As I said, people lacking social skills pick an external topic to talk about, rather than about themselves, their families, the person they are communicating with, what's happening right now were they are, and other things close to them. It might be computing. It might be train spotting. It might be cars. It might be gardening. It might be sport.
That's not to say social people don't also talk about these things. But not as an avoiding tactic. Not to the exclusion of more social communication.
It happens in real life gatherings all the time, and it's reflected in online behaviour.
If you don't recognise anyone that does this, that probably means it's you.
Even if their pages were cluttered, it was some representation of them. Why would that be a bad thing? I'm really asking.
Why is it a bad thing if you can't read someone's page because of the lack of contrast between the text colour and the background colour? Why is it bad when the animated graphics they chose make your eyes bleed? Why is it bad when visiting someone's page plays some obnoxious music? Really? You don't see it?
At any rate, something like a cleaner UI might have been the reason for a switch back then, I don't think that would be enough now. Original point stands.
No of course not. Because Facebook's UI isn't that bad, and the user's can't make it worse. Facebook will either have to make a mistake, or another social network will have to come in with an entirely new idea that Facebook can't catch up on.
Of course just because Facebook replaced MySpace doesn't mean that Facebook will in turn be replaced. It may be that Facebook is here to stay as the social network.
Looking through Facebook's fed right now, there is not a single message of the type you describe. For sure there used to be. But I had a policy of hiding every kind of post I didn't like. And I very rarely see any posts that I want to hide any more. There was one today. But before that, at least a week since I last had to hide a category of post.
In this way the signal to noise ratio is far higher than email for example. Even with a spam filter, I get more spam on email than I do in Facebook.
I didn't really know why it was happening, since MySpace was a lot more customizeable, which should have been great for all the narcissists who live for "social networking".
It was happening BECAUSE MySpace was too customisable. And most people have no sense of taste or design, and made a mess.
There's a bit lesson there, that choice is not intrinsically a good thing. It's far better to make a good UI with limited customisability than a good UI with lots of customisability. High customisability means a good UI will all too often become a bad UI.
It is. But it's more transparent with Facebook. With Google they tie together everything you put in Google+ with everything you put in GMail with everything you search for from your browser. And sell the whole lot to advertisers. Most people don't know that.
Let's look at how Facebook (inadvertently!) succeeded with its introduction: - release the product to a small number of people who all know each other and feel exclusive - release the product to another small number of people who all know each other and feel exclusive - release the product to still more people who all know each other and feel exclusive - open it up to the world and let it grow organically
It's have been a really clever marketing approach had it been planned. But it wasn't. TheFaceBook really was only ever intended to serve that original small number.
I think the success of Facebook has been Darwinian. There were lots of attempts at social networks, both before and after. All a bit different. The one which fitted best to it's environment won. Not because of a genius of design or marketing, but just randomly. Someone's random set of features and business decisions would work best, and prosper. Through chance.
Only one can be the big success at once because of the network effect. It'll be Facebook until they make a big enough mistake. As big a mistake as MySpace did.
Facebook exercised tight control over what you could do with your page, making it far more scalable. People lost interest in the struggle to merely load a page on MySpace to see what was going on. This next comment will blow minds here on Slashdot, but consider - Facebook succeeded for the same reason Google did. Their predecessors had become overwhelming with excess. Both Facebook and Google appeared as a breath of fresh air - clean, simple, usable.
It's also the reason for Apple's success. Only more so.
I've always hated being inundated by inane posts, having difficulty finding the signal among all the noise. Plus, everybody who found out your name suddenly wanted to be your facebook friend. I didn't have a public searchable profile, but people I met would ask, "do you have a facebook account?" and I couldn't just flat out lie because somebody else who was in my list of friends would nearby and chime in, "yes, sure he does." Then I'd be put in the situation where I either add the person to my list of faux friends to add further noise the updates I see or tell them, "I don't want to add you" which is seen as offensive.
You add them, then the first time you consider them "noise", you click the down arrow next to the post, and select "Hide all by..." No more noise.
It doesn't help you if you want them not to see what you're posting. But it does eliminate the noise problem you complained about.
For limiting your publishing on FB you can create your own groups and post to them, which is the equivalent of Google+'s circles. The UI isn't nearly as good as Google's, but the effect is the same.
It's weird. In years gone by their used to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about why computer games didn't appeal to girls and women. Now, as you say, they're mad for the games. They're far bigger gamers than males now. Not just the Facebook games either. When they're on trains, they're all on their smartphones playing Angry Birds and the like.
For all you say about Facebook. You don't get much of that "I'm cleverer than you. You fail." on Facebook. In my experience people are nice to each other there.
It's a function of knowing people on FB in real life. That makes it less likely you're going to be an asshole, unless all your friends and family are assholes too.
You listed all the reasons you'd like to think many techies don't go on facebook. I think you're missing the elephant in the room, that is perhaps a little less egotistical:
Many techies lack social skills. They feel uncomfortable in general social situations. So they don't place themselves in a virtual version of that. (Facebook)
They are comfortable in techie groups where they can talk about an external topic and don't have to deal with personal relationships. (Google+ for some, tech blogs, forums and mailing lists for many more.)
Facebook was a continual stream of "If you don't repost this link, you are a jerk", "Look how much bacon I ate!!!!" and "I am having the worst day ever!"
No. The people you chose to be your friends were a stream of that. If you didn't want that, then you unfriend them or hide their future posts.
If Google+ is any better for you personally then it's only because you chose a different set of friends there.
Google+ does have a better interface than Facebook, but that is vastly outweighed by the fact that the pool of people from whom you can choose your friends is a small fraction of what it is on Facebook.
I guess a social network means different things to different people. Why would I join a social network when I can just send e-mails to my family and friends?
Because it's not using the best tool for the job. Facebook is a tool specifically created for communicating with a social network. You can use a hammer to bash a screw into a piece of wood. But why would you when you have an electric screwdriver?
That depends on whether you have interesting family and friends. I must be lucky, I get lots of interesting stuff on Facebook without ever connecting to anyone I don't know in real life. And it's far more interesting because it's coming from people I know well.
Topic specific stuff is what blogs and forums are for. Not Facebook.
What you describe isn't an attribute of either Facebook or Google+. As always it's a function of who is in your network. If you connect to interesting people on Facebook, you'll see interesting posts. If you connect to idiots on Google+ you'll see stupid posts there.
But in a general sense finding anyone active on Google+ is a challenge. There might be certain groups that are on there, possible from a connection with some other Google service. But in general, it's a ghost town.
Of course the energy company doesn't pay for the fuel either way. Mother nature makes fossil fuel as well as solar or wind, and they're all taken without payment. As a consumer of energy you're paying for the infrastructure, wages and dividends of investors.
But you're right, in the long run renewables should be cheaper.
But there is massive upfront capital costs. Of course there were massive up front capital costs for conventional power too. But they evolved over a couple of centuries. Renewables need to replace most of that in a couple of decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Brake with your right foot? Change gear with your left foot. Accelerate with your right hand? What kind of modern car do YOU drive?
You're right. Also they should still make cars that look like the Model T. Whats the point of these new fangled designs for cars?
As I said, people lacking social skills pick an external topic to talk about, rather than about themselves, their families, the person they are communicating with, what's happening right now were they are, and other things close to them. It might be computing. It might be train spotting. It might be cars. It might be gardening. It might be sport.
That's not to say social people don't also talk about these things. But not as an avoiding tactic. Not to the exclusion of more social communication.
It happens in real life gatherings all the time, and it's reflected in online behaviour.
If you don't recognise anyone that does this, that probably means it's you.
But that's just one more layer to the person who's getting the fossil fuel for nothing.
Sure, but you've done nothing to explain why that has meant more females play them then males.
Even if their pages were cluttered, it was some representation of them. Why would that be a bad thing? I'm really asking.
Why is it a bad thing if you can't read someone's page because of the lack of contrast between the text colour and the background colour? Why is it bad when the animated graphics they chose make your eyes bleed? Why is it bad when visiting someone's page plays some obnoxious music? Really? You don't see it?
At any rate, something like a cleaner UI might have been the reason for a switch back then, I don't think that would be enough now. Original point stands.
No of course not. Because Facebook's UI isn't that bad, and the user's can't make it worse. Facebook will either have to make a mistake, or another social network will have to come in with an entirely new idea that Facebook can't catch up on.
Of course just because Facebook replaced MySpace doesn't mean that Facebook will in turn be replaced. It may be that Facebook is here to stay as the social network.
Looking through Facebook's fed right now, there is not a single message of the type you describe. For sure there used to be. But I had a policy of hiding every kind of post I didn't like. And I very rarely see any posts that I want to hide any more. There was one today. But before that, at least a week since I last had to hide a category of post.
In this way the signal to noise ratio is far higher than email for example. Even with a spam filter, I get more spam on email than I do in Facebook.
It seems like you didn't read the third paragraph of my post. I already covered forums.
I didn't really know why it was happening, since MySpace was a lot more customizeable, which should have been great for all the narcissists who live for "social networking".
It was happening BECAUSE MySpace was too customisable. And most people have no sense of taste or design, and made a mess.
There's a bit lesson there, that choice is not intrinsically a good thing. It's far better to make a good UI with limited customisability than a good UI with lots of customisability. High customisability means a good UI will all too often become a bad UI.
Guess what, the majority of users on G+ do not post publicly, that is why they choose to be there instead of Facebook.
Yep. 47 out of the 53 active people in Google+ post exclusively through circles.
On G+ I have a groomed list of about a hundred people scattered through various circles.
Pedo.
It is. But it's more transparent with Facebook. With Google they tie together everything you put in Google+ with everything you put in GMail with everything you search for from your browser. And sell the whole lot to advertisers. Most people don't know that.
Let's look at how Facebook (inadvertently!) succeeded with its introduction:
- release the product to a small number of people who all know each other and feel exclusive
- release the product to another small number of people who all know each other and feel exclusive
- release the product to still more people who all know each other and feel exclusive
- open it up to the world and let it grow organically
It's have been a really clever marketing approach had it been planned. But it wasn't. TheFaceBook really was only ever intended to serve that original small number.
I think the success of Facebook has been Darwinian. There were lots of attempts at social networks, both before and after. All a bit different. The one which fitted best to it's environment won. Not because of a genius of design or marketing, but just randomly. Someone's random set of features and business decisions would work best, and prosper. Through chance.
Only one can be the big success at once because of the network effect. It'll be Facebook until they make a big enough mistake. As big a mistake as MySpace did.
Facebook exercised tight control over what you could do with your page, making it far more scalable. People lost interest in the struggle to merely load a page on MySpace to see what was going on.
This next comment will blow minds here on Slashdot, but consider - Facebook succeeded for the same reason Google did. Their predecessors had become overwhelming with excess. Both Facebook and Google appeared as a breath of fresh air - clean, simple, usable.
It's also the reason for Apple's success. Only more so.
Your friends are a sad bunch if they think you not replying to them in Facebook means that you don't like them anymore.
...or they're women.
I've always hated being inundated by inane posts, having difficulty finding the signal among all the noise. Plus, everybody who found out your name suddenly wanted to be your facebook friend. I didn't have a public searchable profile, but people I met would ask, "do you have a facebook account?" and I couldn't just flat out lie because somebody else who was in my list of friends would nearby and chime in, "yes, sure he does." Then I'd be put in the situation where I either add the person to my list of faux friends to add further noise the updates I see or tell them, "I don't want to add you" which is seen as offensive.
You add them, then the first time you consider them "noise", you click the down arrow next to the post, and select "Hide all by..." No more noise.
It doesn't help you if you want them not to see what you're posting. But it does eliminate the noise problem you complained about.
For limiting your publishing on FB you can create your own groups and post to them, which is the equivalent of Google+'s circles. The UI isn't nearly as good as Google's, but the effect is the same.
It's weird. In years gone by their used to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about why computer games didn't appeal to girls and women. Now, as you say, they're mad for the games. They're far bigger gamers than males now. Not just the Facebook games either. When they're on trains, they're all on their smartphones playing Angry Birds and the like.
For all you say about Facebook. You don't get much of that "I'm cleverer than you. You fail." on Facebook. In my experience people are nice to each other there.
It's a function of knowing people on FB in real life. That makes it less likely you're going to be an asshole, unless all your friends and family are assholes too.
You listed all the reasons you'd like to think many techies don't go on facebook. I think you're missing the elephant in the room, that is perhaps a little less egotistical:
Many techies lack social skills. They feel uncomfortable in general social situations. So they don't place themselves in a virtual version of that. (Facebook)
They are comfortable in techie groups where they can talk about an external topic and don't have to deal with personal relationships. (Google+ for some, tech blogs, forums and mailing lists for many more.)
Facebook was a continual stream of "If you don't repost this link, you are a jerk", "Look how much bacon I ate!!!!" and "I am having the worst day ever!"
No. The people you chose to be your friends were a stream of that. If you didn't want that, then you unfriend them or hide their future posts.
If Google+ is any better for you personally then it's only because you chose a different set of friends there.
Google+ does have a better interface than Facebook, but that is vastly outweighed by the fact that the pool of people from whom you can choose your friends is a small fraction of what it is on Facebook.
I guess a social network means different things to different people. Why would I join a social network when I can just send e-mails to my family and friends?
Because it's not using the best tool for the job. Facebook is a tool specifically created for communicating with a social network. You can use a hammer to bash a screw into a piece of wood. But why would you when you have an electric screwdriver?
That depends on whether you have interesting family and friends. I must be lucky, I get lots of interesting stuff on Facebook without ever connecting to anyone I don't know in real life. And it's far more interesting because it's coming from people I know well.
Topic specific stuff is what blogs and forums are for. Not Facebook.
You must be a Google employee. They're about the only people using it.
What you describe isn't an attribute of either Facebook or Google+. As always it's a function of who is in your network. If you connect to interesting people on Facebook, you'll see interesting posts. If you connect to idiots on Google+ you'll see stupid posts there.
But in a general sense finding anyone active on Google+ is a challenge. There might be certain groups that are on there, possible from a connection with some other Google service. But in general, it's a ghost town.
Of course the energy company doesn't pay for the fuel either way. Mother nature makes fossil fuel as well as solar or wind, and they're all taken without payment. As a consumer of energy you're paying for the infrastructure, wages and dividends of investors.
But you're right, in the long run renewables should be cheaper.
But there is massive upfront capital costs. Of course there were massive up front capital costs for conventional power too. But they evolved over a couple of centuries. Renewables need to replace most of that in a couple of decades.