Slashdot Mirror
Google Betting Its Google+ Systems Know What's Best For You
Nerval's Lobster writes "But at this year's Google I/O conference in San Francisco, Google announced that it has a plan to make Google Plus users more engaged, courtesy of new features backed by a handful of data-analytics tricks. Google Plus postings now feature Google-generated hashtags that, when clicked, direct the user to related content from across their network. From a backend-infrastructure perspective, that sort of thing leans heavily on Google's semantic analysis and the ability to make the right connections between various pieces of data. Google Plus will also automatically highlight certain photos out of dozens or even hundreds of shots. Say you went on vacation to India and took some photos of your significant other in front of the Taj Mahal; Google Plus will leverage its database of information to recognize that as a prominent landmark and pluck those photos out of the pile as 'special.' In the words of that posting on the Google+ Blog: 'Your darkroom is now a Google data center.' Are all these nifty, analytics-intensive features enough to change the larger fortunes of Google Plus? That's the big question. Google has a handsome-looking platform, one that performs certain activities with a high degree of polish and zip—but is that enough to counter Facebook?"
Already included; Yahoo is pretty much Facebook's patent and ad bitch now.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
As part of the big roll out of these changes, a lot of google chat users have discovered their most frequently used contacts have been automatically "Blocked on Google+", despite not themselves not having Google+ accounts. People have been left with no option other than to sign up to Google+ to access their "Blocked" circle to see what contacts have been blocked, and unblock them.
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
two has beens might as well include yahoo in there too
Oh, and also? They clearly understood that we couldn't handle google reader, the free version of google apps, and we all want restrictions on youtube mobile (no downloading!).
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
"Are all these nifty, analytics-intensive features enough to change the larger fortunes of Google Plus?"
No.
When G+ started out, it was clean, fast-loading, reliable, and did exactly what it was supposed to do and no more. You know ... like Google used to be. I had real hopes that G+:FB::Google:Yahoo.
Every change since then has made it uglier, slower, and buggier; with the latest interface changes they've not only caught up to but actually surpassed Facebook in the amount of irritating crap they shove at the user. Google may be able to coast on people's affection for them as a search engine (especially when the competition is Bing) but they're going to find it increasingly difficult to break into new markets if all they do is ape the worst behavior of the existing market leader--which in this case emphatically includes "adding a bunch of new 'features' when the ones we already have are kind of crap."
I still use Google as my primary search engine, Gmail as my e-mail provider, and Google Maps when I want to figure out how to go somewhere I haven't been before. Nothing they've done since then has provided any reason to switch from whatever solution I'm currently using. And I really don't think I'm alone in this.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
There's already making automatic decisions that harm their searches. For instance, autocomplete is now useless since it automatically gets you to "Are you feeling lucky?" and there's no way to turn it off. Worse yet, there are times when I automatically keep autocompleting by accident and I keep getting hit by "Are you feeling lucky?".
I use g+ regularly (I know, insert joke about being the only person on the net to do that here). I've liked it, for the most part.
But yesterday? Man. That new interface went live and how I have three tiny columns of posts. Which itself might be okay, except they're in no discernible order whatsoever. New stuff I haven't seen yet is buried off the screen, but there's six things from two days ago still hanging around at the top. Sometimes new things appear in a visible spot, sometimes they don't. I don't know why I need three columns when each one is so small that it's barely telling me anything, and looks like it was designed for a mobile screen. (The iPad app has a similar layout but has much saner ordering and uses 1 or 2 columns depending on the size of the item. It works far better.)
There's an option to turn it back to a single column, but the column stays the same size and now 2/3 of the screen is totally empty while I have to click to expand everything to see more than 30 words and scroll down like crazy. At least in that mode it seems to be ordered correctly.
The main reaction in my g+ circles to the update was confusion. It wasn't even the usual "change is bad" reaction. People were just lost in how they were supposed to read this new layout and find the new stuff in a simple way.
It's funny because g+ started off with a simpler, easier to use page than Facebook had. That's gone and reversed itself now. I really don't get what Google's thinking. As of right now, I'd actually rank the usability of Facebook more highly.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
The current version is all but unusable on a 1.6ghz Atom netbook and grinds my current also Atom desktop machine.. It's go so many bars that vanish and show up, uses so much CPU that typing pegs the system and uses so much realestate that there's less than a quarter of the whole screen for content.. And so much clicking to access things(When things are not automaticly popping up because my cursor strayed somewere).
Their search engine is great, but G+.. well.. Just because it now mattches the Android/iOS App /dosen't make it a automaticly good thing/.
Go back to your sleek, efficent, neat ways, Google! That's why we loved you!
Google shouldn't be trying to out-Facebook Facebook, they should be creating a 'lean mean social machine'
Google has a handsome-looking platform, one that performs certain activities with a high degree of polish and zip—but is that enough to counter Facebook?
It's not necessary to counter Facebook, Facebook will do that themselves. Facebook is already getting whipped for privacy violations. All Google needs is a 'lean mean social machine' ie. a simple social platform which respects the user's privacy. Quit adding knuckleheaded features and focus on privacy and security. The short game is shiny widgets, the long game is for the win.
We're really digging the bottom of the barrel as an industry if we're putting energy into doing analytics on vacation photos to identify which ones contain landmarks. The way I see it, we've already accomplished the big things in computing (word processing, spreadsheets, image editing, etc.) and now all that's left is the constant development of minutiae.
The people at Google believe that if something can be quantified and identified, it MUST mean sometime. In the example given in the article summary, the only reason Google would assume that certain shots are "special" is that it happens to have the capability to identify certain locations, so OBVIOUSLY those would matter. Right? No, not at all. Google doesn't know what I want. Google doesn't know what I think is special. Google doesn't know what I think. The ONLY way it can have any hope of even making intelligent guesses about those things is to become more and more intrusive in the data it gathers about me. I don't want that. I don't want some collecting that much information about me. I don't even want some algorithm trying to figure out what matters to me. I like the idea of certain things being programmable. I like making the UIs to those things easier to understand. But I want to be in control. I don't want Google or any other company doing things because it thinks it understands me and what I want. That's prelude to Big Brother, at best.
That data then becomes Google's product which Google then sells on businesses and organisations
Google will NEVER sell data of its customers...not because of any moral code, but because it is simply not profitable. They sell *targeted* advertising space on services offered for free, Like TV...or newspapers. Its why Google make Billions.
You're last paragraph reminds me of how much I liked buzz :-(
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Say you went on vacation to India and took some photos of your significant other in front of the Taj Mahal; Google Plus will leverage its database of information to recognize that as a prominent landmark and pluck those photos out of the pile as 'special.'
Great, just what you need: a megacorporation to filter all your memories into cliched copies of a zillion other tourists' Taj Mahal photos. No need for building special memories of your own, with the person you're with --- that one shot, in some bland and unmemorable location, that would bring back with perfect clarity some jewel of laughter shared with your significant other: scores too low on Google Reality Rank Algorithm. But you can replace all your pitiful personal experiences with the postcard-perfect majestic landmarks conforming to the mind of the New Google Man: why live your own life, when a server farm can decide what is true and beautiful for you?
No
"Google announced 190 million people are now active in the Google+ stream, while 390 million are active across Google, including +1’ing apps in Google Play, making video calls in Gmail and sharing videos from YouTube. " http://mashable.com/2013/05/15/google-plus-redesign-pinteres/
That sounds like a yes to me.
Google would assume that certain shots are "special" is that it happens to have the capability to identify certain locations, so OBVIOUSLY those would matter. Right? No, not at all.
What the automanagement of photos by giving them appropriate tags? The arrogance, and remember this is just one of 41 new features, including auto gif creation, or stick together pics to make a panorama.
There is a difference between "we need this" and "this is a useful feature". As a species, we don't _need_ to buy furniture that someone else has built, but I'm sure most of us prefer it over growing our own trees, mining our own iron ore, extracting our own iron, making our own tools, and building our own furniture. For one thing, we'll have more time to devote to doing other things. This is progress, man. Why all the hate?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Is that "fact" like the three copies of Windows 8 that Microsoft counts me as having "bought"?
I bought three 802.11AC routers from Newegg and automagically had three copies of Win8 added to my cart which were included in the price, but also had an automatic rebate that was applied immediately. That was just before MS came out with the surprisingly large sales figures. I was only one of many.
Just because it's said by a company you rather like doesn't mean it's not misleading. For example, how much credence would you give something similar said by Apple?
Minecraft says differently :)
For example, how much credence would you give something similar said by Apple?
Actually Apple are pretty good, they post figures for in there financial statements in a nice table every year for hardware. Ignoring the fact that they claim a sale when it is a shipped product. In reality they don't really produce anything apart from a narrow range of electronics devices.
Microsoft do all kinds of things from raising prices; selling in bulk to OEM's, but since they are a monopoly. The real figures are in hard drive companies failing...Dell this week announced further bad move, but on the whole they trumpet success(normally when it hits a significant figure)...and hide failure.
but googles figures are collaborated now can boast 359 million active users, up 33 percent from 269 million users at the end of June 2012, according to GlobalWebIndex
I tried to use Duck Duck Go, but for some reason I just hate the result UI.
Also whatever it uses to search for results, just plain is not as good as Google (I read elsewhere your reply that it uses a mix).
I've tried switching to Bing for a while which mostly works, but for coding related searches Google is still head and shoulders above all competition.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Have you asked yourself: do you actually know anything about user interface design?
If you have to know anything about "user interface design" to actually USE a designed interface, you have failed. The whole point of the field is to make something so obvious to use that it seems like no design was involved.
Google employs Ph.D.s by the dozen.
I've known a lot of grad students, and always thought this was the most insane predilection Google had in hiring. Grad students are the least practical people on earth; hence the desire to stay in school long after most people go off to do something real...
I mean, I don't think you can spell Architecture Astronaut without a trailing * that refers to where the Ph. D came frame.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Envision future Google - when you take a picture of a famous landmark like the eiffel tower, Google proceeds on a makeover that fixes lighting, removes rain, eliminates any trace of blur by using details from a million other photos to re-texture your image... so your picture looks exactly the same as every other picture of that landmark uploaded to Google.
In the end it is perfect. But it has no soul.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Having had my share of agony in the past with things that have "+' in the name, I'm not using Google+ until we get to Google++11.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Google+ might have some hold on me, but I don't and it doesn't, so what exactly seems to be the problem?
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
So when I'm looking at photos of a loved ones' visit to the Taj Mahal, Google says that they're going to push *lots* of other people's photos of the Taj Mahal at me.
Because I really want to look at the Taj Mahal. Endlessly.
No you dipshits! I want to look at my loved ones enjoying their holiday! I don't give a flying f*** through a rolling donut about the holiday snaps of strangers, no matter how good, how artsy, how quirky, or how many there are with vaguely amusing pictures of sodding cats!
Bet all you want Google.
bang goes my karma... again...
Google is really missing the whole point of Facebook (Facebook tends to miss it too). It's not about whizzy features, it's about interacting with your friends. I don't use Google+ because few of my friends do. I really don't want to have Google+ OR Facebook finding new junk to stuff in front of me. I want to find out what my friends are up to. It's better than emailing stupid jokes around.
I suspect too many Google staffers are never leaving the Googleplex anymore.
I want diversity, even if I don't agree, I want freedom even if it means I have to go to the 2nd page to find my search result. But most people are just sheep :P
How many of them are actually *using* it?
Google's been shoving creating a g+ account down people's throats in order to use other Google services, so it's not surprising there's more accounts. But are any of them active?
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Google's broken analytics keep telling me I would enjoy Drudge and Limbaugh apps, when I know damn well that I won't. To be fair, though, it's based on what's popular in my area. Other things "popular in [my] area" of Denver include local channel 7 affiliate apps from fucking Michigan and the like.
Google's shotgun approach to personalization has yet to impress me.