Support NeoGAF

[sixteen-bit]

http://t.co/bkXjAewv

so...

yeah

bomba. There also hasn't been activity in this thread for 7 days?



No one cares about google+

I admit I fell off already.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Hashtags and real time search, yo.

 

[Korey]

http://t.co/bkXjAewv

so...

yeah

bomba. There also hasn't been activity in this thread for 7 days?



No one cares about google+

As if that wasn't bad enough...

Google Engineer Accidentally Posts Rant About Google+

More bad news for Google+: First, we discovered that Google’s top management apparently aren’t big users of the company’s social network, then traffic fell and now it appears that at least one of the rank-and-file is pretty critical of the platform as well.

Steve Yegge, a Google engineer, intended his 5,000-word post to be an internal diatribe for other Google employees, but accidentally published it for his 2,000 or so followers. The rant, posted in its entirety here, at first focuses on Yegge’s former employer, Amazon, which he calls to task for its inconsistent hiring practices and CEO Jeff Bezos, who is presented as an obsessive micromanager.

Then Yegge switches gears to talk about Google.”That one last thing that Google doesn’t do well is platforms. We don’t understand platforms. We don’t ‘get’ platforms,” Yegge wrote. “Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo).” The G+ platform, Yegge wrote, is a “pathetic afterthought” and Google lacked an API at launch.

Google’s biggest blunder, he added, is that it didn’t emulate Facebook’s plan of building “an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work.”

Yegge went on to write, “Our Google+ team took a look at the aftermarket and said: ‘Gosh, it looks like we need some games. Let’s go contract someone to, um, write some games for us.’ Do you begin to see how incredibly wrong that thinking is now? The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them.”

Yegge’s most recent post is an apology for the rant: “Sadly, it was intended to be an internal post, visible to everybody at Google, but not externally. But as it was midnight and I am not what you might call an experienced Google+ user.”

Google reps could not be reached for comment on the post.

Also, If Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+, Then Why Should You?

 

[Kinitari]

Shared circles really made this viable for me. A stronger unification between all of googles services would be awesome.

 

[Kinitari]

As if that wasn't bad enough...

Google Engineer Accidentally Posts Rant About Google+



Also, If Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+, Then Why Should You?

What kind of question is that? Because I like it. It's not perfect, but it's not bad. And you are reading way too much into that figure, it peaked then it settled at a much higher user base. It's not perfect, but it's moving into a much more viable and unique service every day that goes by

 

[ThatObviousUser]

As if that wasn't bad enough...

Google Engineer Accidentally Posts Rant About Google+



Also, If Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+, Then Why Should You?

I'm 90% sure Googlers post those kinds of internal rants all the time. They're targetted at other Googlers so they can figure out how to make the service better.

Would you rather all the employees working on Google+ be completely oblivious to its shortcomings? I think it's rather refreshing they're "like us" with similar likes and dislikes.

Also, a hefty focus of the original post was how awesome it is inside Google (especially compared to Amazon), but that's not controversial enough I guess.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Also, a hefty focus of the original post was how awesome it is inside Google (especially compared to Amazon), but that's not controversial enough I guess.

The entire focus of the piece is ranting about how Google doesn't understand platforms.
Here's the rant.

 

[jvalioli]

Googlers complain about lots of things. Most of the time it results in a better product at the end.

Shame that this guy accidentally posted using the wrong account. Wonder if anything will happen to him.

edit: lol at i didnt realize that was posted by Kadey

 

[kehs]

Korey never disappoints.

Also, Eric Schmidt just started posting, with an awesome profile picture too.

 

[gcubed]

As if that wasn't bad enough...

Google Engineer Accidentally Posts Rant About Google+



Also, If Google’s Management Doesn’t Use Google+, Then Why Should You?

go away

 

[Terrell]

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106538011801079824694/posts/b1f38Vuc3MA?hl=en

YouTube integration begins.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106538011801079824694/posts/b1f38Vuc3MA?hl=en

YouTube integration begins.

Video uploads need to go to YouTube. :/

And YouTube profiles need to be replaced with a Videos tab on G+ profiles...

 

[kehs]

Video uploads need to go to YouTube. :/

And YouTube profiles need to be replaced with a Videos tab on G+ profiles...

Hey andrex, how have you been? I hope all is well with you. Is the family well? I hear dysentery is running rampant over across the mountains. I write this in hopes of hearing about progress. Progress about the fabled image hover extensions. Surely it isn't too difficult to engineer such a thing. Once again, I hope all is well.

Take Care,

See you in the spring.

Copernicus

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Oh yeah, what did you want me to do again?

 

[kehs]

Oh yeah, what did you want me to do again?

if *mousecursor" is over *.jpg/png/gif/tif/tiff* then popup *.jpg/png/tif/tiff* in popup window

 

[ThatObviousUser]

You mean like, in a floating div or an actual new tab?

 

[foodtaster]

Google+ is a failure. Even if everyone who has a Google account of any kind signed up for Google+ signed up it still wouldn't have a third of the Facebook market. Give it up peeps.

 

[kehs]

You mean like, in a floating div or an actual new tab?

Floating something that doesn't involve me pressing or tapping on this shitty cr-48 touchpad to see and image link.

(no new tab)

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Google+ is a failure. Even if everyone who has a Google account of any kind signed up for Google+ signed up it still wouldn't have a third of the Facebook market. Give it up peeps.

It's a better product, so I'm going to use it. It's better with more people I know but I like it the way it is now, too.

Besides that, this isn't an either-or thing like with web browsers. People can use both.

Finally, Google+ is the fastest growing social network of all time. That kind of momentum can't just be handwaved away. The site is barely three months old. You know what Facebook looked like when it was that age? MySpace was still king of the castle.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I said it a million times. The only problem Google has is that nobody can find what they made. Where is Google+? I have no idea. Never checked. All I see is the Google search bar, image search, video search, gmail and news. And lo and behold, those are the only things people use.

People don't know you have a free online Word-like software on Google where you can save your work from anywhere and edit it from anywhere.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

I said it a million times. The only problem Google has is that nobody can find what they made. Where is Google+? I have no idea. Never checked. All I see is the Google search bar, image search, video search, gmail and news. And lo and behold, those are the only things people use.

People don't know you have a free online Word-like software on Google where you can save your work from anywhere and edit it from anywhere.

You don't see +You in the upper left?

They even had a big arrow background on Google Search pointing to it a few weeks ago:

 

[foodtaster]

It's a better product, so I'm going to use it. It's better with more people I know but I like it the way it is now, too.

Besides that, this isn't an either-or thing like with web browsers. People can use both.

Finally, Google+ is the fastest growing social network of all time. That kind of momentum can't just be handwaved away. The site is barely three months old. You know what Facebook looked like when it was that age? MySpace was still king of the castle.

You cannot use both. Are you joking? Sure you can have an account for both, but you can't be an active user of both. Additionally, things have changed substantially since Facebook. It's irrelevant if it's the fastest growing social network. It's Facebook that made social networks relevant for the mainstream anyway.

And I already know that there will be a niche for G+ users. The comment was to demonstrate the hopeless of G+ beating Facebook like many people in this thread keep suggesting (read the first posts of this thread).

 

[Jzero]

It's a better product, so I'm going to use it. It's better with more people I know but I like it the way it is now, too.

Besides that, this isn't an either-or thing like with web browsers. People can use both.

Finally, Google+ is the fastest growing social network of all time. That kind of momentum can't just be handwaved away. The site is barely three months old. You know what Facebook looked like when it was that age? MySpace was still king of the castle.

i agree but it feels like i's still missing something.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

You cannot use both. Are you joking? Sure you can have an account for both, but you can't be an active user of both. Additionally, things have changed substantially since Facebook. It's irrelevant if it's the fastest growing social network. It's Facebook that made social networks relevant for the mainstream anyway.

And I already know that there will be a niche for G+ users. The comment was to demonstrate the hopeless of G+ beating Facebook like many people in this thread keep suggesting (read the first posts of this thread).

I used to use both in July and August but I gave FB up. I still use both Twitter and G+. I don't see any problem with using two social networks.

"Relevant to the mainstream." Maybe in the boonies or other countries. But social networking was popularized by Friendster, then catapulted into the mainstream with MySpace. People tend to forget how big MySpace used to be, probably because it doesn't help their agenda of Facebook being "too big to fail."

No site is forever. Besides that, it's nice to have an alternative. It pushed them both to be better. And Google+ doesn't need 800 million members to "beat" Facebook. It just needs to be ahead of the curb.

 

[foodtaster]

I used to use both in July and August but I gave FB up. I still use both Twitter and G+. I don't see any problem with using two social networks.

"Relevant to the mainstream." Maybe in the boonies or other countries. But social networking was popularized by Friendster, then catapulted into the mainstream with MySpace. People tend to forget how big MySpace used to be, probably because it doesn't help their agenda of Facebook being "too big to fail."

No site is forever. Besides that, it's nice to have an alternative. It pushed them both to be better. And Google+ doesn't need 800 million members to "beat" Facebook. It just needs to be ahead of the curb.

No.. just no.

 

[jtb]

I used to use both in July and August but I gave FB up. I still use both Twitter and G+. I don't see any problem with using two social networks.

"Relevant to the mainstream." Maybe in the boonies or other countries. But social networking was popularized by Friendster, then catapulted into the mainstream with MySpace. People tend to forget how big MySpace used to be, probably because it doesn't help their agenda of Facebook being "too big to fail."

No site is forever. Besides that, it's nice to have an alternative. It pushed them both to be better. And Google+ doesn't need 800 million members to "beat" Facebook. It just needs to be ahead of the curb.

MySpace was big. But Facebook has transcended it and has evolved into something completley beyond what MySpace even aspired to be. 100 million vs. 800 million. That's a massive difference. I would say that Facebook is not just "youth"/"college kid" mainstream, but mainstream mainstream and the numbers prove it, if that makes any kind of sense. It's mainstream in the sense that Google is mainstream, in that everyone uses it.

And, frankly, the fact that FB started small... that's why it's going to be so hard to displace. Because it didn't buy its way to the top, it doesn't have any outside corporate interests (I'm talking direct News Corp/Google type relationships here) backing it, it made it big because it resonated with a very specific demographic - college students. And those students are growing older and essentially integrated into the workforce, while it continues to add new users from the younger generation. Any competing social network, especially one created by a behemoth like Google is going to have massive growth out of the gate, because there's a large amount of people that will always be on the bleeding edge (and having a giant arrow pointing to the "you+" button sure doesn't hurt) and try the newest thing. Me included. But retaining those users and going from 50 million to 500 million - that's the challenge that Google faces. And I'm not sure it's a viable one.

And for that reason, I agree with your point about "beating" Facebook. It's stupid to try to beat Facebook. Facebook didn't win because it "beat" MySpace at it's own game, it won because it was something different and that something different was exactly what people wanted. As long as it kept evolving, there was no reason for people to move on. Google+'s existence is good for everyone because it keeps Google and Facebook (and anyone else in the social network space) on their toes.

That being said, Google+ can't win just by being ahead of the curve. Facebook has such an ingrained base and people have so much invested into their Facebook accounts (and I'm of the opinion that timeline will be a huge success and really highlight the difference between Google+ and Facebook) that while people will open Google+ accounts, they won't actually switch to Google+. Which poses some problems when 800 million people already have Facebook accounts; when all your friends have FB accounts, why the hell would you get a G+ one?

 

[ThatObviousUser]

I'm not saying Google+ doesn't have a steep hill to climb, or that it hasn't already made mistakes, because it has.

But saying it will never surpass Facebook is ludicrous. Google has shown it's serious about this, and Google is a force to be reckoned with.

 

[duderon]

The same thing was said about Android and how it would never become the dominant mobile platform. At least wait until Google+ membership starts to nosedive before saying it will fail. The service is still in its infancy and will continue to evolve.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Google+ to support pseudonyms

http://twitter.com/#!/swiftstories/status/126770022407348226

Not sure how I feel about this, or why they are doing it.

 

[duderon]

Google+ to support pseudonyms

http://twitter.com/#!/swiftstories/status/126770022407348226

Not sure how I feel about this, or why they are doing it.

This is great news. The major reason for allowing pseudonyms is to allow people in difficult situations to use the service without revealing their identity. Say, for example, a gay person in a very conservative town. The other reason is that some just prefer going by their pseudonym on the internet than their real name. Not to mention all of the celebrities already using their pseudonyms on G+.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

This is great news. The major reason for allowing pseudonyms is to allow people in difficult situations to use the service without revealing their identity. Say, for example, a gay person in a very conservative town. The other reason is that some just prefer going by their pseudonym on the internet than their real name. Not to mention all of the celebrities already using their pseudonyms on G+.

I think that's a pretty niche situation, and there's definitely arguments the other way. I think people tend to behave better in a public forum when they can't hide behind anonymity. I hope it allows you to rename people to what you call them, like gmail.

 

[Gazunta]

More people call me "Gazunta" than they do my real name, so this is great.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

More people call me "Gazunta" than they do my real name, so this is great.

No one calls me The Friendly Monster, but I do like the idea of having a Friendly Monster page too for more public stuff. Wonder if that's ok.

 

[duderon]

I think that's a pretty niche situation, and there's definitely arguments the other way. I think people tend to behave better in a public forum when they can't hide behind anonymity. I hope it allows you to rename people to what you call them, like gmail.

These folks are in the minority, yes. I would rather have their voice than them not use the service at all. I imagine Google is going to make this a little more difficult than creating some username for a forum on the internet. My guess is you're still going to have to give them your real name, but elect to have your pseudonym displayed to whoever you want it displayed to.

 

[SimleuqiR]

Boom goes the dynamite!!

http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2011/10/upcoming-changes-to-reader-new-look-new.html

In the next week, we’ll be making some highly requested changes to Google Reader. First, we’re going to introduce a brand new design (like many of Google’s other products) that we hope you love. Second, we’re going to bring Reader and Google+ closer together, so you can share the best of your feeds with just the right circles.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Please don't kill Reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader

 

[kehs]

Please don't kill Reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader please don't kill reader

Sounds more like incorporation than anything.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

googlereader.blogspot.com/2011/10/upcoming-changes-to-reader-new-look-new.html

In the next week, we’ll be making some highly requested changes to Google Reader. First, we’re going to introduce a brand new design (like many of Google’s other products) that we hope you love. Second, we’re going to bring Reader and Google+ closer together, so you can share the best of your feeds with just the right circles.

This is exactly what I want. Exactly.

 

[SimleuqiR]

googlereader.blogspot.com/2011/10/upcoming-changes-to-reader-new-look-new.html



This is exactly what I want. Exactly.

It is also exactly what I posted. :-D

 

[Enco]

Woo, new reader design

The current one is horrendous.

 

[kehs]

You're going crazy Andrex, wtf?

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Actually yes I am going crazy. o_0

Selective reading FTL.

 

[TheSeks]

or why they are doing it.

Because some people go by nicknames more than their real names?

It's a good move, but until Google+'s default profile selection is "private" and not "open to everyone when you first sign up" they're dead to me. I know that goes against what Google+ and Facebook want to do, but fuck it. I don't want millions of people looking at what I post.

 

[kehs]

Because some people go by nicknames more than their real names?

It's a good move, but until Google+'s default profile selection is "private" and not "open to everyone when you first sign up" they're dead to me. I know that goes against what Google+ and Facebook want to do, but fuck it. I don't want millions of people looking at what I post.

Don't make public posts?

 

[joelseph]

If they incorporate Reader in G+ and remove Reader I am going to fucking rage. Reader is one of the only tools Google got right fml.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Because some people go by nicknames more than their real names?

It's a good move, but until Google+'s default profile selection is "private" and not "open to everyone when you first sign up" they're dead to me. I know that goes against what Google+ and Facebook want to do, but fuck it. I don't want millions of people looking at what I post.

Who cares what the default is if you can change it to be as private as you want?

Besides the default is to use Circles. Use Circles and you're pretty much set.

 

[Mairu]

I'm not really happy about them removing shared subscriptions from Reader but at least we're finally getting the Google redesign on it

 

[Kinitari]

Because some people go by nicknames more than their real names?

It's a good move, but until Google+'s default profile selection is "private" and not "open to everyone when you first sign up" they're dead to me. I know that goes against what Google+ and Facebook want to do, but fuck it. I don't want millions of people looking at what I post.

You don't... have to to be public though. You can essentially make it as private as you want.

That would be like me never playing a game because the default y axis isn't inverted.

 

[joelseph]

That would be like me never playing a game because the default y axis isn't inverted.

Nope. It would be like you never playing Dark Souls because they don't explain shit and it is too much trouble to figure it out.

 

[SimleuqiR]

Nope. It would be like you never playing Dark Souls because they don't explain shit and it is too much trouble to figure it out.

Is Dark Souls the US release of Demon Souls?