Why You Shouldn't Write Off Google+ Just Yet

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why You Shouldn't Write Off Google+ Just Yet

Posted by timothy on Friday July 20, 2012 @11:08AM from the well-armed-tortoise-gunning-for-hare dept.

TheNextCorner writes "Cmdr Taco writes for The Washington Post on why you shouldn't write off Google+ just yet: "Google+ is technically better than its rivals in a number of key ways. The user interface is comfortable and friendly. It's easy to maintain circles of contacts, and to segregate what you share with each group. Discussions of small-to-medium sizes are manageable and readable — even in real time. Facebook wins when it comes to the open graph and app ecosystem, but a lot of people don't care about that stuff.""

79 of 286 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Google What? by s.petry · 2012-07-20 11:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
1. Re:Google What? by i_ate_god · 2012-07-20 11:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  but anonymity is bad too?
  
  --
  I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
2. Re:Google What? by jamesh · 2012-07-20 11:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.
  You're missing the point. Facebook is a tool that _you_ use to spy on and stalk _other_ people. As long as you don't post anything any more revealing that "omg wtf my dog just farted!!1!!!1" then you don't have a problem. It's not like anyone can spy on anything other than what you post there.
3. Re:Google What? by bmo · 2012-07-20 11:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.
  It's really no different than Usenet. Except with Usenet you don't have any control at all over who sees your post. Ever. It's not Facebook's or Google's fault that you can't figure out the filtering. Treat "social networking" as Usenet or BBS networks, and you're golden. It's not that hard. But wait there's more. Facebook has features that you can use to control *what other people say about you* - you can have tags (mentions of you) in other people's posts set to require your approval. How neat is that? And you can actually control who sees your posts, down to eliminating even single individuals. Want to blab a phone number or picture to all your "friends" but one? You can do it.
  But wait, you say, Facebook knows all about you! Well, dearie, I hate to break it to you, but when I was an admin lo those many years ago, I saw who downloaded the watersports binaries. And no, they weren't about swimming. Nothing shocks me any more.
  No, really, I see posts like yours, and when I mentally transport myself back to the 90s, it looks like you're whining. If you haven't learned how to manage your privacy by now, you shouldn't even be posting to Slashdot, announcing your views to the world here.
  --
  BMO
4. Re:Google What? by cpu6502 · 2012-07-20 11:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yesterday Google-Youtube asked me for my real name. Well actually they already KNOW my real name via my email account, but they wanted me to start using it on youtube so everybody else would know too. (Posted by cpu6502, Bill Smith)
  I refused.
  Now I can't reply to comments. I can post new ones on videos, but the reply button is disabled. What a crummy thing for Google to do (try to take-away my anonymity). I don't want thousands of posts hanging-round with my real name for the next 60 years.
  And here's another reason to dislike google: Quoting Rob âCmdrTacoâ(TM) Malda article: "Google doesnâ(TM)t really need you to use Google+ to post status updates with your friends as much as they simply need you to log in and tell them your age. If you do this, suddenly they can tie together your iPhone, your work machine, and your laptop. Your 3 machines become one person. You. And you are broadcasting signals all the time. If you don't* explicitly tell Google where you live, what you do, and how old you are, they will be able to make fantastically informed guesses."
  On facebook almost everything is faked. My age, my location, only thing's that real is my name & my school (to reconnect with alumni).
  *
  *Why is Opera telling me that don't is mis-spelled?
  *:-o
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
5. Re:Google What? by horza · 2012-07-20 11:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  With the Google Real Names policy, and always badgering you for your mobile phone number, apparently it is. Hence G+ being a desolate wasteground.
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
6. Re:Google What? by horza · 2012-07-20 12:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's bullshit. Usenet was a public forum and anything you posted you knew was public. Not posting to what you thought was a group of friends but unbeknown to you Facebook changed your privacy settings to make it public. You trusted your server admins (and I've run email servers for people too) and if they stepped over the line and abused their knowledge they would be fired and their reputation trashed. If Facebook abuses and sells your information they make a healthy bonus.
  The '90s web of trust didn't scale, and fell apart as it bloomed outside the academic world. It's a different world now with a different set of problems, you can't compare the two.
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
7. Re:Google What? by Jafafa+Hots · 2012-07-20 12:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Facebook can spy on every website you ever visit that has a Facebook "like" button. They then sell the information about what you view online, combined with who you interact with on facebook, who lists you as a relative on Facebook, who names you in photos... and YOUR IMAGE if someone tags you in a Facebook photo using their face recognition software.
  Which they package and sell.
  Happy privacy.
  
  --
  This space available.
8. Re:Google What? by gtaluvit · 2012-07-20 12:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I wrote off all social media long ago
  As you post in a threaded message board...
  
  --
  - gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
9. Re:Google What? by dewatf · 2012-07-20 12:26 · Score: 2
  
  All the usenet groups I read disappeared under the deluge of spam and trolling once Google took it over and allowed anyone to post via the web. It became totally pointless so I read Slashdot instead. Google+ is technically much environment for with dealing with the real world where there are malicious and stupid people. However, it lacks the connections to get things organised from scratch.
  
  Not that the interface is particularly important in a social networks. People happily put up with Facebook's unfriendly interface, bugs, random changes and data harvesting. It is the network that matters and Facebook did that really well. That is why it took out My Space and why Google+ will remain confined to niche applications.
  
  Hah! BMO. I hacked into someone else's account and downloaded all my porn through an anonymiser. So you know nothing about my furry fetish.
10. Re:Google What? by Americano · 2012-07-20 12:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Usenet was a public forum and anything you posted you knew was public.
  Yeah, you'd have to have been pretty stupid to post something to Usenet thinking it'd be private.
  Come to think of it, the same thing applies to Facebook.
11. Re:Google What? by bmo · 2012-07-20 12:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, it's not bullshit.
  Posting to Facebook even back when it was strictly an academics-only community still meant that whatever you posted was public to that community. And if you think it was cloistered and that nobody from the outside could get in and read your stuff, you were delusional.
  Go ahead and rage that Facebook "changed its privacy policies." People who knew better didn't post photos of drunken bacchanalia, because they knew that doing so was stupid, even in a "closed" network. Only the people who threw caution to the wind were upset when Facebook opened up to the public.
  Here's a clue: Don't post anything in public (even in a "cloistered setting") that you don't want your mom, or the cops, to see. Follow that rule and you'll have no problems whatsoever with privacy. Yes it's self censorship. It's also called common sense. I followed the rule even back in the 80s and 90s even on small systems. It has done me well.
  When Dejanews showed up and everyone friggin' panicked, I didn't give a shit, because nobody could hold whatever I said against me anyway.
  --
  BMO
12. Re:Google What? by jamesh · 2012-07-20 12:46 · Score: 2
  
  Facebook can spy on every website you ever visit that has a Facebook "like" button. They then sell the information about what you view online, combined with who you interact with on facebook, who lists you as a relative on Facebook, who names you in photos... and YOUR IMAGE if someone tags you in a Facebook photo using their face recognition software.
  Which they package and sell.
  Happy privacy.
  Yes all that can happen if you don't handle your cookies properly.
13. Re:Google What? by hairyfeet · 2012-07-20 13:06 · Score: 2
  
  It wouldn't matter if you used it frankly, nor what features it has or has not, its the network effect. For shits and giggles i set one up a couple of months ago and found that NOBODY I know is using it, nobody, not a single one. Whereas every single person I've known since fricking HS has a FB account and seems to use it daily, even though I don't hardly mess with mine.
  So frankly Google is finding out that just like MSFT just because you have money doesn't mean you can buy your way into the party. MSFT couldn't do it with WinPhone, Google can't do it with Google+. FB was able to take over from MySpace because MySpace took a massive dump on the design and lax security quickly turned it into a spam haven so users got fed up and left. will that happen to FB? Its possible but until they take a big enough shit on the UI and ruin it for enough people G+ hasn't got a prayer.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
14. Re:Google What? by markjhood2003 · 2012-07-20 13:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.
  It's really no different than Usenet. Except with Usenet you don't have any control at all over who sees your post. Ever. It's not Facebook's or Google's fault that you can't figure out the filtering.
  -- BMO
  Google's privacy controls are pretty transparent, but Facebook appears to deliberately obfuscate their privacy settings, and the policies change frequently. I believe Facebook does this deliberately in order to maximize the amount of personal info their customers and 3rd party developers have access to.
  Usenet was indeed a form of computer-mediated social networking long before the term was invented, but otherwise there are not many similarities. Nobody had any expectation of privacy on Usenet; all you had to do was grep through the raw feed to find anything you want. Facebook on the other hand promises privacy control but in practice they actively thwart it and only provide the illusion of privacy. They always have complete access to your info even if their customers don't.
15. Re:Google What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Do you have a browser cache? Because if so, companies can spy on you using e-tags. Hulu was discovered doing it, and others probably are too. No cookies/scripts necessary, just base html.
16. Re:Google What? by datavirtue · 2012-07-20 14:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They almost have to do this. Online communities are being poisoned to death. While I value anonymous posting, much of the web is becoming unusable. This could be solved with better (think: out-of-the-box) moderation, but the other alternative to cleaning up something as invective as YouTube is to require real names. I would be willing to pay a small amount in able to join a community and use a handle, with the chance of getting banned by a REAL moderator, to participate in a grown-up conversation.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
17. Re:Google What? by kermidge · 2012-07-20 14:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Real moderators are one the things I missed the most going from GEnie, Delphi, CompuServe to "the Web." People could choose a handle to use in the forums, while the company knew your real name for billing and access control.
  Posts were sorted by topic and thread, people were admonished, counseled, or banned for misuse. 'Twas fairly civilized, and sorely missed.
18. Re:Google What? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-07-20 14:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes all that can happen if you don't handle your cookies properly.
  You seem to have missed the last ten years worth of advances in systemic internet tracking systems.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
19. Re:Google What? by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-20 14:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  .Yes all that can happen if you don't handle your cookies properly.
  Yeah, see, that's the thing. Telling people that they can maintain their privacy if they learn how to figure out which cookies they can keep and which they cannot is like saying your money is safe in the bank, but only if you can solve ten partial differential equations in under 10 minutes.
  Privacy should not be conditional on you having to engage in one-upmanship with the designers of Facebook.
  Of course, nobody has to use Facebook, and I strongly recommend that my friends do not use Facebook at all. It's easy enough to contact one another and no matter how careful you are, you're always going to get someone on facebook from grade school bothering you to be their friend and it just all becomes sad and unpleasant. I've managed pretty well to wean a few people off facebook and convince then to use online communication tools that are not "social media" (which is Latin for "sandbox for stalkers". Yes, they still exist, including good old IRC.
  My daughter, who from what I can tell is one of the cool kids, and her friends manage to stay on top of what's happening without ever touching facebook or twitter. I showed her IRC and now she and her friends think it's retro but cool. I heard one of the kids explaining how "Facebook spies on you and shit" so apparently the message has gotten through.
  As for me, Facebook and Google+ have only served to teach me just how much I enjoy not being constantly in touch with a lot of people. My friends know how to find me, and they know that I don't always carry a communication device. In the past year, I've even stopped checking email every day, which was a big step for me. My wife, who's a mathematician and professor, refuses to own a mobile phone. For a while people looked at her like she was from mars, but now I see more understanding and appreciation for her position on these things. Now, for a lot of people, work requires them to use social media (for some reason) and 24/7 mobile communications. but that affliction has been lifted from my shoulders, praise Jesus.
  My life is full of technology still, some of it more advanced than 95% of the population, and I enjoy it, but I don't feel that I have to use every new thing that comes along, especially if it's just a cover for marketing and social engineering. Discernment is good.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
20. Re:Google What? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-07-20 14:47 · Score: 2
  
  I do use browser cache, but I also use RefControl. It blocks cross-domain requests. For example if I visit nytimes, it cannot send a request to facebook or google, only to nytimes.com and other domains I have specifically whitelisted.
21. Re:Google What? by Raenex · 2012-07-20 14:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  One of the things I value about Slashdot is that the comments aren't moderated beyond +/-.
22. Re:Google What? by vdorie · 2012-07-20 15:08 · Score: 2
  
  I was just finishing up my undergrad when Facebook came to my school - one of the first handful of institutions if I recall. Were we being "delusional" when we posted those all those photos, or was what we hoped Facebook would become entirely reasonable? Is it really impossible to believe that someone could make a website on which you could share things with your direct friends and possibly, but no more than, their friends? Aside from the creepy image of Mark in the old banners for the site, there weren't many indications that it would end up like it did.
  
  I suppose you can live by the maxim that everything online will necessarily turn to crap and everyone is just waiting for the right moment to sell you out, but I'm not ready to swallow that pill yet. And you'll have to forgive me if I keep on hoping for better.
  
  That being said, I'll admit that I approached posting to Facebook in its early stages as a risky decision and did my best to consider the potential outcomes and their likelihoods. However, not everyone who was crawling all over the thing at the time spent the 90s plugged in, and belittling them for not making an informed decision without any prior information seems a little extreme.
23. Re:Google What? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-20 15:16 · Score: 2
  
  I have more than one browser installed. This is precisely one of the reasons why.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
24. Re:Google What? by tbird81 · 2012-07-20 15:43 · Score: 2
  
  I got that same dialog box this morning. It pissed me off how we weren't allowed to comment on why we declined, other that the few choices they gave. I am still able to comment though.
  I only joined Google+ to get the unlimited photo storage (for resolutions lower than 2048px) in Picasa. I have zero people added, am in zero circles, and turned off all the crap default posts they provide if you leave your account empty.
25. Re:Google What? by Homr+Zodyssey · 2012-07-20 16:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well, I've known since "Wargames" that any teenager with an acoustic coupler modem could hack into a government super-computer. The password is the programmer's kid's name, for chrissakes.
  Yes, you were delusional if you thought that stuff that you made digital and put on a network was somehow "safe". Somehow, eventually, it's going to make it to the public. Ask any teenage starlet who send nude pictures to her boyfriend's cellphone.
  This is why my wife only lets me take her nude pictures with a poloroid. Man, I wish they'd fix the resolution on those things.
26. Re:Google What? by yoshi_mon · 2012-07-20 16:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is kinda bullshit, can we agree on that?
  Because the profit motive of Usenet was not to spy on people, but as a value added service by ISPs to get you to buy the service.
  Facebook's and Google+'s profit motive IS spying on you.
  
  --
  
  Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
27. Re:Google What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 16:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And that's absolutely 100% the only reason Google's interested in having your mobile number. Really.
28. Re:Google What? by DaleSwanson · 2012-07-20 17:14 · Score: 2
  
  I downloaded a separate browser 9 (Opera in my case) which I use exclusively for Facebook. That way FB can't track my browsing with like buttons as I do my browsing on Firefox.
  Couldn't they just compare the ip that logs in with the ip that requests the like button image on a remote site?
29. Re:Google What? by hairyfish · 2012-07-20 17:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Slashdot has a half decent moderation system, although by no means perfect so it can be done. I don't know if a paid system would work since you'd never get critical mass. Most off the forum I've used that work, generally have committed moderation team, and a mature user base that know how to effectively deal with trolls (ie ignore them)
30. Re:Google What? by knorthern+knight · 2012-07-20 17:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  > Does anyone know the Ip range of the like button so i can drop it in IPtables?
  There are half-a-dozen ranges, depending where on the planet you are. The following blocks all of Facebook that I know of (LIKE and facebook.com and various foreign versions). Here are the ranges in both CIDR and traditional formats.
  66.220.144.0/20
  66.220.144.0 - 66.220.159.255
  69.63.176.0/20
  69.63.176.0 - 69.63.191.255
  69.171.224.0/19
  69.171.224.0 - 69.171.255.255
  74.119.76.0/22
  74.119.76.0 - 74.119.79.255
  173.252.64.0/18
  173.252.64.0 - 173.252.127.255
  204.15.20.0/22
  204.15.20.0 - 204.15.23.255
  
  --
  
  I'm not repeating myself
  I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
31. Re:Google What? by tftp · 2012-07-20 18:09 · Score: 2
  
  My life is full of technology still, some of it more advanced than 95% of the population, and I enjoy it, but I don't feel that I have to use every new thing that comes along, especially if it's just a cover for marketing and social engineering.
  Or, to rephrase:
  You are happy to use any new thing that you want. However you do not allow every new thing that comes along to use you.
32. Re:Google What? by Dionysus · 2012-07-20 19:40 · Score: 2
  
  Considering how inane Youtube comments are, I'm hoping more people will follow your example. In the meantime, I just block all comments
  
  --
  Je ne parle pas francais.
33. Re:Google What? by kermidge · 2012-07-20 20:42 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, right on.
  I was mostly referring to the forums one runs across, say for an OS, a widget, or a game. Many posts start with "Help!" Some will add "can't start" or somesuch. There might be hundreds of these scattered about in various 'threads'.
  In 'olden' days the sysops (as they were called) would sort them where they appropriately went, often after asking - by email or private forum message - or by automated message - to have the poster re-phrase the header. They'd also simply move stuff and merge or close topics wherein the posts already fit existing topic areas. It greatly reduced clutter, inane and otherwise, helped people get to where they needed to go, whilst showing them how things were done.
  Enter the Web: I recall going to a Windows 95 forum on Microsoft; in just one subject area there were hundreds, possibly thousands, of posts, roughly one-third spam, and too many of the rest... so vaguely headed that one hadn't a clue as to content without reading them.
  When 'the Web' happened, seems to me no company wanted to in any fashion compensate people to do what the sysops did, and what I still think is needful in many forums.
  I wasn't thinking much in terms of /. for instance; each news item here is a separate 'topic' that people sort themselves out by reading, commenting, moderating, or skipping and going on to another story, and posters do a bit of additional sorting by using the subject/header line.
34. Re:Google What? by AmiMoJo · 2012-07-20 21:30 · Score: 2
  
  You don't really have to give them your real name. When I signed up for G+ I transliterated my first name into Japanese and put "chan" as my second name (chan is a sort of informal "Mr."). They reviewed it for a couple of days and then allowed it.
  Other people have managed to get non-real accepted, such as "Aestetix". He pointed out that he had established the identity and then argued with the moderator a bit. It seems like as long as the name is a genuine "identity" rather than a throw-away forum handle it will (eventually) be accepted.
  So it isn't exactly a "real name" policy, more of a "non-throwaway forum name policy".
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
35. Re:Google What? by icebraining · 2012-07-20 21:35 · Score: 2
  
  Nope, valid ASCII is also valid UTF-8.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
36. Re:Google What? by AmiMoJo · 2012-07-20 21:36 · Score: 2
  
  Blocking huge chunks of the IP address space is not a good idea. It isn't just Facebook using those thousands of addresses.
  Most browsers have plugins available to block the Like button, or you could do it with a transparent proxy.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
37. Re:Google What? by WombleGoneBad · 2012-07-20 21:39 · Score: 5, Interesting
  Also, If you have the facebook android app, facebook can do any of the following without your knowledge
  
  Access all the stuff on your SD card
  Track your current location with GPS.
  Download anything they like onto your phone.
  Access ALL the accounts (not just facebook) that you use on the phone.
  On many phones (like mine) this app is pre-installed and actually uninstallable it was the main reason i switched to cyanogenmod
So? by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-20 11:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

We're waiting for something that's not Facebook, not something that's not Facebook, but is basically Facebook.
Oh, and if you work in advertising: kill yourself.
1. Re:So? by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-20 11:22 · Score: 2
  
  Wait, what? I honestly have no idea what you mean.
2. Re:So? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-07-20 11:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  NSFNet made up much of the Internet backbone for a while. Its AUP prohibited advertising. These were the days of the Internet Yellow Pages and David and Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web on akebono. This ended on April 30, 1995, and at that point everything exploded - the Internet you see today has been built on advertising revenues.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 11:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Oh, you're playing to the anti-marketing demographic. There are a lot of dollars in that demographic.
4. Re:So? by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-07-20 12:03 · Score: 2
  
  How's NSFNet working out for you then?
  Heh, my brain kept trying for like 10 seconds to unpack that as "Not Safe For..."
5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 12:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Its not like Facebook but people are trying to use it as such. Google plus is a set of tools to find things to do socially while Facebook is just a way to communicate socially.
6. Re:So? by dAzED1 · 2012-07-20 12:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  ...really? You're gonna go there? So it had nothing to do with all the other stuff happening in 94-96? rfc1700 - assigned numbers in 94, rfc1737 Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names in Dec94, http/1.0 finalized in 1996, Linux bringing a bunch of common folks exploding onto the scene with things like RedHat 1.0 in Dec1994...you're not really giving credit to bloat and advertising for the explosion of the internet, are you? I owned an ISP from 1994-1996 (sold it). There was practically no advertising at the time, and it was still exploding. It exploded in spite of the bloat that came later. Are you just a ad exec or something, that you would put all the other things happening in the mid 90's behind advertising. Yeesh.
7. Re:So? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-07-20 13:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And what internet, exactly, do I see today? One that is "a bit faster, a bit sooner", and has more tracking code than content on it? You are seriously saying this is a good thing with a straight face? MOAR = GUD?
  One that has search engines on it, one that has given millions of people gmail/hotmail type services which allow them to meaningfully use the Internet without a subscription fee, one that has all sorts of cloud services that are allowing people to not worry about local storage.
  Hell, I've got a * next to my username, I pay Slashdot an astonishingly small amount of money per day. You don't - your Slashdot is funded by their ad model!
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
We use Google+ for mini meetings by sandytaru · 2012-07-20 11:13 · Score: 2

Google Plus's chat feature has rudimentary desktop screening, and is just more convenient than Skype for small group projects. Select a circle, call 'em all up, and get to work. Facebook chat is better for showing the chat history. Although, I still think I prefer good old fashioned BBS systems for regular communication. Keeping conversations locked into tidy (or not so tidy) threads appeals to my OCD side.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
1. Re:We use Google+ for mini meetings by Tough+Love · 2012-07-20 11:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Google Plus's chat feature has rudimentary desktop screening, and is just more convenient than Skype for small group projects.
  Not to mention more reliable, responds faster and presence notification is low latency. And doesn't crash like Skype does (some platforms). And seems to have better sound qualilty. And I'm more like to find people actually logged in there, people don't seem to hang on Skype any more like they used to. These days, it's more like send an email or call on a land line or cell phone to set up a Skype call. And that makes sense exactly why?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Okay? by steevven1 · 2012-07-20 11:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

This has all been true since it came onto the scene, but it has still made no big splash. The title of this article implies that there is something significantly new now. There's not.
1. Re:Okay? by MrEricSir · 2012-07-20 11:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ...it has still made no big splash.
  I'd say it's made a pretty big splash for those of us who haven't "upgraded" our accounts to use Google+. If you're not a Plus member, many links and settings in Google services no longer work or take you to 404 pages. And some of the help docs have been re-written in such a way that they only apply to Plus users.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
2. Re:Okay? by Tough+Love · 2012-07-20 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  The title of this article implies that there is something significantly new now. There's not.
  Time went by. It didn't die like pundits said it would.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
3. Re:Okay? by Darinbob · 2012-07-20 13:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why does there have to be a splash before people notice that there's water?
4. Re:Okay? by Homr+Zodyssey · 2012-07-20 16:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "don't see any compelling reason to use it."
  Maybe...all those things you just said?
and it provides advertisers with one stop snooping by davidannis · 2012-07-20 11:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let's face it, FaceBook can't provide every shred of information about me. Sure they know who my friends are, but Google will be able to layer on top of that things from the location of my cellphone (android), my search history (google.com), what books and movies I've bought (google play), websites I've visited (adwords), and even the contents of my e-mail (gmail) and files (Google drive). Since my primary goal is to only see relevant ads I'm going with Google+ and I assume advertisers will push me in that direction anyway once they realize how effective Google ads can be.
Re:Strange title.... by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-20 11:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

... as it's FB I wrote off long ago - as G+ will surely one day join it - in the land of fad induced mass market websites. Anyone still using GeoCities or MySpace?
Meet the new Web, same as the old Web.
A 12-1/2 years ago when you watched the evening news or saw a commercial you got the distinct impression that both only existed to get you to visit their shiny new web site.
Now you get the distinct impression that they only exist to get you to visit their shiny new Facebook page.
We're past due another dot-crash.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
user friendly? by phantomfive · 2012-07-20 11:22 · Score: 2

OK, I won't defend Facebook as a shining example of good UI design, but Google? How do I write on someone's wall? That is, how do I say something directed to someone, but in a public way?

Also, for whatever reason, I get things in my Google+ feed that seem so random. Like today, I got something from "Mike Elgan." Who is he? I have no idea, I definitely never added him. And his post is useless, I am not interested in it at all (If you are Mike Elgan reading this I soo apologize).

I am not anti-google+, I want it to succeed. But I recognize that Google+ isn't going to win because it has a better UI. And basically everyone, even grandmas have figured out how to use Google+.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:user friendly? by Urza9814 · 2012-07-20 12:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  OK, I won't defend Facebook as a shining example of good UI design, but Google? How do I write on someone's wall? That is, how do I say something directed to someone, but in a public way?
  Same way you do it on Twitter -- you don't. You post things to your own page and tag the other person. You don't post something on someone else's page -- which actually makes a lot of sense. The problem here is not their UI, but the fact that you've gotten used to doing things the Facebook way.
Advertising by MichaelSmith · 2012-07-20 11:34 · Score: 2

Yesterday on reddit somebody posted a onion video but when I played it I got an advertisment from the Australian government promoting a google hangout featuring the Prime Minister. I got this because I have a G+ account with all that tasty meta data about myself, and this allows youtube to pick adverts to show me. So its all about the meta data. Its very valuable to google, even if their market penetration is still quite small in comparison to facebook.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Facebook hasn't screwed up...yet by KalvinB · 2012-07-20 11:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

What killed MySpace was allowing the level of customization to a profile page such that the result was GeoCities. I stopped going to MySpace because I valued my eyesight.
Until Facebook makes me not want to look the main page or other people's profiles, it's not going anywhere.
Features aren't going to win people to Google+ because Facebook has a perfectly solid team of developers that will happily spend their days copying the things that make the user experience better.

--
Work Safe Porn
1. Re:Facebook hasn't screwed up...yet by kiwimate · 2012-07-20 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  I agree. I wrote the same thing in May in a story entitled "Online Loneliness At Google+".
  MySpace let people have loads of control, and it ended up an awful, slow, non-responsive mess. Facebook started off by letting people use templates and that's how they've continued. They can control the end user experience much better, and people have a much more consistent and much more positive experience.
  Disclaimer: I have never used Google + because (i) nobody's there, and (ii) I have always been wary about Google and how much information they collect about me. So I have no clue what it's like.
  Final thought: Slashdot, that pinnacle of geek friendly sites, has had a "share this article on Facebook" icon on stories for ages. They only very recently added the equivalent Google + icon. If even a super-geek (well, used to be a super-geek) site like /. shows a preference against Google +, it's gonna take a bit of work to make it succeed.
Image sharing by nxcho · 2012-07-20 11:46 · Score: 5, Informative

I use facebook,g+ and twitter, mostly for maintaining a presence rather than posting personal stuf. But I've discovered that google+ is quite good for sharing images with family and closer friends. The fact that you can can share things with people that doesn't have a g+ account just by their e-mail address means that I can show them whats happening in my life from a single place.

--
When asked why, the answer is almost always: "It's 2014".
1. Re:Image sharing by partofthepuzzle · 2012-07-20 12:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You can also invite people who aren't Google+ users to events via the same invitation that I use for the G+ folks. email address. This is a major usability win for me.
Parable of the format wars by fiannaFailMan · 2012-07-20 12:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Betamax was technically better than VHS. Brunel's wide gauge railway system was technically better than the standard gauge. We all know what became of them. It's the scale of adoption that counts. A squillion people are now in the habit of living their lives through Facebook. They're not going to simultaneously migrate to G+ because of a few bells and whistles no matter how good they are. Sorry Google, you missed the boat on this one.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
1. Re:Parable of the format wars by glodime · 2012-07-20 16:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Betamax was not universally better. It had higher quality, shorter recording ability. People wanted longer recording times. Maybe Betamax could have improved to allow for longer recordings, but people didn't want to wait and choose lesser quality longer recording media.
Re:Google+ and Youtube sitting in a tree.. by fiannaFailMan · 2012-07-20 12:21 · Score: 2

That happened to me today, and worst of all Youtube didn't even give me the option of refusing to link to my G+ account. I clicked a link that quite clearly said not to do so, but it went and did it anyway. I have a good mind to delete my G+ account.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Google+ UI Sux by bug1 · 2012-07-20 12:52 · Score: 2

Does it bother
anyone else
how google+
puts all its
content on the
left two thirds
of the display
and doesnt
use thr right
side of the
display ?
I guess they
care more
about mobile
users than us
old fashioned
desktop users.
HATE THE MOBILE !
replaces iGoogle by mathfeel · 2012-07-20 12:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Instead of thinking G+ as a Facebook clone/competition, I like to think of it as a replacement of iGoogle, Google's attempt at a personalized home page and portal to all Google's services, now the "social" element. Considering how bad iGoogle used to be, I would say G+ is a great success at replacing it. The interface is so much cleaner now.

--
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
1. Re:replaces iGoogle by Randle_Revar · 2012-07-20 17:02 · Score: 2
  
  It is not useful at all as an iGoogle replacement.
  Don't get me wrong, I love G+, but it covers none of the uses that iGoogle did.
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
2. Re:replaces iGoogle by DerekLyons · 2012-07-20 17:53 · Score: 2
  
  Instead of thinking G+ as a Facebook clone/competition, I like to think of it as a replacement of iGoogle
  Yes, something utterly unlike iGoogle and completely lacking all features of iGoogle is a replacement for iGoogle.
  What are you smoking?
Google+ Hangout are the killer feature. by Above · 2012-07-20 13:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've used at least a dozen video conferencing solutions, and Google+ Hangouts seems to work across the most platforms, with some of the highest quality video, and it's free. I can communicate with folks inside and outside of the company without any special clients or problems. It really is a killer video conferencing solution.
But it's buried inside Google+, and I am amazed how many people I meet have no idea it exists, have never tried it, and so on. Everyone I make use it the first time instantly falls in love. Google could easily sell Hangouts as a stand alone video conferencing product.
Which is why I think Google+ may make it yet. There's some really cool stuff buried in it. Not enough to unseat Facebook on its own, but if Facebook stumbles, Google+ could pick up the market. Much like when myspace fell behind Facebook moved in.
Hangouts/Youtube by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 13:23 · Score: 2, Informative

The only thing I know people to use G+ for is the hangouts/youtube stream. It makes it easy to do a video podcast with multiple people and not have to deal with the crap livestream/ustream/justin.tv makes you do.
facebook wins... by buddyglass · 2012-07-20 13:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Facebook wins because that's where all my friends and acquaintances are. That Google+ is technically superior doesn't mean much so long as it lacks a critical mass of users. It's also foreign. People have been on Facebook long enough that they're comfortable with it. In order for people to defect Google+ has to be not just "better" but "way better".
facebook thinks you are only a dollar by Dan667 · 2012-07-20 14:37 · Score: 2

that is why you don't care about them
Re:Hangouts are cool by tlambert · 2012-07-20 14:41 · Score: 2

Someone clicked on the icon in the top-right corner and clicked "mute this application".
iPhone app by FadedTimes · 2012-07-20 15:01 · Score: 2

The latest version is 2 star at best. It took a step back with the latest release. It is last in the list of social apps I use because of the layout and the way it handles notifications.
Re:What social network existed in 1998? by Ken_g6 · 2012-07-20 15:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, there was Classmates. If they hadn't tried to monetize (or monetize so soon) they could have been Facebook years earlier.
But it looks like they started all the way back in 1995!

--
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
you owe me a pair of pants by superwiz · 2012-07-20 18:17 · Score: 2

The user interface is comfortable and friendly.
made me pee all over myself laughing. This is idiotic. Have you used it on Android? The 1st version was good. But after the blow-up-even-the-tiny-pictures-and-make-them-the-whole-experience-while-hiding-most-of-the-text upgrade it not only made g+ garabage, it made the whole point of having an android phone questionable. The last time I hated an upgrade this much was when Verizon switched form static IP to dynamic IP in the 90's and called it an "upgrade".

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Different vertical market by Gonoff · 2012-07-20 18:35 · Score: 2

Google+ and FB are aiming at very different groups of users. In the same way Twitter is not competing with FB either.
Twitter is not even really social media. It is more of an RSS alternative.
FB is pretty much the definitive social media. People keep track of their friends families etc. There is meaningful content there but it is not really what it is there for.
G+ is primarily aimed at finding information and discussing it with people. It is much more geared to linking people with complete strangers. That is why the linking is asymetric. X may wish to find out about someone but that someone does not need to know about X. Someone could do a survey. "What % of your contacts have you actually physically met?"
I suspect that Twitter will be very low, FB will be higher - much higher for people over 20. G+ will be lower.

--
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
We need more federated Systems by allo · 2012-07-20 21:48 · Score: 2

And i do not think of the diaspora stuff. I tested it a while ago, and noticed the awful coding very soon (wrong login goes to stacktrace-page, WTF), further i think their data model gives advantage to the node owners, which patch their nodes to store everything they can get, which is worse for my privacy in respect to my digital friends than the centralistic models.
maybe BuddyCloud?