Google+ redesigned their layout and nobody even noticed
- Thread starter Instrumentalist
- Start date
Didn't read the second page of this thread since I haven't the time to give for certain trolls here, but if you think Google Plus will die you're mistaken.
It'll be the thread that Google uses to link ALL of its services. How many of you have looked at your tablets and now see a google plus app there that you KNOW you didn't download. I know I did and I know Google will eventually make that the hub for my Checkout Account which will tie into my Play account, which will tie into my Apps account, and Gmail. It'll also keep track of my personalization, location services, eventual device preferences, and interact with my contacts and their personalized experiences... It might even be able to recommend local Google Offers whenever GPS enabled Maps services are turned on. The possibilities are endless.
The problem with Google Wave was that it was clunky and people are stupid. Google's already learned that it can't compete head on with Facebook in certain markets, did you guys forget that Orkut exists?
It's like SEOs are stuck talking about competing on "Web 2.0" when "Web 3.0" has already been conceptualized and in practice for years on levels greater than simple API sharing.
Irreducible complexity guys...
Just because an organ isn't best served for one particular function doesn't mean it can be for an entirely different function.
It'll be the thread that Google uses to link ALL of its services. How many of you have looked at your tablets and now see a google plus app there that you KNOW you didn't download. I know I did and I know Google will eventually make that the hub for my Checkout Account which will tie into my Play account, which will tie into my Apps account, and Gmail. It'll also keep track of my personalization, location services, eventual device preferences, and interact with my contacts and their personalized experiences... It might even be able to recommend local Google Offers whenever GPS enabled Maps services are turned on. The possibilities are endless.
The problem with Google Wave was that it was clunky and people are stupid. Google's already learned that it can't compete head on with Facebook in certain markets, did you guys forget that Orkut exists?
It's like SEOs are stuck talking about competing on "Web 2.0" when "Web 3.0" has already been conceptualized and in practice for years on levels greater than simple API sharing.
Irreducible complexity guys...
Just because an organ isn't best served for one particular function doesn't mean it can be for an entirely different function.
If you didn't read the coversation then "you are talking out of your hat"
Cheerios and good day to you, sir.
But in all seriousness, it sounds like this google is controlling everything you do...
Cheerios and good day to you, sir.
But in all seriousness, it sounds like this google is controlling everything you do...
it's not frustrating, you are just trying to call apples oranges.
And g+ may doesn't work exactly the way i described, but I am fairly certain I am pretty close to the general idea of what they had/have in mind.
Its just that people are using it differently.
In order to work, it has to have users. It doesn't have them. So it works in a very limited(easy to manipulate) way. That is from google's POV.
From your POV it works, because it helps your rankings.
Will it acquire critical mass and become relevant - I don't know. Maybe. Google tend to know their shit and have a lot of money. Can it fail - it certainly can. Only the future will show.
Overall I am telling you that it fails at it's original plan and you are telling me, yes but it works for me. Maybe read more carefully what I am writing and try to think about it, rather than just bashing sentences to prove your point?
And g+ may doesn't work exactly the way i described, but I am fairly certain I am pretty close to the general idea of what they had/have in mind.
Its just that people are using it differently.
In order to work, it has to have users. It doesn't have them. So it works in a very limited(easy to manipulate) way. That is from google's POV.
From your POV it works, because it helps your rankings.
Will it acquire critical mass and become relevant - I don't know. Maybe. Google tend to know their shit and have a lot of money. Can it fail - it certainly can. Only the future will show.
Overall I am telling you that it fails at it's original plan and you are telling me, yes but it works for me. Maybe read more carefully what I am writing and try to think about it, rather than just bashing sentences to prove your point?
Google+ has 170 million users. To put that in perspective, Twitter only has 140 million users. We can argue over how many of those are active users, but to say it doesn't have users is fucking retarded.
Google never said the original plan for G+ was to be like Facebook. Many people have projected that onto them based off of their own assumptions or a blog post by a former disgruntled employee.
Google's money maker is search so you have to consider any move they make in the context of how it helps them improve or maintain their market share in search before factoring in ancillary benefits such as a rudimentary social network.
People keep making the mistake of looking at G+ as a standalone social network which is not what it is, nor what it was intended to be if you look at their business model. For the record, I'm no fanboy. I hate Google and Facebook, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing business potential when I see it.
no dude, they don't have 170 million users. They have 170 million registration. Quite a bit of difference.
AKA Guerilla's dissonance reduction list?
Cognitive dissonance theory warns that people have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. According to Festinger, we engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction"
one would expect a person with low tolerance for dissonance to see issues more in terms of black and white than would a person with high tolerance for dissonance who might be expected to be able to maintain "grays" in his cognition.
why Google Plus was created = shade of gray
The guy in the article I linked to still works for Google.
Getting everyone they can on board is part of the business model though. Facebook is a giant database of people and their interests, but the general public doesn't think about that.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Atj57r15U&]Google+: There's more to explore - YouTube[/ame]
That's their latest video and they are promoting things like photos and chat hangout, and not how they can make it easier for me to find Wagenheim's latest article.
Yes, but that can be said for Twitter, Facebook etc. I'm pretty sure you see my point though.
They're going to get as many users as they can, however they can. Their goal isn't to only have webmasters signed up, their goal is to control the internet - same goal as Facebook. I've already said it earlier in the thread, but the point is to end anonymity online and control your digital identity. Targeting webmasters as early adopters helps achieve that, but it is by no means the end game.
now... do I really have to tell you that 5% of G+ accounts are active and 75-80% of FB are active and 60-70% of twitter?
as everybody writes above - the place is a ghost town.
No you still don't get it. You're looking at G+ as "a place". It isn't a place, like Facebook. It is the thread that ties together all of their services and enables them to own the digital you. I don't know how else to explain it. Just go post status updates about your dog to Aunt Millie and wait as everything unfolds. It will make more sense to you later.
No, you still don't get it.
Noone uses the fucking +1. No one uses circles.
Everyone uses single google services and doesn't care about consolidating everything into one. That is why google doesn't have the information which they built G+ for. That is why it has failed.
Noone uses the fucking +1. No one uses circles.
Everyone uses single google services and doesn't care about consolidating everything into one. That is why google doesn't have the information which they built G+ for. That is why it has failed.
OK I give up. I feel like I'm trying to teach Algebra to my 4 year old. We'll revisit this later. Tapping out.
If Google wanted G+ to be like Facebook, they would have built it on different fundamentals. It's funny that on a forum full of people who believe that Google is all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful you guys believe that Google has utterly failed with G+ and has no idea what they're doing.
I don't know if G+ has failed or not, but it was never supposed to be Facebook. If Google had wanted to build Facebook, they would have based G+ on symmetrical relationships (you friend me, I friend you), not the asymmetrical relationships of Twitter (you follow me, I don't have to follow you). Now, people who jumped at this and said, "aha, they're twitter 2.0!" are on the right path, but they aren't thinking broadly enough.
Google+ isn't Twitter. Twitter's focus is on the delivery of short broadcasts (Twitter is essentially the layman's version of RSS feeds with the ability to brand them and discuss them). G+ is focused on the delivery of content and the creation of online personas that can be attached to articles. Think about it. Google didn't want to let people register pseudonyms. Why? Because they want to know who writes what and they want to be able to tie authors to their content, their social media accounts, their videos, and their websites. Google has backed this up with rich snippets, which allow brandable photos of individuals to appear next to articles they've written. They've added the rel=me tag and the rel=author tags all for the same reason -- identity.
I don't think Google ever intended G+ to be a true social network. I think Guerilla is right to say that they intended to make it an authorship network. They tried this before with Knol, which never worked so now they're trying it by giving authors a platform to brand themselves with videos, pictures, introductions, and automatic links to everything they've ever created.
Google just let everyone else label it a "social network" and went with it. I think they were afraid to tip their hand too early. All I know is they've gotta be doing something right because Facebook rolled out asymmetrical relationships ASAP when G+ launched. A further hint that this is the path Google is taking -- Facebook + Journalists | Facebook . Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
We won't know whether this gamble worked until (if) they hit a critical mass of authors. Once that happens, all these dormant G+ accounts could come alive as people start just following authors and topics they're interested in directly. That's why I don't think Google is too scared of their low levels of engagement right now... they're just laying the foundation for something bigger. Maybe.