Reality Check: Google Plus Is No Facebook Or Twitter Killer(allfacebook.com)
allfacebook.com
Reality Check: Google Plus Is No Facebook Or Twitter Killer
http://www.allfacebook.com/dont-believe-the-hype-2011-07
6 comments
Yep. The whole 'business model' of his website is based off of Facebook's success. He definitely has a vested interest here.
I also think it is simply too early to define what Google+ is or what niche it serves best. A lot of these criticisms could be said about Facebook when it was in its early stages too (no brand profiles, lack of returning users, etc).
I also think it is simply too early to define what Google+ is or what niche it serves best. A lot of these criticisms could be said about Facebook when it was in its early stages too (no brand profiles, lack of returning users, etc).
I agree they are biased toward Facebook. They also have valid points. Maybe the future of social networks is like email. Each of us will use platform of choice for communication on a common protocol.
"I follow Danny on Google Plus, and filed him away in the appropriate circle."
He's doing it wrong. You don't file people by their interests, you file people based on how interested you are in them. I have family, close friends, acquaintances, and people that i'm following who I don't know. The main problem with Facebook is the large number of people who I'm connected to (and want to be connected to), but I don't care about their status updates.
Most people end up going into acquaintances and 'following', but that is how it is in real life too.
My close family and friends group has plenty of action, because I have stuff to talk with them about.
Tagging posts or users based on what it is about is ultimately an intractable management problem for the end user.
He's doing it wrong. You don't file people by their interests, you file people based on how interested you are in them. I have family, close friends, acquaintances, and people that i'm following who I don't know. The main problem with Facebook is the large number of people who I'm connected to (and want to be connected to), but I don't care about their status updates.
Most people end up going into acquaintances and 'following', but that is how it is in real life too.
My close family and friends group has plenty of action, because I have stuff to talk with them about.
Tagging posts or users based on what it is about is ultimately an intractable management problem for the end user.
Saying that someone is 'doing it wrong' on a social network is doing it wrong. The average user isn't going to think deeply about this stuff.
It raises some interesting points, like that it feels like ghost town. For me it does if I look at circles like "Family" or "Friends" while "Early adopters" is very active. Similar is on the Facebook. On the other hand I think that circles are usable and a natural way to sort people in groups/circles. Only time will tell who will prevail and it will be interesting to watch this fight.
I mean, just compare the time spent on what Google got right, verse what they didn't. And yet the conclusion implies that it doesn't even matter, because people won't bother with three social networks at once.