Google+

[Casey]

By the way, for those of you who don't get messaging....this is NOT facebook.

Basically it's like this - you see the area where you enter your status updates and choose your circles etc? That's the same thing you use if you want to send someone a private message. "Huh?" I hear you say. Well, you simply start the message with +Person's Name (so they will get a notification), and then instead of sending that message to your Circles, you simply add that one person.

This is another example of how Google has simplified things compared to the randomness of Facebook.

Facebook messaging barely even makes coherent sense anymore. You can write on someone's wall and it's public, or you can send them a private message, or you can Facebook chat them, but if they're online and you send them a private message, it becomes a chat message. Too random.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

i think the notifcations on Google+ work quite nicely too. in the desktop version, i can navigate through the new notifactions and see new activity all from the notifaction bar. on the mobile app, i can see a pane of notifcations and can work my way through them - the app tells me that i have 3, 2 and then 1 and eventually 0 new notifications. notifications on facebook load up and it just tells me the total number of new notifications. the new ones are shaded in a slightly different colour and i may forget to read them because they all tend to become the same colour once it is brough up on the screen - if anyone else has realised this...

 

[Pittsey]

The most important part of social networking, is that my friends are on it. They aren't on google+ yet, unfortunately.

 

[S O F I]

^The switch is super easy. I think in a month or so, 80% of my Facebook friends will be on Google+. I'm not excited for that, but at least Circles will let me deal with it properly. The European family members and friends will be behind, as they were with Facebook, but that's fine.

 

[Prize Gotti]

Im still waiting for a fucking invite. How lame.

 

[Casey]

Larry Page just confirmed it - 10 million users already. Nice.

For comparison - it took Facebook 10 months to get to ONE million users, and 12 months after that, they were still only at 5 million. A year after that, they were at 12 million. So within a week from now, Google+ will have surpassed what it took Facebook 3 years to achieve. Sure, there's more people using the internet now, but Facebook's first three years weren't THAT long ago (2004-2007).

 

[S O F I]

^That comparison sucks on so many levels. Why:

1. In the beginning (January 2004) membership was restricted only to Harvard students
2. Then, it was opened to only Ivy League schools and schools in the Boston area
3. After that, all higher education institutions
4. High schools
5. Certain companies
6. Everyone (September 2006)

It took almost three years to just open invites to common folk.

 

[Jokerman]

^Right. Plus thanks to FB's success, it's possible for G+ to get 10 million in a week. Thanks to FB everyone knows what G+ is more or less and know if they want it.

 

[Casey]

^That comparison sucks on so many levels. Why:

1. In the beginning (January 2004) membership was restricted only to Harvard students
2. Then, it was opened to only Ivy League schools and schools in the Boston area
3. After that, all higher education institutions
4. High schools
5. Certain companies
6. Everyone (September 2006)

It took almost three years to just open invites to common folk.

Membership is restricted on G+ now. If you're not tech-inclined or know someone that is, you won't be on it. Even some people who are tech-inclined aren't on it yet. So it's not like G+ is open to regular folk either.

How about this - it took Twitter 2 years to reach 1 million users.

 

[S O F I]

Facebook restrictions were much more restricting. Also, it didn't have its own brand. It was nothing but an idea. Same with Twitter. Google is one of the world's most well-known brands. Google leveraged its own brand, services (Gmail), Facebook, and Twitter, to get people to sign up. They didn't use Facebook and Twitter themselves, but that's how many people found out and got their invites. Also, Facebook and Twitter didn't have the benefit of mass media reporting on them. I mean, there's a plethora of differences.

The growth of the Google+ Project has been spectacular. But the comparison between the initial growth of Google+ and the initial growth of Facebook and Twitter should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Pittsey]

I find Twitter very useful. But I have never tweeted, not once.

 

[Casey]

Facebook restrictions were much more restricting. Also, it didn't have its own brand. It was nothing but an idea. Same with Twitter. Google is one of the world's most well-known brands. Google leveraged its own brand, services (Gmail), Facebook, and Twitter, to get people to sign up. They didn't use Facebook and Twitter themselves, but that's how many people found out and got their invites. Also, Facebook and Twitter didn't have the benefit of mass media reporting on them. I mean, there's a plethora of differences.

The growth of the Google+ Project has been spectacular. But the comparison between the initial growth of Google+ and the initial growth of Facebook and Twitter should be taken with a grain of salt.

By those same standards, there should have been a plethora of people using Buzz when they launched it a year ago. But, growth was sluggish even initially and tapered off incredibly quickly. It got nowhere near the activity that G+ already has, even at it's peak.

The vast majority of the hype and rapidly increasing userbase of G+ is simply because it's a great service.

 

[S O F I]

^Buzz sucked donkey balls. I was speaking in the realm of good services, not shitty ones lol.

Agreed with the last sentence.

 

[Elmira]

Too many social networks being used at one time.

Can somebody help me to see the light as to why this is necessary? Why do I have to stay connected with virtually the same group of people over three or more different networks? I don't get it but I still think G+ is pretty cool.

 

[Flipmo]

I think if you're in the arts domain or whatever it comes in handy to be on them all, you know - to get your face out there and stir interest. But for the common jerk-off (Sebastian), its not as important. I have a FB, Twitter and G+ ... and if I could bring everyone onto G+, I'd just hold onto that and rid of the 2 others.

While I'm not as active on Twitter, I do enjoy reading about certain subjects and the trending topics. FB... well, I used to think it rocked when I joined up in 06, then I got rid of it for a long time, and just recently got back onto it... it's become very cluttered now I feel. But, it's where most people I have significant relationships with are at.

I'll eventually close down some account though.

 

[S O F I]

When someone shares something in limited form, meaning not publicly nor with extended circles, the post is labeled limited. I can click on limited and see who you shared that with (up to 21 people).

DOES THAT NOT ALMOST RUIN THE POINT OF CIRCLES?

I'd like to share something with you but I don't want you to know who else is seeing that information. That's like one of my main privacy things. Why? Because I don't want some douchebag person I shared with looking at the number of people I shared with and going to tell a douchebag who I didn't share with, what I shared. Then the douchebag will be like "yo, why didn't you share that shit with me?"

Get it? Got it? Good. Sent feedback to GOOG.

 

[Casey]

When someone posts something in the stream, you can tell if it was shared publicly, to extended circles, or to a limited group. When you comment on or +1 something in the stream, everyone who can see the original content will be able to see your contribution.
If a post was shared with a limited group of people, you can click Limited at the top of the post to see the profile pics of up to 21 other people who can also see that content, as well as the total number of people on the post. If you hover over a photo, you'll see that person's name and can click over to their profile, or add them to a circle.
If you initiated a post in the stream, clicking Limited at the top of that post will show you the profile pictures of everyone you shared with. Only the person who started the post can see this information. If you chose to share with your extended circles in addition to other people, clicking Limited will only show that you shared with your extended circles--specific people won't be identified.

 

[S O F I]

Yeah, you find out by clicking "Learn More".

I know that. I think that's a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

But the information is untrue. I can see who people designated to share with, it doesn't matter if I started the post.

Try it out. Make a post, make it limited, and I"ll tell who is in your circle jerk.

 

[Prize Gotti]

I HATE ALL OF YOU GOOGLE+ BITCHES >.<

 

[dilla]

At first I was apprehensive and unwilling to adopt it, but after some use it has proven to be somewhat useful.