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Apps, Google News, Picasa, Calendar, and a few others seem to be doing alright still.

    7. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can take your data from Google+ with you.
      http://google.com/takeout

    8. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's that 'Like' button...

    9. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Threni · · Score: 1

      I'd like to try it, but I have a Google Apps account, which isn't supported.

      Why not?

    10. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by justhatched · · Score: 1

      But apart from sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health what services have google ever provided?

    11. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, who is their competition for Health, PowerMeter and Tranlation API, and what is that competition up to? Why business rationale does Google have to continue those services?

      From a purely economic view, Facebook is a direct competitor for the transactions that bring cash into Google. The eyeball brokers. Why does Google have mail and mapping and all that other stuff? To keep your eyeballs corralled on Google services. Facebook is trying to extend its offerings for the identical reason. Google would be stupid to let Facebook offer competing services without offering some challenge in Facebook's core business.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Daniel+Weis · · Score: 1
    13. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Bloody Google..

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      I used Wave for a collaboration project and it was scary when they announced the discontinuation. I was pretty mad. But then they offered a way to export everything in either html or pdf format and they've given Wave over to the open source community as Wave-in-a-Box. When Wave-in-a-Box is complete, I should be able to just load it up on a server of my choice (or perhaps someone else will choose to host a service using the code).

      I understand why they discontinued it. It required too many resources on Google's part for a niche product. But for those of us that use it, we'll always be grateful for the time and effort Google put into making it a reality. It sure beats the hell out of using a web forum for a collaborative project, especially when you want to work simultaneously.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    15. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      Notebook, Buzz, Location, Orkut are basically half-dead or dead.

    16. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. If you're wary of Google's commitment to social, it doesn't get any more clear than this - http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee-bonuses-to-the-success-of-the-googles-social-strategy-2011-4?op=1

    17. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it did go belly up, you could export all your data from it, unlike any other social site.

    18. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I am concerned, Google Search and Gmail are their only sure bets.

      Google Maps... Android...

    19. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      "Like" is too SoCal. Where Google is from they say "Hella."

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    20. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      You forgot Wave, it was so hyped and then nothing turned out of it.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    21. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by token0 · · Score: 1

      Sure, I guess Analytics, Blogger, Calendar, Chrome, Code, Docs, Groups, Language Tools, Picasa, Maps, OS, Reader, Scholar, Talk, Webmaster Tools, to name a few are going to join the stack of corpses in a minute. Sure bet. Or maybe you just have to fail sometimes when you push new services in dozens, to ensure some quality. If I knew Google+ was a 100% sure bet, now _that_ would worry me.

    22. Re:I'd be wary of Google services by lennier · · Score: 1

      I'm with the Mozilla People's Liberation Front myself.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  36. Actually looks interesting and useful to me. by fortfive · · Score: 1

    Facebook to me has always seemed like hi-tech note passing. This thing seems to understand how *I* actually communicate with associates and friends. Of course, it will require all parties to be participating, and advantage fb has in spades.

    1. Re:Actually looks interesting and useful to me. by Zizagoo · · Score: 1

      Actually it doesn't. If someone in your "Circle" doesn't have a Google profile, it emails it to them instead. I can see this working as a very useful universal sharing tool, especially if they make an api which lets you slice and dice +1's/youtube links/reader links etc and then send them off into 3rd party services like Evernote and such.

  37. I actually may use it, but not how they think by odin84gk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This does look promising.

    If they truly allow group video conferencing using a browser, I will certainly use it.
    If they truly implement voice chat, I would gladly replace Skype, possibly even Vent. (Depends on how it gets implemented)
    If they implement group chat that works across cell platforms, I will certainly use it. I would love to use something like this to organize weekly spontaneous events instead of massive text messages. (Email is too slow and unreliable for the last-minute changes, phone calls takes too long.)

    However...
    This must be painfully easy to use, no special invites and 10 day waiting lists. If this thing gets rolled out using small groups, it will die.

    1. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Group video conferencing in a browser actually works and it's really awesome, we've been using internally for a while. I don't have experience with the other ones you mention.

    2. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This must be painfully easy to use, no special invites and 10 day waiting lists. If this thing gets rolled out using small groups, it will die.

      Gmail was invite only for a looong time, and that worked pretty well as a marketing tool. It's a classic I want what I can't have, which for a social website seems like a good strategy

    3. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      This must be painfully easy to use, no special invites and 10 day waiting lists. If this thing gets rolled out using small groups, it will die.

      They aren't likely to change their invite-only tactic. It has been quite successful in the past due to the false demand it creates without having to spend much money on traditional advertising. But the larger factor is likely that they want to be able to very accurately compare the adoption rates (and the rate of changes in the adoptions rates) to their other advertising platforms when they were new.
      uh-oh, we've got a delta eyeballs resembling answers.google here!

    4. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by davevr · · Score: 1

      If this thing gets rolled out using small groups, it will die.

      yeah, because that gradual roll-out stuff really killed facebook.

    5. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Gmail offered 2 GB of storage space for free, at a time when hotmail offered 10 MB, and for pay services offered 100 MB. That made it desirable. Google+ doesn't give something for free that you cannot get elsewhere. They seem to be making the same mistake as with Wave: a tool that needs collaboration of many users needs many users. Restricting access to a social website misses the point, and will kill it.

    6. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you organise a spontaneous event?

        I don't think that word means what you think it means....

    7. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      It basically killed Orkut for the general world populance, and it sure didn't prevent spam as it was meant to.

    8. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by Stupendoussteve · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point.

      Facebook was not always public. For a long time you could only register with a college email, I think at some point they broadened to any .edu email address. It wasn't until 2006 or so that anybody could sign up with any email address... and people did because they wanted in on this new thing that had been closed off from them.

      Orkut was never popular except with Brazilians. In this case the invite system didn't work because there was no real buzz about it. At the time myspace and facebook were still new and growing. Right now it may work as interest is waning elsewhere.

    9. Re:I actually may use it, but not how they think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like GMail died?

      Oh wait...

  38. I can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's hoping the number one result that people love is "Bing".

  39. Ummm, Orkut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Decisive "entry"? Then what was Orkut?

  40. I am deeply disappointed... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    that the service isn't called Google-Spot.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:I am deeply disappointed... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I would never be able to find it.

  41. Google research on social networks by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    Relevant: Google research on social networks

    It looks like Google Plus is a direct result of this research.

  42. I'm Going For It by swsuehr · · Score: 1

    Since I seem to be the last person on earth without a Facebook account, I think I'll sign up for this and start sending invites to all of those people on Facebook who keep spamming me to join.

    Anyone have any invites to spare?

    Steve

    1. Re:I'm Going For It by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested as well. I used to hop on Facebook more regularly when it was very young (back when you had to select your university from a list of less than 25 or so and have a matching .edu e-mail address), but their privacy has eroded so much over the years that I finally got fed up and deactivated my account. I used to be able to only let me friends see any of my information, but as time went on, more and more strangers could see my information, which meant that I kept removing more and more of it.

      This Circles+ idea sounds pretty interesting to me, and sure beats the pants off of what they did with Buzz. The one qualm I have with it is that there are always people on the edge of a circle of friends (i.e. that guy that your circle invites to stuff a good chunk of the time, but not always, since he may not have as much overlap in interests), and setting up something like this is still rather constricting. I'd almost like a system with this general idea, but where the signal somehow got quieter as it reached people more on the edge of the circle. For instance, if circles shared messages using something like Gmail's priority inbox, if someone didn't respond regularly, or else failed to indicate an interest in whatever it was that united the circle, Google would push messages from that circle out of the priority section, that way it doesn't bother that person as much, but still keeps them kinda clued in.

      Alternatively, they could spread messages around more like they're spread in real life. For instance, when we're deciding to go somewhere, we usually grab everyone who's present, then those of us already there may grab a few more by calling them up or texting, depending on who's in town or what we know people's availability to be. It's a much more organic form of growing the group and involving people in it. The problem is that you don't have this idea of "everyone who's present" in the online media so much, though this hangout idea of theirs may help alleviate that issue as well.

    2. Re:I'm Going For It by geekoid · · Score: 1

      eroded? it never had any privacy; that was the point. To post things you want people to know.

      Then people started freaking out. It's like someone posting the address on a pin up bulletin board in the middle of a court yard, and then bitching the bulletin board doesn't protect your privacy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:I'm Going For It by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      eroded? it never had any privacy; that was the point. To post things you want people to know.

      You seem to be conflating privacy and secrecy, since privacy and information sharing are not mutually exclusive.

      To illustrate that idea, I may discuss something with a trusted confidante, but because the confidante keeps the information to themselves, it is still private (i.e. not public), despite having been shared. Many of us used Facebook in a similar way, in the sense that we only allowed trusted individuals into our friends list, rather than trying to make it as large as possible. The risk of those friends spreading personal information was negligible, so privacy still existed even if secrecy did not.

      The risk eventually became moot, however. To borrow your analogy, if I had a bulletin board in my home that I used to share messages with family or visiting friends, it's private (again, not public) because it's within the confines of my home. Over time, the manufacturer of the board took chunks off of it and put them in a public plaza, which meant that we were left with less of the board on which to share information privately.

      Similarly, Facebook was truly private at one time, because it was possible to hide ALL of your information from strangers, just as the entire board was at one time in the house. Over time, Facebook made some items incapable of being hidden from strangers, rendering them incapable of being kept private should you want to share them.

      As such, while Facebook did at one time have both privacy and the ability to share information, today, it lacks the former.

  43. Ars Tech by foamrat · · Score: 1

    Ars Technica did a write up of this also http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/06/inside-google-how-the-search-giant-plans-to-go-social.ars/ I read this in their article:

    "Right now, Google won't even suggest who should be in your circles. But it has the technology to do so (it's already making suggestions on who you might include on Gmail mailing lists). So in the future it's conceivable that Google might indeed provide plenty of nonbinding suggestions for who you might want it your Circles. "We've got this whole system already in place that hasn't been used that much where we keep track of every time you email someone or chat to them or things like that," says Smarr. "Then we compute affinity scores. So we're able to do suggestions not only about who you should add to a circle, or even what circles you could create out of whole cloth.""

    A little concerned over the "things like that"

  44. Boobies anyone? by dclozier · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who loves boobies? (now that's pretty funny)

    1. Re:Boobies anyone? by ChikMag777 · · Score: 1

      Is this SFW?

    2. Re:Boobies anyone? by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 1

      Oh god that made my day. Thank you sir or madam.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    3. Re:Boobies anyone? by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 1

      I clicked your link, sir, but did not find any information about the birds I do so adore...

      --
      I welcome our new 99% overlords.
    4. Re:Boobies anyone? by chill · · Score: 1

      Really? Check the images. Two of the ones I saw were the little blue-footed birds. Maybe you were just luckier than I was.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:Boobies anyone? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I signed in to be Alerted about boobies. Seemed rather important to be frequently notified about it.

    6. Re:Boobies anyone? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Ah, I must say I was deeply disappointed at Explore 3D not working for me :'(

    7. Re:Boobies anyone? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I got a date with boobies!!!!! It says so on the calendar!!!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Boobies anyone? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      I love that Google wants to help me find boobies near by. That's Epic Google!

      --
      I8-D
  45. Good work tool? by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    Engineering projects are normally based on projects. That means each person often has several projects going, with a different group of people involved in each project depending on particular needs and workloads. This could be very handy to build a group for each project to ease communications.

  46. more than those by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    As far as I am concerned, Google Search and Gmail are their only sure bets.

    Add Calendar, Docs, Photos, Reader, Photos to that list. I have a difficult time imagining those vanishing any time soon.

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:more than those by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

      .... meant to say Youtube instead of the 2nd instance of Photos....

      --
      Reply to That ||
  47. cookies and money by vinn01 · · Score: 1

    They want to set a *.google.com cookie that contains identifying social data. That would greatly enhance their ability to data mine useful, and profitable, information from the combination of your social profile and your searches. It's a marketers wet dream: detailed demographic data with detailed personal interests (every search you do). All they need to do is sell ad space that matches you up with buying habits of people in your demographic and having the same interests. An advertiser would pay a lot for that high quality sales lead.

    1. Re:cookies and money by Albanach · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I mind relevant ads if they're targeted at me as part of an anonymous group.

  48. Finally, a social network that won't.... err wait by dontmakemethink · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't Google already guilty of all the issues people complain about in Facebook?

    --

    War as we knew it was obsolete
    Nothing could beat complete denial
    - Emily Haines
  49. Clever timing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kudos to Google on the timing-- if they deliver the technical goods (I can't check yet), this is not only clever because of what it does, but also because of when it does it. What they are doing here is effectively integrating an improved Facebookish thing with an improved Skypeish thing. Let's recall that Facebook (and Zynga) have not gone public yet and won't for a few months, that Microsoft only just bought Skype for a ridiculous amount of money, and that Microsoft wanted to grab attention today with its Office 365.

    If they'd done this earlier, Microsoft would almost certainly have saved money on Skype. If they'd done it later, Facebook would have had more resources to counter-attack.

    (Disclaimer: I will be on their payroll soon.)

  50. Google Bingo by Marble68 · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the social networking I want. I have my professional face, my personal face, my friendly face, my political nutjob face, and my horribly bad joke face. Never should they mix...

    --
    /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
  51. Visiting from Google Future by retroworks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hi, I just found this website "Slashdot" using "Google Time Machine" app. I'm posting from here in the year 2078. Google says I'm 234 bitcoins away from getting my children back, and I can earn credit by doing this research, polling Geeks of the Past about what efforts they may be hatching to keep this Google Universe from occurring (or slowing it). By the way, I see many references to something called "facebook", what is it? And what's a farmville?

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Visiting from Google Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what's a farmville?

      Farmville is the future we saved you from. Do not turn it back again.

    2. Re:Visiting from Google Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid.

    3. Re:Visiting from Google Future by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It would have been funny if you did that with a new account.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Visiting from Google Future by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Ba-dum Zynga!

    5. Re:Visiting from Google Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a good one, thanks

    6. Re:Visiting from Google Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww come on, not new account, but his nickname is "retro works"!

    7. Re:Visiting from Google Future by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Google Time Machine sounds a lot more fun than the Apple version.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    8. Re:Visiting from Google Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funniest comment ever!

    9. Re:Visiting from Google Future by horza · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, it shows people still waste their time on Slashdot in 2078.

      Phillip.

    10. Re:Visiting from Google Future by lennier · · Score: 1

      And what's a farmville?

      Farmville is the world that has been pulled over your eyes, to turn a human being into

      (holds up a cow with a spring-powered clicker attached. ka-click, moo!)

      one of these.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  52. Circles by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

    I must admit that "circles" is a much nicer term than "aspects" which diaspora uses.
    "Huddle", however - as a term for a group chat - is a bit silly. Perhaps it will appeal to football fans, though. ;)

    1. Re:Circles by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      They should call it "Grouphug" instead.

    2. Re:Circles by grcumb · · Score: 1

      "Huddle", however - as a term for a group chat - is a bit silly.

      They should call it "Grouphug" instead.

      Certainly easier to type than 'Circle Jerk'....

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  53. 404 Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    heya,

    I get the following error when I click "Keep Me Posted":

    404. That’s an error.
    The requested URL /intl/en-GB/+/learnmore/notifyme.html was not found on this server. That’s all we know.

    Perhaps the link only works for US users?

    Still, it shouldn't give a 404. You'd think somebody at Google would at least check these things *sigh*. And this is why Google fails - they're good at "cool" things, but that last 20% of polish/QA is what they lack - see iPhone vs Android (Disclaimer: I'm an Android user).

    Cheers,
    Victor

  54. Is google Reliable ? by Chuby007 · · Score: 1

    so we upload all of out data there, and in a few years they say it's not profitable and close it like they have closed.. let me remember: "Google Translation API", "Google Wave", "Google Health", "Google Power Meter", "Lively" , I mean it's hard to believe in a company that just tests and tests and tests, then decides to close anything whenever...

    1. Re:Is google Reliable ? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Were you unable to get your data out of these? Nope. You got ALL of your data that you put in and said that you wanted. OTH, with other services, such as facebook or MS, you can NOT pull them out easily.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  55. 'Entry'? by omni123 · · Score: 2

    Is it really an entry if this is their third attempt or did everyone just forget Wave? How about Buzz?

    1. Re:'Entry'? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      wave was not about social networking. Buzz was their first real entry into it. It failed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:'Entry'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Orkut too

    3. Re:'Entry'? by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      What about Location/Places or they're that forgettable?

    4. Re:'Entry'? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I think that you would have to be the FIRST person to consider that part of social networking.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:'Entry'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wave was an email 'replacement' not a social network.

    6. Re:'Entry'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Orkut? I suppose you had to actually know about that one before you could forget about it.

    7. Re:'Entry'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Orkut? So yeah, forth attempt. :)

  56. What do you love? by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    According to the meta description, the mystery Google service does this: "Get more of what you love by searching across numerous Google products with one click."

    It seems to do pretty much what it describes: It ties your search term into numerous Google products to see if there's anything interesting/useful.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  57. worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they have something NEW and different, they are just playing "follow my leader". ANd when you do that, you lose.

    If google is going to win this, they need something truly unique that is worth while jumping for. At this time, my wife is placing all of our pix on Google rather than Facebook since facebook will not only own the pix, but they have shown a propensity for selling ALL of our information. OTH, Google does not sell our information. They sell ACCESS to us, which is a very different thing. You can go to Facebook, MS, Apple, etc and get anything that you want from their customer list. I will have to pay for it, but I CAN get a list of everybody that uses MS and /., with your name, address, age, etc from Microsoft. Sad, but true.

  58. Aaaand bye bye Facebook by unity100 · · Score: 1

    It was past due, i might add.

    1. Re:Aaaand bye bye Facebook by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't write facebook's obituary just yet.

      Google already has a social networking site, Orkut. Google had several other social networking attempts.

      For whatever reason, facebook is the social networking site that has caught on. IMO: few facebook users will find a compelling reason to switch.

      I don't get the great appeal of facebook myself, but I see no reason to write off facebook just yet.

    2. Re:Aaaand bye bye Facebook by xatm092 · · Score: 1

      The reason that facebook is popular is that facebook is popular. Let me see... friends on facebook: 250. Friends on diaspora: 4. Which am I going to check more regularly? Myspace only lost popularity because of how annoying you could make your profile for everyone else to view.

  59. Google... transparent? by caitsith01 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google's transparency with privacy

    In what possible universe is Google transparent about privacy?? Can you go somewhere to see what data they have collected about you? I think not.

    You have literally no idea what data they have in the no doubt comprehensive profile they have built about you based on search and gmail. If you read their privacy terms there are an alarming number of "outs" for them to basically use that information however the hell they want. Add to that their creepy wifi data collection, creepy streetview cars, etc etc. Hell, a Google search is a pretty good record of your thoughts.

    I consider Google one of the biggest threats to privacy going around. By comparison Facebook is child's play.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know the facebook+MS paid-for PR smear campaign against Google is working pretty well. The funny part? None of that bullshit you just said contains any evidence, you just call something "creepy" or an "out."

      The real threat? Non-thinking slashdotters modding speculation like this up. Show your work.

    2. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you!

      You appear to be only a handful of Slashdot readers who has a mind, and realises that Google is the biggest threat to privacy ever envisioned.
      Even the poor guys, CIA / Pentagon doesn't hold anywhere near the amont of data Google holds on us, including our day to day, hour by hour interests, our thoughts over the web, our contacts, our position, and every single web you visit (DoubleClick / Analytics / ReCaptcha), (and if you use Chrome/Android), then pretty much your entire life including your where abouts and who you associate with and the types of people.

      And yet it shocks me that among the geek population, very few I know or seen over various website recognise the threat of Google.
      I guess it must be because they've hypnotised many geeks because of their so-called committment to open source and linux, none of which are open source or that they contribute back, especially not their custom linux code.
      In fact, I'm beginning to think that they don't even use Linux, rather it may be something completely different, so radically different that they simply brand their stuff as linux to make slashdot-like crowd happy and comfortable.

      Wow, imagine the poor guys Microsoft, if they had all these products, the geek population will be full of hatred and talk of privacy on all corners of the web!

    3. Re:Google... transparent? by SpecialFred · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try https://www.google.com/dashboard/. It has everything associated with your Google account, and you can manage most of the information. See also http://www.dataliberation.org/, and, in the future, https://www.google.com/takeout/

    4. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google's transparency with privacy

      In what possible universe is Google transparent about privacy?? Can you go somewhere to see what data they have collected about you? I think not.

      http://www.google.com/dashboard

    5. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's transparency with privacy

      In what possible universe is Google transparent about privacy?? Can you go somewhere to see what data they have collected about you? I think not.

      Here: http://www.google.com/dashboard

    6. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you go somewhere to see what data they have collected about you? I think not.

      http://www.google.com/dashboard

      Have fun

    7. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can go to the dashboard page and see all the data they have collected, and who it is shared with, and delete things....
      You can, for example, delete things from your search history (of course you can just log out before searching if you cared, right?)
      Streetview is more awesome than creepy, and the people who thought taking photos outside was creepy should have done something to make it illegal long before

      Google came along - just like the people who wanted to stop you from converting your CDs into MP3/AAC should have started fighting that fight when it was still barely possible to copy 650+MB of PCM WAV files to your 1GB HDD. They waited way too long. It's well established that taking photos outside in public places is legal in the majority of the countries in the world, and ... most people find streetview fun to play with. (as an aside, if it was illegal, I guess filming the cops would be more illegal).

    8. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google's transparency with privacy

      In what possible universe is Google transparent about privacy?? Can you go somewhere to see what data they have collected about you? I think not.

      Here: http://www.google.com/dashboard

    9. Re:Google... transparent? by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Even the poor guys, CIA / Pentagon doesn't hold anywhere near the amont of data Google holds on us, including our day to day, hour by hour interests, our thoughts over the web, our contacts, our position, and every single web you visit (DoubleClick / Analytics / ReCaptcha), (and if you use Chrome/Android), then pretty much your entire life including your where abouts and who you associate with and the types of people.

      And yet it shocks me that among the geek population, very few I know or seen over various website recognise the threat of Google.

      Several people have already pointed out https://www.google.com/dashboard/

      So you're concerned about the data they collect from search and web browsing? Chrome and Android dont actually give them anything other than a few bits of browsing history (if you have search suggestions turned on) and location data (if you have that turned on).

      In any case, all of this data is and has only ever been used to produce ads that they think you're likely to click on. oh, how sinister of them!!

      Google also tell us that they cant identify an individual from this data because it has been anonymized. Whether that is true, we may never find out - but the fact is that until now there has been no reports of Google misusing that data. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

      Of course, there are people who consider targetted advertising a misuse of their data...I'm not sure what they'd prefer...either they buy the products they like (because Google and others found out what they like and connected buyer with seller) OR the companies who produce products they like go out of business because they cant get enough sales. How else do companies get the word out?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    10. Re:Google... transparent? by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Where on that page does Google disclose what records it keeps of searches made versus IP address?

      Where is the data used to target advertising via Gmail?

      Where is the locational data collected about my use of mobile devices?

      Do you assert that this information does not exist? Are you really so naive?

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    11. Re:Google... transparent? by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Several people have already pointed out https://www.google.com/dashboard/

      So you're concerned about the data they collect from search and web browsing? Chrome and Android dont actually give them anything other than a few bits of browsing history (if you have search suggestions turned on) and location data (if you have that turned on).

      Dashboard tells you nothing. Are you suggesting that Google does not have the ability to match IP addresses versus searches done? And then to link that to gmail account logins to match it to particular people?

      In any case, all of this data is and has only ever been used to produce ads that they think you're likely to click on. oh, how sinister of them!!

      1. Where is your evidence for this claim?
      2. Even if that's right it still creates a convenient database for anyone else who might get at it, lawfully or otherwise.
      3. The use to which private data is put is irrelevant.

      Google also tell us that they cant identify an individual from this data because it has been anonymized. Whether that is true, we may never find out - but the fact is that until now there has been no reports of Google misusing that data. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

      Glad to hear you like to live your life on the basis of blind trust. Many of us do not.

      Of course, there are people who consider targetted advertising a misuse of their data...I'm not sure what they'd prefer...either they buy the products they like (because Google and others found out what they like and connected buyer with seller) OR the companies who produce products they like go out of business because they cant get enough sales. How else do companies get the word out?

      So your argument is that looking at targeted advertising should be compulsory and is somehow the only logical way to live?

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    12. Re:Google... transparent? by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Good to know the facebook+MS paid-for PR smear campaign against Google is working pretty well. The funny part? None of that bullshit you just said contains any evidence, you just call something "creepy" or an "out."

      Good to know that expressing an opinion which differs from the ./ groupthink on this subject results in ridiculous allegations about astroturfing. In your eyes presumably the dichotomy is "Google is great" on the one hand and "Paid shill for Facebook and Microsoft" on the other. It must be nice to live in such a simple world.

      In my view Google is an amazing company with some slightly concerning habits and a disturbing amount of power. Is that such a controversial opinion?

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    13. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Account? What?

      I don't have a Google account. But Google still collect information about my browsing habits ( "You recently searched for reinsurance" ). *That* is the data about which I am concerned, not some fluff that you chose to enter in your account.

    14. Re:Google... transparent? by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Where on that page does Google disclose what records it keeps of searches made versus IP address?

      I'm no privacy expert, but if I suspect if I could look at the searches you have performed from you IP address you wouldn't be too happy about that...

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    15. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try https://www.google.com/dashboard/. It has everything associated with your Google account, and you can manage most of the information. See also http://www.dataliberation.org/, and, in the future, https://www.google.com/takeout/

      Also try http://google.com/takeout

    16. Re:Google... transparent? by q.kontinuum · · Score: 1

      So, if I have no Google account, Google did not collect any data about me (by cookies, IP addresses [yes, search information related to an IP address can be relevant for privacy. The IP address doesn't change that often.]), cooperation with other sites using my account and Google Script APIs, and whatnot)? Or do they, and I just need to trust them to create an account to be allowed to delete this data? Somehow I have a hard time to trust them.

      --
      Trolling is a art!
    17. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has everything you have put there, not what they have collected on you, and then only what is associated with your "account". Sniff the data being sent to google-analytics sometime and you would be shocked. Full fingerprinting is performed, without your consent, so they can track everything you do online, even when you aren't specifically at a google domain. Most sites use google-analytics, so google has a record of nearly every site you go to.

      Using Facebook day-to-day is much less a privacy concern than searching with google for everything that comes to mind.

    18. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you stupid or just plain ignorant? Google's privacy policies are clear and fairly non-invasive. No shady nonsense. Go read the policies and how your data will be used and compare.

      And what's the big deal about wifi data? People making a big deal out of it, I don't understand. And Google corrected the street view issues long time ago. And it's not like Google is making a profit out of these supposed privacy breaches (which btw they corrected later).

      Get informed first. And then form an opinion. And then post on slashdot.

    19. Re:Google... transparent? by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Your "private" data (that you have willingly shared with a 3rd party already) must be pretty important to warrant the level of paranoia you're displaying there.

      The world is a scary place, but do you:

      1. hide in your house and never go out for fear of bad things happening... OR
      2. accept that there is a risk and just do the things you want.

      ??

      Oh yeah, I use facebook too. sue me.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    20. Re:Google... transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is taking over the world. You should just get used to it. They promised to make it a better place anyway.

  60. Re:Fuck Google. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Or a hand, at least!

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  61. Anyone got an invite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, I'd love and invite, but can't seem to fine one. Anyone got one?

  62. google is shit for privacy by nothings · · Score: 1

    I remember what felt like 10 years ago we were griping about Google keeping search logs. At the time they didn't have a use for them, they just wanted to keep them around just in case.

    So I never log in to google because I want to minimize how much they know about me. Of course they can still see my IP so who knows how effective this is, but at least I can try.

    Except, wait! Then they bought youtube, and eventually merged the youtube and google login systems, so not only did you use the same account to log into both, but being logged into one meant you were logged into the other.

    Now, youtube I was never that paranoid about the privacy of -- about them tracking what videos I watched. They could, but I didn't care much. So I had an account and I kept it logged in all the time, so I could see what my "subscriptions" had added recently and a few other useful things from being logged in.

    But no, because google is so dedicated to privacy, if I wanted to stay logged in to youtube, I had to let google log every search I did under my own username. So to preserve my minimal privacy with google search, I had to stop logging in to youtube.

    Those are the only two google services I use, but I bet there are similar stories for the rest of them.

    So yeah. Google marketing a service based on "privacy"? No thanks.

    1. Re:google is shit for privacy by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I got duped into assigning my gmail login to YouTube which I didn't consider would bind the two accounts. Next time I logged in, I found out that Google had scraped my email account and started showing me "possible friends" videos. Although they claim the default is privacy on your end, I deleted that account and set up another anonymous one to use. But, now I have to do this login dance to switch between accounts every time I go to either one.

      This deal is getting worse by the minute.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:google is shit for privacy by horza · · Score: 1

      Install 'cookieswap' in Firefox. I use it to switch between my 'Friends' and my 'Family' Facebook profiles. Though I will probably ditch them both for Google+ as it seems far more convenient with the Circles.

      Phillip.

  63. More Users Are Shunning Facebook? by fathom108 · · Score: 1

    So I'm thinking Google marketing must have been driving all of those More Users Are Shunning Facebook "news" stories recently.

  64. Orkut Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course everyone in the US remembers Wave and Buzz, but Orkut was modestly successful in India and Brazil, wasn't it?

  65. Laptop bonanza to experience for you by laptop01 · · Score: 1

    Your laptops are part of the personality you flaunt. This is the hi-tech gadget that everyone wishes to have, no matter whether a commoner or a tech savvy person. Laptops, besides its multi-utility facility, have turned into a fashion accessory. One can drive into www.rightgadgets.in/Items.asp?Category=Laptops_India_Online&cid=3 to have ample options of laptop offerings.

    --
    When you are planning to have the dream laptop for you, it's the details that you need first. So many companies, each ha
  66. Cannibalistic market fragmentation, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does Google have 4 different social networks now? What happened/is going to happen to Orkut and Buzz and Wave?

  67. Emphasis on privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got to be kidding me. Google's privacy policy is far worse than Facebook's, in fact Eric Schmidt said he wished Facebook would release more personal info about its users.

    Google's entire business model is based on violating people's privacy and selling personal information. I won't touch this service with a ten foot pole.

  68. Google Circles is not a myth.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have read about Google Circles for awhile now but it is actually Google +. The name is awful. But from what I have read from posts that it might be pretty good. Hopefully they have figured out their privacy issues, and have figured out that Gbuzz is a complete copy of Twitter.

    I sent business proposals to Google executives 2+ years ago and I suppose they read them. From this interview with AllthingsD. "..So we’re going to continue to make Google dramatically better and reward you for spending the few minutes it takes to say this is my family, these are my real friends. And we think the process of creating circles is a breakthrough. People don’t like cumbersome processes."

    It's pretty basic stuff, but Google could not figure it out with Gwave, or Gbuzz. Give back to the people using your site and making you money. That was in the proposals I sent. Circles connect with who you want to connect with. In my proposals. And cumbersome processes, make it easy to navigate and use. Google still has major issues with this, but we will see with Google+.

    Did they steal my ideas from my proposal, well I am not sure yet, as I have not got an invitation to G+, but we will see.
    I am not worried, I did not give all the details of how to do my site.
    I do find it interesting that they launched before the site was ready. Maybe, it is because they know who I am very soon going to send my proposals too. :)
    If you want check out 7slocal.com.
    thanks,
    lance damon bliss.

  69. These are not a social network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fb or Google plus/buzz are social database, not social network, because everything is centralized on provider servers.

    For a real social network, use XMPP with your own server or friend to friend software like Retroshare.

  70. Goodie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another one for the junk pile, along with Wave and Buzz.

  71. It is not launched by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    It is still in testing, and is invite-only. That is not what it means to be "launched."

  72. Perspective dude by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

    It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook. With Google's transparency with privacy, and already working business model (has facebook ever posted a profit?), I'd trust them over Facebook in a heartbeat.

    Facebook screws me over daily. No, I don't want any facebook credits. No, I don't want to play farmville. Disgusting...

    And yet you still use Facebook, daily?

    Do I have a choice? Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.

    How old are you, 15? Grow the hell up. If they get insulted, that's their problem, not yours. Or better, yet, just accept and ignore forever thereafter. If you can't do this online, chances are you cannot do the same in real life... and that's a behavioral problem right there.

    First. You can always delete your account. It's not like you are using it with gun in your head. I use facebook to stay connected with family and friends across the states and overseas. For twitter, I use it to follow up colleagues and very specific peoples and topics. Linkedin, as a good Rolodex for job-related contacts. Inevitably I get invites from people I deal with everyday that are not friends or colleagues. I typically accept them and ignore what I don't want to see/deal with it (or simply ignore the request... which surprisingly doesn't affect my sleeping patterns one bit!!! Hahaha!)

    When it comes to facebook, it's not like a "farmville" invite is something that is right there between my door and my car, and I can't fucking turn the ignition and go to work or go to the toilet and take a dump until I finally click the accept button. Just fucking ignore it. That's what I do, even if it is from my beloved cousins.

    Seriously, this is such irrelevant minutia, that the only annoying power it has over you it's the one you give it to it. It's not rocket science man. These are just little, irrelevant stupid things of no consequence at all.

    Similarly, I have friends of mine who simply don't do facebook, and guess what?? They live well, and guess what else, their friends that have a facebook account actually interact with them (and viceversa) by other means. Mind boggling, ain't it.

    Facebook is just a tool, and you get what you put (or do not put) in it. You can delete it at any time. You can exclude or include people to see your info as you wish, and you can subscribe and ignore shit you like or don't like.

    To claim that you use it daily while at the same time annoy is just retarded. Either delete it, or grow up a little and don't let irrelevant e-shit annoy you. You can delete Again, it's not like

  73. Market power GET by tepples · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... why?

    If Google were to buy Facebook, that might give Google too much market power in social networking, web advertising, and federated authentication markets.

    1. Re:Market power GET by creat3d · · Score: 1

      Actually, the "why" was referring to why the hell would anyone care about the GET number? This isn't 4chan.

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  74. Decisive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha... Don't you mean re-re-entry after utterly failing twice?

    I think it could be good, they've already effectively replaced Skype for video chat & PC-to-phone voip. We'll see. There's something to be said for momentum, and google lost an awful lot of ground with the embarrassing failure of Buzz, and I don't even remember hearing about Wave (and I work for an internet marketing company). Maybe they were just working out how not to do it.

  75. Infrastructure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of technology is behind google+ ?
    IHMO it's more important than all these features.

    Is it centralised?
    decentralized ?( like email or wave )
    peer to peer ?( like bittorrent )

    What kind of protocol do they use? OpenSocial? XMPP?
    How can 3rd party integrate? How can they innovate on top of g+? What's their dependency on google ?

    With an open infrastructure ( like Wave ). They could really change the way internet is used.
    With a semi-closed on, it'll at best be a better facebook,

  76. Throwaway line by tepples · · Score: 1

    I was writing about the potential for regulatory interference and then happened to notice the GET.

  77. Re:Fuck Google. by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

    Google|IBM|Apple|Microsoft|Oracle|Facebook is a fucking corporation you fags.

    They are not your fucking friend|nanny|soulmate|idol|savior|SecondComing

    FTFY

  78. Will this improve Facebook? by assertation · · Score: 1

    I think it is great that Facebook now has competition and competition focused on privacy as well as ease of configuration. Hopefully the competition will push Facebook to clean up its attitude and its code.