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 theyâd allowed me to choose any name and have multiple accounts (that could be kept separate), Iâd have jumped to it. I might even have one account under my real name. When they insisted real names only, I thought maybe Iâd 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 âyou should use your real nameâ (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, âFacebook, except without all the users.â
3 Likes
Mostly itâs gmail I canât easily do without - I use it for too many things. I donât 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 donât 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 âmonthsâ ago, thatâs, 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 âghost townâ 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. Thatâs a ghost town? Better call Ghostbusters.
1 Like
I just have to add that BoingBoingâs presence on G+ is terrible. You need to fire whoever is handling the G+ account and get someone who knows what theyâre doing.
For example:
- Posts from the blog are shared on G+ days (sometimes over a week)
late. - Sometimes theyâre posted after time sensitive events (âcheck out the eclipse tonight â err, two nights agoâ).
- Posts go up with completely irrelevant and misleading images. Someoneâs not paying attention.
- When sharing videos, a screenshot of the video and âplayâ icon are posted. Iâve lost count of how many of those Iâve clicked on, not realizing they were jpegs.
- Thereâs an increasing number of repeat posts.
- Iâve never seen a single reply from the BoingBoing account.
Perhaps itâs all done via scripting, but scripts arenât a good way to handle social media.
I see lots of comments like this and yet I donât understand one thing which is this.
When they insisted real names only, I thought maybe Iâd give it a look when they got their head out of their asses.
And yet youâre on Facebook which has the exact same Real Names policy. So it seems like youâre okay that Facebook has a their heads up their asses real names policy but youâre not okay that Google+ has one?
Note: Iâm not saying there arenât other reasons for dissing G+. Only that I donât get how so many people will say in the same breath âI hate G+ because of real names. Oh, but Iâm happy with Facebook which requires real namesâ
You might have understood it if you read a little further.
Having to use real names makes it Facebook, only with far less users. Iâve already GOT one company thatâs 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 isnât going to happen, so, realistically, whatâs going to end up happening if I try is Iâll 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, youâd 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 âthe place I might go to use my real name and connect to people from my past,â 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, Iâd have found uses for it.
But instead they decided to be Facebook, with less users, and a few marginal improvements on interface. I donât need two Facebooks.
3 Likes
Itâs one thing to offer anecdotal evidence that coincides with a greater reality and quite another when it doesnât.
The truth of the matter Google+ is a relative âghost townâ 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).
Itâs one thing to count people that gravitate towards something in a grassroots manner, itâs 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=âBodhipaksa, post:70, topic:29436â]
No, but claims that G+ is a âghost townâ 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 donât 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+ âadoptionâ numbers are conflated with people that either didnât want to use Google+ in the first place (YouTube users, etc., etc.) and those that arenât very active with the accounts theyâve been shoehorned with (or at least not wittingly).
Look at the profile screenshot illustrating this article: 6.5 million followers, 117 millions views. Thatâs 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 doesnât say 117 millions views from Google+ users.
If you want to say that Google+ is popular, then Iâd agree with you based upon raw numbers. But if we use critical thinking and delve into those numbers weâll 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 âpopularityâ. Of course, weâd then have to forget the fact that an overwhelming number of those who âchooseâ to use Comcast only do so because the donât have another choice for cable Internet.
1 Like
I would say like many things here, thereâs a complex, diverse and evolving opinion on Google+. Boing Boing has obviously promoted Google+ multiple times, etc.
But, I also think itâs safe to say like many people who liked Google+ at first, some of their moves soured it.
1 Like
Oh swell, Iâm the beneficiary of a bovine-fide link roundup. 
Thanks, Cow!
Let me reassure you though, Iâve been following along.
1 Like
[quote=âCowicide, post:74, topic:29436â]
Amazing? Life-changing? Er, ok⌠If you donât shill for Google, you should start and get paid for your efforts.[/quote]
The fact is that G+ has been life-changing for me. I teach meditation, and G+ has been the first social media site where Iâve been able to generate any kind of community of people interested in and influenced by my work. The Community Iâve created there is thriving. It doesnât even require any moderation on my part: the communication is 100% positive and people are offering each other support ant encouragement all the time. I donât quite understand it, myself.
Itâs been successful to the point where if I need, say, financial resources, I can simply ask for them and they appear. Iâve used FB and Twitter for years (although Iâve mostly given up on them now) and never seen anything like that, or like the degree of mutual support that people are offering each other in the Community. So, yeah, itâs changed my life in substantial ways, allowing me to teach and write full time, which Iâve never been able to do before.
âRelatively glacialâ? as in Twitter taking 1,800 days to reach 100 million users, Facebook taking 1,665 days, and G+ achieving that number in 240 days? (And this was long before Youtube integration.) I think we forget how long FB in particular has been around, and how gradual its growth was.
Yes, you canât trust the numbers given by any of these companies, but if youâre looking for independent assessments, then Searchmetricâs analysis of +1 growth over 15 months compared to âlikeâ growth over the same period showed 788% growth for the ghost town compared to 202% growth for Facebook.
Iâm glad we can agree since thatâs all Iâm saying. Reporters can repeat âghost town ghost town ghost townâ ad nauseam, (which is much easier than actually thinking, analyzing data, or otherwise doing real reporting) but the fact remains that Google+ is, in a way thatâs quite different from Facebook or Twitter, thriving.
1 Like
âRelatively glacialâ? as in Twitter taking 1,800 days to reach 100 million users, Facebook taking 1,665 days, and G+ achieving that number in 240 days? (And this was long before Youtube integration.) I think we forget how long FB in particular has been around, and how gradual its growth was.
Unfortunately, youâre parroting Googleâs public relations talking points in regards to massively oversimplified comparative growth. And, like Googleâs public relations, you are leaving out the major factor of time periods when you compare these growth statistics.
It was a very different time period when Facebook started about a decade ago in 2004. The iPhone wasnât even released until 5 years later. The iPad tablet was even later. Android even later. On the other hand, around the time Google+ started there was already an explosion of smartphones, tablets and phablets on the market that pulled many more social users onto the web that werenât there before.
Same goes for Twitter which was started about 8 years ago versus Google+ getting started a mere few years ago. Youâre also ignoring that Google+ started after Facebook and Twitter began to reach their saturation points and whoâd also paved a road for other social apps to follow.
Once you take out the Google public relations spin while properly factoring into the equation the disparate time periods of growth, saturation and how Google rammed people into its services, one gets a much more realistic picture of Google+'s true, glacial growth compared to Facebook, Twitter, etc.
The fact is that G+ has been life-changing for me. I teach meditation, and G+ has been the first social media site where Iâve been able to generate any kind of community of people interested in and influenced by my work.
Your anecdotal experience sounds good, but itâs not very compelling without more information. Had you tried other options and they failed? If so, which options did you try and how and why did they fail?
Thatâs truly great that itâs worked out for you and I mean this sincerely. But the other fact is that thereâs plenty of other online venues with very successful, tight-knit communities that have nothing or little to do with Google+ or Facebook to attribute to their success.
itâs changed my life in substantial ways, allowing me to teach and write full time, which Iâve never been able to do before.
I posit it it may not have been Google+ that changed your life, but perhaps your efforts to reach out to others online that changed your life. Maybe you should pat your own back instead of Googleâs?
I also hope for your sake that Google+ isnât yet another passing fancy for Google to abandon. Google has quite an extensive graveyard in this regard including some very coveted offerings.
But, then again, thatâs going to be the risk you take when your business, community, etc. is tied to the will of a giant oligopoly/monoply with much more money than it has ethics, loyalty for its user base, etc.
Iâm glad we can agree since thatâs all Iâm saying. Reporters can repeat âghost town ghost town ghost townâ ad nauseam, (which is much easier than actually thinking, analyzing data, or otherwise doing real reporting)
Well, as I showed you above, if one does actual thinking and proper analysis, the Google+ growth compared to Facebook and Twitter is blown wildly out of proportion by the media that all too often parrots Googleâs public relations drivel.
If you look at a lot of the reporting on Google+ growth, youâll see an overwhelming amount that unfairly compares the growth to Facebook and Twitter without factoring in the vital externalities I mentioned.
And, this is coming from someone who (mostly) despises Facebook, BTW.
1 Like
wait, everyone is still on FB? I thought the latest trend was that FB was dying? man, I canât keep up!!
The real names policy is what kept me off Google+, and I am aware that they backed off of it. What they never did was publicly apologize for saying that if you canât use your real name then it just isnât for you. That was right in the middle of a firestorm about forcing real names on people with abusive ex-spouses, transgender people who havenât acquired a legal status for their new name and everyone from teachers to lawyers have very valid reasons to not use their real names. Iâll give them a pass on dissidents in Syria since they rightly, if callously, point out that their governments will snoop on them through their ISPs anyway.
âThe real names policy is what did it for me too.â is not âinaccurate information.â That kept some of us off even though it was later reversed. We decided from that policy (and moreso from the approach Google took to criticisms of it) that this was something we didnât want anything to do with.
Okay, fine, but 100 millions users is not a ghost town. I know that in business analysis everyone is only ever concerned about growth, but you are trying to tell someone that a platform is unused when it was really useful for them.
Also, the analysis you are doing is hardly rock solid. If this were then tenth time one of the worldâs most well known tech companies launches a social media venture to attempt to cut into facebookâs near monopoly on the âordinary peopleâ market then we might be in a place to make some pretty good comments about how it did relative to others. It isnât, though. You are talking like having virtually every one of their potential customers already using two competitorâs services was helpful to them. That doesnât seem like a fair assumption.
1 Like
Google + is terrible and also they stole design ideas from me. Facebook is terrible. Twitter is terrible. I have yet to come across a social networking thing that isnât terrible. I donât care about any of them.
Really? Tell that to Salman Rushdie.
No kidding. Remember the rush to get an invite? It would have been a lot more effective to let everyone jump on with their friends. Instead they wanted you to already be committed enough to sign up for a product youâve never used, so you can get an invite to a social network that none of your friends are on. I have a Google+ account. Two of my friends do. I have more than two friends. Do the math.
Actually what bothers me about all of this is people laying blame at the feet of real-name rules and forced integration. The vast majority of social media users are not privacy-savvy. Theyâre too busy exchanging cow-pies and sending each other Candy Crush Crap. The real lesson here is one about critical mass. Iâm not sure what bothers me more: The idea that Google cannot wrest from Facebook the prized position of preeminent social networking site. Or that it could, but has not been competent enough in terms of marketing strategy to do so.
1 Like
I think it can be both.
It was unrealistic to think that everyone would just drop Facebook and jump on Google+ for sure. But there were communities that were pretty excited about the idea of Facebook-except-its-not-Facebook. Starting off with those people might have been a good start.
Right away, though, we saw that Google+ was Facebook-except-its-âŚ-oh-wait-its-just-Facebook. They might as well have put Zuckerberg in charge of it. People who thought that Google felt less sinister than Facebook rapidly started feeling that they were just as sinister.
I donât have a good reason to believe that many other people felt the way I did, but it canât be a good thing that they started off by alienating people and forcing things on people. To me, that will always be part of the story. There was never room for Facebook 2, but there might have been room for Facebook and Not Facebook.
2 Likes
There might be a company that we could trust to build a âFacebook, except it doesnât spy on youâ, but itâs definitely not Google.
2 Likes
