Slashdot Mirror
Google+ Growing As a Social Backbone
OverTheGeicoE writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that Google+ has added 20 million users in just 3 weeks. According to the article, no other site has recorded such high growth in such a short time period. Twitter did something similar once, but in months, not weeks. It's especially surprising considering that access to Google+ is by invitation only. Why is Google+ growing so quickly?"
A recent article at O'Reilly Radar offers a possible answer to this, calling Google+ "the rapidly growing seed of a web-wide social backbone," but one that requires openness from Google to really flourish and supplant Facebook. The growth of Google+ will be helped by their acquisition of Fridge, a startup company focused on group sharing. Meanwhile, recruiters and marketers are already eyeballing the growing social network and licking their chops.
Critical mass is important here, but looking good.
Maybe it's because it is invite only. I mean if something is exclusive, lot of people want in.
Why is Google+ growing so quickly?
Because it's not Facebook...
If you go over here,, you'll find out the biggest reason it's getting popular.
Hint: It's not facebook.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I intend to use Google+ the same way I use every other social networking site. I'll create an account to claim my own identity, then disable as many features as possible, then post a message that states that I do not use the service and that if you want to talk to me, you should email me.
Their selling point is, basically, that they'll respect privacy and all those other things that we, the tech geeks, care about. After that, they'll use their Google brand, the widespread dissastisfaction with Facebook's frequent UI and ToS changes, and our own social pressure to pull people in. But really, see Swordgeek's post. http://xkcd.com/918/ is exactly what they offer. And why they've got all these people interested.
I still don't get Google+ What's the selling point ?
It's not facebook...
Users are great, but posts are the lifeblood. I've not seen any posts in my Google Plus circles that weren't either meta or cross-posted to Facebook.
Bet you're just the life of every party!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
After it was revealed that Google would remove ALL your Google accounts -- Gmail, Adsense, Docs, etc. -- for violating the Google+ TOS, it became clear to me that this was a Friendster clone I was better off not using.
If I wanted a bureaucracy to decide for me what's appropriate for me to say and do, and punish me severely for violating the rules, I'd build a time machine and go back to the Soviet Union.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Why is Google+ growing so quickly?
Because it's not Facebook...
I'm sick of people proffering this and only this as a reason to Google+ growth. There is something more to it, after all, iTunes Ping isn't Facebook either. Why didn't they balloon up to 20 million in two weeks?
There's features that are importantly different like friends can't post on my "wall" in G+ and managing and restricting circles is easier for me in G+ than managing and restricting lists was in FB. Google did some things wrong at first and they've corrected some but I'm hoping for a much lighter UI at some point. Or even just the option to not have all the circle animations.
Furthermore the "autofacerecognition" crap that Facebook made opt-in by default was really scary for me personally. I don't doubt Google's ability to do something similar but so far the privacy problems have been negligible compared to getting Zuckerpunched with something worse and worse each month. All of Facebook isn't bad, in some ways G+ is much like it. But at least take the time to enumerate what the advantages are to you.
My work here is dung.
What I want to know is, how is it that google+ keeps growing? I thought they stopped accepting new users. I don't have an invite yet, but I haven't really tried to get one, because every time I've gone to the website in the last few weeks, it always says "Already invited? We've temporarily exceeded our capacity. Please try again soon." So if they aren't accepting even invited users, how is it that they continue to grow? Is there some secret way to get in now?
When I got in Google+ a few weeks ago, I had like maybe 5 other people already using it. Now, I have over 150, with 5-10 people joining a day.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
You know, I am starting to think that a lot of folks only opened up FB accounts begrudgingly. I know a number of people that preferred MySpace over Facebook until MySpace decided to start cloning Facebook's "features" and UI. I also know a number of people who only started a Facebook account to be in on various party/event invitations and only started using it as their primary social media platform when everything else became too bloated and kludgy to use.
Finally, a number of folks I know never started their own accounts. Rather, their girlfriends or friends or family members started one for them, and they only took it over to keep the originator from jacking up their reputation by posting random stuff under their identity.
I wonder if a large portion of FB users never really wanted to use FB at all, but only got pulled into the service by what they would consider, "not their fault," circumstances. It would explain the large love-hate relationship that recent statistics seem to imply, along with the wholesale, "Fuck you Facebook!" movement that is coinciding with G+'s birth.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
My profile was suspended because they insist on people using their "legal" names. They tell users signing up to use the name that people know you by, but their appeal form demands you either provide a government ID or some other "official" evidence of your name like a link to a college directory.
I then go to the discussion board about profiles and virtually every recent thread is people complaining about being suspended.
Good job, Google. Just as evil as Facebook. More interested in being able to connect everyone's doings with their "legal" identity than they are at creating a social networking site for their users.
Liberty in your lifetime
I am new to social networks, with Google+ so this may be the naivety that speaks, but I don't think you have to disable your account just to use e-mail. You can have lots of benefits from participating in Google+ to see cool things that scientists and techies (in my case) share with others, to get updates from family members and see a cute video of your friend's newborn. None of these has to replace personal e-mails.
For me, it's lots of fun following Sergey Brin, Linus Torvalds and a number of scientists or science writers and even science comedians. These people are truly creative, in the way that I can appreciate.
This didn't change my e-mail usage patterns one bit.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Why wouldn't he be? He shows up with his scale cardboard cutout model of himself, plants it in the middle of the room, attaches the sign stating "If you want to party with me, I will be at..." and of course he includes his home address where there is a party every night.
Can't say I'm super-impressed.
Maybe you're not, but artists and journalists are flocking to Google+. Let me give you just one example of the former: read what Trey Ratcliff wrote. 40.000+ followers on G+ and half as many on his Facebook fanpage. As to journalists - countless examples. This video might explain why: Google Plus on Rocketboom.. Pay attention to the twitter part, or to what Ratcliff says in the interview. Communication is simiply more fun on G+ - and far more effective. On facebook, you can't chose who among your 300 "friends" sees what you want to say. Facebook "filters" (well, censors) your post to a select people based on various past indicators. You have no control over this process whatsoever. On Google+ you are in control. And thanks to control over what you see (direct links to circle streams, the ability to "mute" discussions) you don't have to listen to the flood of stupidity that is overwhelming on Facebook. That also makes it easier to follow others, share content, etc. - as you can see in Ratcliff's example.
When he does have parties, I bet they're vastly more interesting than the "let's invite everyone we've ever seen" parties.
I love this about the comments on slashdot. Rewind 2 months and comments look like this:
Now, after Google+ is introduced, I have seen numerous quotes like this:
Please don't mistake me for defending Facebook or ragging on Google+, but some consistency would be nice...
Slashdot is probably one of the few sites I'll find more than a handful of those that hold my views, but I consider "Social Media" today a worrisome development. When I was a young fellow dialing in on a 9600 baud modem, using BBSes and cavorting around on the nascent Net, privacy was one of the main appeals. I loved having a separate life, anonymous on the internet and this appreciation continues to this day. I'm RanceJustice here and a few other places, but I'm also a dozen different aliases and handles as it suits me. It seems completely counterproductive to merge meatspace in its entirety with the digital world, much less do so via a medium that basically treats me as the product selling anything it knows about me. However, I do try to keep aware of these things and look for benefits, lest I miss something useful and new - I have no intention to be the old man yelling that I don't need email because writing letters is good enough....
I haven't really found any benefits though, for the most part. I enjoy forums immensely and I generally consider any website that is based upon user-submitted or created content is typically some form of a forum. Reddit, Digg, Slashdot, Kuro5hin, Yelp, and others basically fall into this category, besides "the chans", and hobby-specific forums like World of Warcraft. Just like with "normal" blogging, I can see the value in microblogging services...for a very small amount of uses. Its a good way to broadcast information that others wish to see - if you're in the middle of Oslo today, its probably great to be able to send a tweet letting friends and family know you're safe and with pics or video of the carnage, location aware so that someone can get an ambulance to the right place. However, 90% of microblogging content seems to be useless, self-indulgent "Orange juice is yummy" "I am taking a shit", way to spew your thoughts onto the internet. Retweets and references become a game of tag and serve to make less content look like more, and there's the continual drive to acquire more followers. There isn't room to espouse deep concepts and explain them properly, so people tend to just put out what's on their mind. I have an Identi.ca (StatusNet is superior and open source compared to Twitter. I'm glad sites like Identi.ca exist) account, but is pretty much unused because I have a mental filter that says "If all my friends were in a room together, would it be important enough to say?" or "If I was standing in the crosswalk of a major city, would it be beneficial to shout it to strangers?", and the vast majority of the time the answer is no. Now, maybe this is just because I'm a private person overall and most of my friends don't live close enough to me that any location-dependent tweets would be worthwhile (ie. 50% off otoro box lunches at Japanese restaurant today only!), but I believe I have a filter where others do not that doesn't want to chatter inanely to the whole world in SMS-sized bites.
Finally we come to true "Social Media/Social Networks" like friendster, orkut, makeoutclub, MySpace, and the dreaded Facebook. While all the previous things, even Twitter, can be done via alias these seem to be set up to merge your entire real world life with the virtual and that is a bloody appalling prospect to me. Facebook seems the worst of all, but it has almost become a way of life in America where it is integrated into everything. Every "news" network and just about every form of entertainment has some link to it and it is becoming a disease. Take for instance the Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood game, where there is an item that you can only unlock in said game if you go on facebook, friend the developers/publishers and play their Facebook game. You're supposed to interact with everything, and of course, there's always something watching. Activision wants you to link your Battle.Net account to Facebook and you can set up World of Warcraft to announce on Facebook and Twitter whenever you achieve something in game - adding to their exposure of course. Many c
I love this about the comments on slashdot.
Yep, just like I love the comments on slashdot that complain: "Hey, one time on /., a few people said one thing, then later, a bunch of other people said something completely contradictory. WTF, people? Have all the same opinion, already...Jeebus!!!"
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
The signal to noise ratio on the receiving end is absolutely not worth the time and investment. Nor is the whole privacy and data farming concern. I don't generally have anything worth throwing out into the river of information in the other direction, either. The difference is that while most of the people in my feed will post things anyway, I realize that I'm not posting anything of real value and will therefore simply not post it.
Yes, people may occasionally post something with a degree of value, but it is always drowned out by the inane and self-involved comments. I am not willing to put up with 300 posts about your cat, child, lunch, repeated talking points on illegal immigration, or amateur photography for that one comment that my stir a discussion or be somehow useful.
Because of my former projects, my identity will be falsely claimed by someone else should I not do it first. I also recognize that for many people, going to Facebook and searching for someone is the absolute only way they know of to attempt to contact someone. So it does serve as an index, of sorts. And that's what I use it for. If someone searches for me via some key information, they'll see a note that tells them how to contact me.
The problem with social networking is that it's rather anti-social. It's not about discussion or community or friendship. It's about me. Look at me. Think about me. Listen to me. See how cool I am? See how many friends I have? See how many comments I get on what I post? See how often I post? See my Klout ranking? See how many tweets I've written? See how many photos there are of me? Take my quiz. Indulge my passive-agressive vague comments about things in my life that you don't care about. Help me build the brand that is moi.
If I have something of value to say, I will email you and those it involves. I might even IM you. Hell, I might even call you. Or come visit you. That doesn't sound anti-social, to me. I don't assume that everyone needs to know everything about me at all times of the day. I don't need to mass-broadcast everything. I can give some thought to my communication and direct it at those to whom it is appropriate. I'd expect the same consideration, in return. Six hundred people on your friend list don't need to know your everything or how your relationship is going. Your best friends might, though. So call your best friend and talk it over with them. Don't broadcast it to everyone.
And yes, I understand that Google+ facilitates a better use of social networking than others have before, by the implementation of circles. I'm in favor of that. I'm in favor of narrowing your band of communication and focusing it as much as possible on the relevant audience. Although, it's unfortunate that we think of people we know as an "audience". And therein lies much of the problem - most people use social networks as a stage on which to perform for an audience. Not a tool for communication. And when it comes to communication, the proprietary social network system doesn't really do much that the distributed and non-proprietary email system doesn't already do.
Ultimately, the problem with social networking is over-exposure. Haven't we all had a friend that we became roommates with? Or a girlfriend that we let move in with us? The proximity and over-exposure to people can have a severe negative impact. When you have to make at least the slightest effort for someone's attention or company, you tend to get along and have some respect for each other and enjoy each other's company. When they're constantly within arm's reach, piling up dirty dishes in the kitchen, taking a dump with the bathroom door open, leaving their clothes all over the floor of your home, and constantly yapping on the phone all day -- they become an annoyance. You don't appreciate their company. You lose interest in and respect for them.
Likewise, I get along with my neighbor, because we just talk occasionally. Sometimes we help each other out with a chore or check each other's mail while out of town. I like my ne
On facebook, you can't chose who among your 300 "friends" sees what you want to say. Facebook "filters" (well, censors) your post to a select people based on various past indicators. You have no control over this process whatsoever.
Technicality: I don't disagree with the spirit of your statement, but it is possible.
I have my friends in friend lists based on where I met them. Considering this isn't used by almost anything I've seen (although it does show up when using facebook messaging in a third-party client like Pidgin), I suspect most people don't even know it's there. The mechanism to set these groups is also not terribly obvious.
When I go to the 'post status' box on the main page, there's a lock icon telling me I'm defaulting to "friends of friends". Clicking it gives access to a dropdown list including "Customize". From there, "Make visible to" "Specific people..." gives me a text box to start typing in names, along with a similar box to refuse access to certain people or groups. If I type in the name of the friend group, it adds that group as a single entry.
That process is entirely retarded, the UI designers should be shot, and to my knowledge, you have to do that with every single post that you want given non-standard permissions (unless you save it as default), but technically, it exists. It may as well NOT exist for non-techies, and of course for anyone who doesn't know it's there, but it's possible. To my knowledge, it's been there for years.
Yep. Sadly, the day Google+ launched, I heard everyone saying "oh, finally, I will use Google+ the right way and not be as promiscuous as I was on myspace and then facebook". A week later, they all basically have as many "friends" as they could possibly have gathered. Imagine how useless a personal address book would be if it simply contained every email address or house address of every single person on earth. It'd kind of undermine the entire point of keeping an address book.
Isn't iTunes a free service that people already use?
I mentioned "People who don't buy into the iTunes ecosystem" for a reason. I can think of three things that would lead to the use of iTunes software, all of which involve buying something from Apple: having bought a Mac, in which case iTunes is the default music player; having bought an iPod, for which iTunes is the primary music library manager; or having bought something on iTunes Store.
to insinuate that it isn't one of the most heavily used music players is ludicrous.
Is iTunes software still "one of the most heavily used music players" among people who don't own a Mac, iPod, iPhone, or iPad, and who don't shop on iTunes Store?
I'm from the same era, I do the same things.
Under different aliases I've leaked enough information to have various identities joined together, but I comfort myself with the naive pretense that since I've kept these identities separate and *not* directly identified myself in any way, that this was a choice consciously made that ought to be respected by Data Galore.
I do a lot of searches on Google because certain patterns of letters amuse me: I like to make up obscure code names for little projects with multiple puns embedded. I do a lot of serious search. And I do a lot of peripheral search because I read something and I go "I can't believe (a) some guy said that or (b) what some guy said".
This presents some problems for the people who believe that what you search is what you are. My search background is probably pushing into the 100,000 territory. On a rampage, I've done 1000 searches per day.
If you listed out the 100 strangest things I've searched for over the last decade, by the standards of someone who might have only made a few hundred searches in their life (all of which returned prebuilt search results), such a person might think I'm the next unibomber in training. I spent half a day once reading about Hafnium nuclear isomers. What well-mannered person would be poking his nose around in something like that? I also spent half a day once going pretty far down the JFK conspiracy-theory rabbit hole. I emerged unscathed, but you'd never know if from my search history.
The notion that you are what you search for can only lead to the worst forms of thought control. Especially if you are also *any chosen subset* of same. Subsetting is, of course, a time-honoured tradition for wielding the scarlet letter. Just ask Michael Moore or Oliver Stone.
"Are you now or have you ever been a searcher of names of radical apparatchiks?" Yes, your honour, including "Ayn Rand" and "CIA Bush cocaine", "Cardinal Ratzinger", and "Soros conspiracy". Or were you meaning to exclude the searches conducted while I was singing to myself "lulululu lulululu" to the theme of Twilight Zone? It appears my search history begs for a soundtrack.
In some forums more than others I push the envelope on conventional norms, or dial sarcasm up so high, I'm not sure myself by the time I'm done what I've lampooned. Some times I try to pull off a trick shot. Sometimes I try and fail.
If you asked me, "what exactly did you mean by such and such a twisted circumlocution reeking [on the surface] of antisemitism?" in many cases I'd be as stumped as my interlocutor and I'd have to resort to my baseline attitude "I was probably trying to say that racist people suck shrouded in a garden-path pretense of saying the opposite".
Here's the thing. People won't think unless they identify you as one of their own. If you can get the thinking and the identifying far enough out of sync, you might occasionally manage to put over a forbidden concept into a walled mental garden. (With about the same shooting odds as dropping a field goal from mid court; it's a bad shot, but cool when it drops.)
In other cases, the lynch pin of my diatribe might come back to me; if it comes back to me, there's no guarantee it makes sense or that what I set out to accomplish actually worked; and even if I'm pleased with the verbal device in retrospect, I'd need a ouija board connection to Douglas Adams with his phantasmal head stuffed into a seer-stone hat to help me translate the layers of backspin to the average dipshit who believes in a) ouija boards or b) seer stones.
Count my vote for "you are what you search" or "you are what your pseudonyms spout" as the WORST. IDEAS. EVER. I'm not keen on signing up to a social networking Stonehenge, because I just don't hew to the self-identity police. At the same time, I consider myself hardcore about authenticity in everything I write, under any guise. Authenticity, however, is a slippery concept since humans are emotional creatures. Authenticity of the moment
I wouldn't say it's viral, but it's not good publicity. And there are more stories of "spam masters" at Google + suspending/deleting accounts without accountability. Here's a post on Google + about "Skud" (who WORKED at Google) who lost her account because she used her nickname instead of her Christian name. And Google knew her by that nickname; she's been keynote at conferences and introduced as her nickname —links provided so you can see her story and G+ users' reactions to Skud being deep-sixed by G+ spam masters. (She's on twitter too: @skud)
Note, people are asking Cutts for more of an explanation about Dylan than "I looked into it", and Cutts is ignoring them (or repeating the party line that he looked into it). But Dylan isn't shutting up about it. If nothing else, that's terrible PR. Cutts should either work it out with Dylan in private so that Dylan stops talking about it, or say what the TOS violation is. Because people really don't give a shit about "Dylan"; they want to know it won't happen to them.