Google, like the rest of the world, finally backing away from Google+

So what?

I see your point with the diversified stocks or whatever, but I just think he may be a little bit biased and/or beholden to Google, tis all. I’ll continue to take his words with a grain of salt.

over someone who hasn’t even used G+ in over two years.

Wouldn’t that be an overwhelming amount of other people as well? Does one have to actively use Google+ to have a valid opinion on their business model and moves, etc.? I don’t think so.

What’s changed?

I think once Google tried to shove it down everyone’s throat with the might of their monopolistic powers things turned sour for most people.

See here:

1 Like

I see your conclusion. And I can draw my own conclusions, not far from that. Also, including, Buzz (a somewhat useful but somewhat replica of existing platforms whit somewhat unreplicated privacy snafus).

But I want to hear from BB, a publishing entity which has managed to stay in the top N amount of web-destinations, for a laudable number of years, with a decidedly and determinedly independent-bent.

I’m confused. Facebook has the exact same real name policy. Always has.

1 Like

G+ is great if you play ingress and want to communicate with other players. Otherwise, meh. I like the fact that there’s less noise (like and reshare if you agree), but that will change if it ever becomes more popular and attracts more of the noisemakers.

1 Like

No, but when reporters spout off on how google+ is dying or a ghost town or complain how no one they know uses it when all they’ve done was sign up 3 years ago posted at most 10 posts and not circled anyone, it’s flat out bad reporting.

2 Likes

If you think Google is backing away from Google+, you are smoking the good stuff… Vic leaving means that most of the platform’s major features are rolled out and the massive “build” stage is coming to a close. That he is now looking for something else to “build”… It signifies that the platform is established and stable, which is the complete opposite of backing away…

If that’s your stance, get ready for disappointment…

1 Like

Facebook doesn’t run YouTube, the Android PlayStore, etc.

1 Like

In other news, Facebook wants everyone to just stahp not-using Facebook.

That’s the main reason for using G+. I really don’t see why an end to “forced integration” with YouTube would mean an end to G+, unless they have particular targets for expanding the userbase which they aren’t flexible about, and are also inflexible about using YouTube to drive the growth of G+.

As illustrated in this investigating piece
http://www.theonion.com/video/teens-migrating-from-facebook-to-comments-section,35583/

1 Like

Pretty much the same for me. When I first heard Google was doing a Facebook alternative, I was intrigued. If they’d allowed me to choose any name and have multiple accounts (that could be kept separate), I’d have jumped to it. I might even have one account under my real name. When they insisted real names only, I thought maybe I’d give it a look when they got their head out of their asses.

Alas, they never seemed to do that. Somebody said they backed away from their real names policy after YouTube integration… not far enough, apparently, the rules still seem to read as “you should use your real name” (albeit they allow you to initialize either your first or last name, but not both, and if you actually go by a single name, you can appeal for an exemption to be made). $@!% that, sorry, particularly when you hint that name violations could close your other accounts.

IMHO there could have been a market for a Facebook-like entity that embraced pseudonymity and privacy, but instead they wanted to be, as others said, “Facebook, except without all the users.”

3 Likes

Mostly it’s gmail I can’t easily do without - I use it for too many things. I don’t have a youtube channel, but if I had one that was in any way important to me, that would be another reason to stay well clear of G+. Some of the early users allegedly even found that when they got the boot from G+, their Android phones got remote-wiped.

Also, facebook has never made any real attempt to enforce its real name policy. Google has kicked off lots of people over their names - even people who were clearly following the policy, but whose names just don’t sound like what some Google flunky thought a name should sound like.

G+ was launched in June 2011. If they dropped their real names policy “months” ago, that’s, what, 8-10% of its total existence? I missed that news because I stopped paying attention to G+ by early 2013, at which point it was clearly irrelevant.

No, but claims that G+ is a “ghost town” are patently ridiculous to those who use it and find it to be an amazing way to meet and share with interesting people, and who find the Communities and Hangouts to be life-changing assets.

Look at the profile screenshot illustrating this article: 6.5 million followers, 117 millions views. That’s a ghost town? Better call Ghostbusters.

1 Like

I just have to add that BoingBoing’s presence on G+ is terrible. You need to fire whoever is handling the G+ account and get someone who knows what they’re doing.

For example:

  • Posts from the blog are shared on G+ days (sometimes over a week)
    late.
  • Sometimes they’re posted after time sensitive events (“check out the eclipse tonight – err, two nights ago”).
  • Posts go up with completely irrelevant and misleading images. Someone’s not paying attention.
  • When sharing videos, a screenshot of the video and “play” icon are posted. I’ve lost count of how many of those I’ve clicked on, not realizing they were jpegs.
  • There’s an increasing number of repeat posts.
  • I’ve never seen a single reply from the BoingBoing account.

Perhaps it’s all done via scripting, but scripts aren’t a good way to handle social media.

I see lots of comments like this and yet I don’t understand one thing which is this.

When they insisted real names only, I thought maybe I’d give it a look when they got their head out of their asses.

And yet you’re on Facebook which has the exact same Real Names policy. So it seems like you’re okay that Facebook has a their heads up their asses real names policy but you’re not okay that Google+ has one?

Note: I’m not saying there aren’t other reasons for dissing G+. Only that I don’t get how so many people will say in the same breath “I hate G+ because of real names. Oh, but I’m happy with Facebook which requires real names”

You might have understood it if you read a little further.

Having to use real names makes it Facebook, only with far less users. I’ve already GOT one company that’s trying to associate everything possible to my real name, why do I need two? So in addition to not getting the benefit I was hoping for, I also have the chore of having to try to convince my existing social circle to migrate? Which probably isn’t going to happen, so, realistically, what’s going to end up happening if I try is I’ll be stuck using both, which is a pain. And why? All so you (Google, I mean) can make a buck off it all? Sorry, if you want me to do work, you’d better damn well be offering something great.

Also, with Facebook… I started it when it was gathering steam, when the real-names-only was a novelty, and before it started getting hooked into everything else on the Net. It was JUST “the place I might go to use my real name and connect to people from my past,” which I saw a use for (and still do, although now there are enough drawbacks to make it kind of suck). Google+ started out when it was no longer a novelty and where they were clearly trying to be the next place where everything was integrated and you have to comment on places with your Google+ id (and then started to push it MORE). Again, $!@# that. If they let me have my pseudonymity and not insist that I present a single face everywhere, I’d have found uses for it.

But instead they decided to be Facebook, with less users, and a few marginal improvements on interface. I don’t need two Facebooks.

3 Likes

It’s one thing to offer anecdotal evidence that coincides with a greater reality and quite another when it doesn’t.

The truth of the matter Google+ is a relative “ghost town” once one stops conflating their numbers with YouTube that rammed Google+ down the throats of millions of users whether they wanted it or not (including my YouTube account and fuck them).

It’s one thing to count people that gravitate towards something in a grassroots manner, it’s quite another when you count people that were using a different service that was bought out by a monopolistic corporation that then decides against their will to jam their account into its social web app in order to conflate its numbers.

[quote=“Bodhipaksa, post:70, topic:29436”]
No, but claims that G+ is a “ghost town” are patently ridiculous to those who use it and find it to be an amazing way to meet and share with interesting people, and who find the Communities and Hangouts to be life-changing assets.[/quote]

Amazing? Life-changing? Er, ok… If you don’t shill for Google, you should start and get paid for your efforts.

The truth of the matter is Google+ adoption has been relatively glacial compared to other social networks in the past once you consider the Google+ “adoption” numbers are conflated with people that either didn’t want to use Google+ in the first place (YouTube users, etc., etc.) and those that aren’t very active with the accounts they’ve been shoehorned with (or at least not wittingly).

Look at the profile screenshot illustrating this article: 6.5 million followers, 117 millions views. That’s a ghost town? Better call Ghostbusters.

6.5 million followers of the guy who was the head of Google+?

Ok, how about nearly 30 million followers for the guy who is the head of Facebook?

Nevermind the fact that numbers for both are so conflated from fake accounts and shilling that they lose most meaning. Also, why are you bothering with 117 millions views? It doesn’t say 117 millions views from Google+ users.

If you want to say that Google+ is popular, then I’d agree with you based upon raw numbers. But if we use critical thinking and delve into those numbers we’ll see where a monopolistic corporation can boost numbers by using its weight to shoehorn people into its system.

The Comcast oligopoly (and monopoly in most areas) is one of the most despised corporations in America that can also point to its huge numbers of subscribers and say that properly reflects its “popularity”. Of course, we’d then have to forget the fact that an overwhelming number of those who “choose” to use Comcast only do so because the don’t have another choice for cable Internet.

1 Like

I would say like many things here, there’s a complex, diverse and evolving opinion on Google+. Boing Boing has obviously promoted Google+ multiple times, etc.

But, I also think it’s safe to say like many people who liked Google+ at first, some of their moves soured it.

1 Like

Oh swell, I’m the beneficiary of a bovine-fide link roundup. :smiley: Thanks, Cow!

Let me reassure you though, I’ve been following along.

1 Like