A Call for Google+ to Enable Posting via its API(blog.intigi.com)
blog.intigi.com
A Call for Google+ to Enable Posting via its API
http://blog.intigi.com/a-call-for-google-to-enable-posting-via-its-api/
62 comments
No, it wouldn't. It would turn into Facebook, which right now is a stream of unreleated, unuseful junk. Why do I care if my friends on the other side of the state check into a bar? I don't. It's pointless, useless information.
It's pointless and useless to you; you can hardly claim that it's pointless and useless to everyone. And this is exactly why I'll reiterate what I've said over and over again before... the solution is to give people better filters. You can't control what other people publish and trying to do so is pointless... but giving people filters to decide what to include/exclude in their streams it totally reasonable, and it's what Facebook, G+, and all the other "social" sites need to get better at.
It's pointless and useless to you; you can hardly claim that it's pointless and useless to everyone. And this is exactly why I'll reiterate what I've said over and over again before... the solution is to give people better filters. You can't control what other people publish and trying to do so is pointless... but giving people filters to decide what to include/exclude in their streams it totally reasonable, and it's what Facebook, G+, and all the other "social" sites need to get better at.
Filters are not the panacea for this problem. I could filter by application, but that does not mean all input from an application are meaningless.
The automated stuff is what everyone wants to filter, but there are apps where that could be a mix e.g. I want to explicitly share a song from Spotify vs. having them automatically do it.
The only way this would work is to have a dedicated section for posts from APIs, but that really defeats the purpose for using the API in the first place.
The automated stuff is what everyone wants to filter, but there are apps where that could be a mix e.g. I want to explicitly share a song from Spotify vs. having them automatically do it.
The only way this would work is to have a dedicated section for posts from APIs, but that really defeats the purpose for using the API in the first place.
Yeah, let's make things more complicated yaay! Filters, and more filters - now I have to remember exactly which one does what.
Stop thinking like an engineer and think like a non-technical common user.
Stop thinking like an engineer and think like a non-technical common user.
Stop thinking like an engineer and think like a non-technical common user.
Being a non-technical common user doesn't mean you don't need better filters; it means the service needs to make it easier for you to explain to it what you do and don't want to see. You don't even have to expose the word "filter" to the non-technical people, but the filters need to be there conceptually, nonetheless.
Note that I'm not saying this is easy... I'm saying this is the challenge that G+, Facebook, Twitter, etc. need to take on and solve. As opposed to the challenge of "how do we not let people post stuff." That's easy, and it's a cop-out.
Being a non-technical common user doesn't mean you don't need better filters; it means the service needs to make it easier for you to explain to it what you do and don't want to see. You don't even have to expose the word "filter" to the non-technical people, but the filters need to be there conceptually, nonetheless.
Note that I'm not saying this is easy... I'm saying this is the challenge that G+, Facebook, Twitter, etc. need to take on and solve. As opposed to the challenge of "how do we not let people post stuff." That's easy, and it's a cop-out.
I think the real challenge for Google would be to make it easy for the user. I have no doubt they could build some awesome filtering logic in the back. But I'm not sure they could put a super easy, non-engineer style front on it. But I agree they should try. And who knows? maybe they are working on that and want to get it rock solid before they open the flood gate. Build the filters before everyone screams "we need filters"
You can try to make it easier (probably a UX challenge) but most people don't take the time to be meticulous with setting up their filters. e.g. Gmail filters, Twitter lists, etc.
In the case of Twitter, people actually might if the interface was better. People did, before the interface changed.
Now, adding a large group of people to a Twitter list via web Twitter is such a painful exercise, I often turn to an API solution (tweetbe.at in particular) to do it.
Now, adding a large group of people to a Twitter list via web Twitter is such a painful exercise, I often turn to an API solution (tweetbe.at in particular) to do it.
Because all the non-technical common users have flooded into g+ and its uncluttered stream.
Don't quite follow the logic in your argument here. Correlation != Causation failure?
[deleted]
I'm the author of the post. While I agree there is a risk of a flood of content, I have two counterpoints.
First, there are countermeasures. As a user on Google+ I'd quickly remove someone from my circles if they over-shared low quality content. Furthermore, Google+ can implement algorithms that affect the prominence of the content based on various quality factors. There's evidence that Facebook has such algorithms in place (1).
Second, the headwinds to gain share in a market with strong network effects outweighs the risk of a flood of content. Users already have a preference to use Facebook and Twitter given their network value (2). Any friction in sharing via Google+ just further encourages users to invest the bulk of their time and resources on these other platforms.
(1) http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/32124/Facebook-C...
(2) http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/28/google-plus-ghost-town/
First, there are countermeasures. As a user on Google+ I'd quickly remove someone from my circles if they over-shared low quality content. Furthermore, Google+ can implement algorithms that affect the prominence of the content based on various quality factors. There's evidence that Facebook has such algorithms in place (1).
Second, the headwinds to gain share in a market with strong network effects outweighs the risk of a flood of content. Users already have a preference to use Facebook and Twitter given their network value (2). Any friction in sharing via Google+ just further encourages users to invest the bulk of their time and resources on these other platforms.
(1) http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/32124/Facebook-C...
(2) http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/28/google-plus-ghost-town/
Turning a "Ghost Town" into a town of robots is not any better.
I know of small communities that are actually flourishing inside Google+.
Google thinks that they rather have a small amount of original content rather that an abundance of auto-posts from other social networks.
I know of small communities that are actually flourishing inside Google+.
Google thinks that they rather have a small amount of original content rather that an abundance of auto-posts from other social networks.
Second, the headwinds to gain share in a market with strong network effects outweighs the risk of a flood of content.
The evidence indicates otherwise. Both Google Buzz & FriendFeed failed in part because of lack of engaged users. That in turn was caused by the floods of autoposted crap.
There is no network effect benefit from content being posted from non-engaged users. Rather, it is the opposite: in the case of both Buzz & FriendFeed people would use it as an interface for reading Twitter (say) and the would move over to Twitter to converse. The crossposted content acted as a way to encourage people to leave the platform.
Engagement is king on social networks. Anything that reduces engagement should be discouraged.
The evidence indicates otherwise. Both Google Buzz & FriendFeed failed in part because of lack of engaged users. That in turn was caused by the floods of autoposted crap.
There is no network effect benefit from content being posted from non-engaged users. Rather, it is the opposite: in the case of both Buzz & FriendFeed people would use it as an interface for reading Twitter (say) and the would move over to Twitter to converse. The crossposted content acted as a way to encourage people to leave the platform.
Engagement is king on social networks. Anything that reduces engagement should be discouraged.
[deleted]
The problem with removing people from circles, in the general case, not just super brain genius hacking rock stars, people get emotional and angry. You absolutely don't want that happening on a social platform competing with facebook.
Yea, it seems logical : X is being annoying on G+, I'll take him off it, but then X starts yelling at you IRL and drama follows and you start using G+ less which Google doesn't like.
Yea, it seems logical : X is being annoying on G+, I'll take him off it, but then X starts yelling at you IRL and drama follows and you start using G+ less which Google doesn't like.
Furthermore, Google+ can implement algorithms that affect the prominence of the content based on various quality factors. There's evidence that Facebook has such algorithms in place (1)
...which don't work in most cases that I've seen.
Second, the headwinds to gain share in a market with strong network effects outweighs the risk of a flood of content.
You're assuming that gaining share is more important than creating quality content. This is not an assumption shared by Vic Gundrota, nor I.
Honestly, and I don't mean to be rude, you sound a bit too much like some marketing wonk that someone who actually cares about the product. As many users at whatever the cost to the product quality is just not a winning long-term strategy, and Google always plays long-term.
...which don't work in most cases that I've seen.
Second, the headwinds to gain share in a market with strong network effects outweighs the risk of a flood of content.
You're assuming that gaining share is more important than creating quality content. This is not an assumption shared by Vic Gundrota, nor I.
Honestly, and I don't mean to be rude, you sound a bit too much like some marketing wonk that someone who actually cares about the product. As many users at whatever the cost to the product quality is just not a winning long-term strategy, and Google always plays long-term.
[deleted]
I've heard from people at Google that the reason they don't want to open up posting over the API is because they don't want people's streams filled with robot cross-posts from Twitter, Facebook and zillions of other services. I happen to agree with this point of view.
Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. I have a hard time seeing how one can justify avoiding providing something that users of a service are desperately eager for, and which would undoubtedly help grow the ecosystem around said service, all because of one potential negative consequence. And especially one that, at the end of the day, people can simulate anyway by just posting the same content (by hand) to G+, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Here's an example of why they don't want to turn it on (this is one of the examples they use internally).
https://plus.google.com/107158560758466172135/posts
Charlie Kindel uses a backdoor to paste his tweets to G+ and adds very little to the community. There is no interaction on his posts - it's just added noise.
https://plus.google.com/107158560758466172135/posts
Charlie Kindel uses a backdoor to paste his tweets to G+ and adds very little to the community. There is no interaction on his posts - it's just added noise.
I came across the service that cross-posts to G+ by accident. The funny thing is I can't even remember its name right now!
I couldn't turn it off if I wanted to (and I don't; I have no desire to "engage" on G+, but the narcissist in me likes knowing as many people are seeing my posts as possible).
I turned it on as an experiment to see how the people who have "circled me" on G+ would react.
The reaction has been mixed. On one hand VicG used it as an example of what not to do. A few others have made snide comments.
On the other hand, I've picked up hundreds of new circlers and gotten some interesting (to me) comments on some of my posts/tweets.
I couldn't turn it off if I wanted to (and I don't; I have no desire to "engage" on G+, but the narcissist in me likes knowing as many people are seeing my posts as possible).
I turned it on as an experiment to see how the people who have "circled me" on G+ would react.
The reaction has been mixed. On one hand VicG used it as an example of what not to do. A few others have made snide comments.
On the other hand, I've picked up hundreds of new circlers and gotten some interesting (to me) comments on some of my posts/tweets.
I have no desire to "engage" on G+, but the narcissist in me likes knowing as many people are seeing my posts as possible
And there is a best argument against adding a write API to Google+
And there is a best argument against adding a write API to Google+
There is no interaction on his posts - it's just added noise.
Fine, then the people who find it to be noise can un-circle him. For the class of people who are largely interested in the same topics as Charlie, it isn't even noise in the first place. Honestly, I don't see this as much of an argument against allowing the Write API.
Fine, then the people who find it to be noise can un-circle him. For the class of people who are largely interested in the same topics as Charlie, it isn't even noise in the first place. Honestly, I don't see this as much of an argument against allowing the Write API.
Really? Sure, I don't find his content appealing, but I don't think that has anything to do with the manner in which he posted it. Replace all those tech articles and RT's with links to bacon (or zombie) related content and Mr. Kindel has a shot at being voted president, no?
The content might be slightly unappealing recycling of tech news, but the manner in which it's posted is what really hurts there. It'd look crappy anywhere, but especially so on Google+ where posts are long form and links are rich.
Like he apparently had some original ideas about the naming of Windows RT, represented in 4 posts each ~100 characters long (one of which seemed to be an "end of split post" marker). It looked the worst of both worlds. And argument so abbreviated it had been reduced to gibberish, but looking very verbose due to having been artificially split.
Like he apparently had some original ideas about the naming of Windows RT, represented in 4 posts each ~100 characters long (one of which seemed to be an "end of split post" marker). It looked the worst of both worlds. And argument so abbreviated it had been reduced to gibberish, but looking very verbose due to having been artificially split.
Although... those 4 posts about Windows naming could actually be an argument FOR a write API. If he wasn't using a hacked up backdoor, then maybe he'd have an app that could have handled that in one post. But I do see both sides of this. It just sucks when the few idiots ruin it for everyone else. It'd be nice to post via API and it would be nice if people didn't abuse it. ;)
The point is that broadcasting the same message verbatim across every medium and community. removes one's ability to tailor the message for the standards of that community.
Not every message needs to be tailored. And not every message need be the same across every medium. Having a write API doesn't force anyone to do either of those things. It would not give or remove anyone's ability to tailor as needed or broadcast verbatim as desired. Having a write API would allow 3rd party apps to add G+ to your options but doesn't force you to act any way you would not already act without the write API. My point was that having a write API doesn't have to be bad... but some abusers will ruin it for the rest.
I have a hard time seeing how one can justify avoiding providing something that users of a service are desperately eager for, ...
How do people know what g+ users are "desperately eager for"?
Have there been studies? Polls?
How do people know what g+ users are "desperately eager for"?
Have there been studies? Polls?
I'll bet Google's done the studies and polls. And I'll bet they are seriously considering the response:
"We don't want API-driven auto-junk filling our streams!"
"We don't want API-driven auto-junk filling our streams!"
Nobody does, but - again - we're talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Not everything posted via API is "junk."
Nobody does, but - again - we're talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Not everything posted via API is "junk."
Not everything posted via API is "junk."
True, but enough of it is to make it a problem. What could Google do to trap the noise but allow the signal? Rate limiting? Pattern matching against Twitter posts?
True, but enough of it is to make it a problem. What could Google do to trap the noise but allow the signal? Rate limiting? Pattern matching against Twitter posts?
OK, I don't mean to say that every G+ user wants this, mind you. But that a substantial number do is pretty obvious by the posts to the ticket about this, and observing how people interact with other, similar social networks. Does anybody really think that people wouldn't like to be able to use TweetDeck (or whatever) with G+? Or programatically interface with G+ from their blog, or whatever? I may ultimately be proven wrong, but I'd be shocked it a proper study did not show strong demand for a write API.
Key words: "by hand" -- posting spam by hand doesn't scale. That's what it's preventing.
But what is worse: A stream full of reposts, or an empty stream? It's each user's resonsibility to choose what to post (or repost) or not... Google could just give lower priority in the "filter" to reposted content.
Google Buzz had a lot of import sources available at launch. There was so much noise from automated cross posting that I didn't even know that several of my friends were actively using the service until months later.
In contrast, Google+ is almost completely signal for me right now.
In contrast, Google+ is almost completely signal for me right now.
Yes, I was waiting for someone to bring up Buzz. I was also a first-day user of Buzz, and guess what? They allowed third-party import, and very quickly out-of-context Twitter updates overwhelmed my stream. Then there was a backlash, and the smarter people turned them off rather quickly. But the vast majority of people kept on using it. I think Google knows exactly what they are doing here.
Not all the G+ streams are empty, so that dilemma only really has one horn. Bot-posting would raise the noise floor so as to swamp the current (small) signal. Better to attempt growing the signal itself before adding in a bunch of noise that the users will have to sort through.
Now, if one could separate off each user from their bots... that would be neat. Maybe default to only circling a user, but show that they have some bots which one can also subscribe to, if one wants.
Now, if one could separate off each user from their bots... that would be neat. Maybe default to only circling a user, but show that they have some bots which one can also subscribe to, if one wants.
They have already allowed certain product vendors access to the write API - more details here - http://adwords.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/third-party-tools-to-h...
This is exactly what happened to Google Buzz.
I think Google+ are doing the right thing by not allowing write access yet. Facebook has taught us that. The main reason I've seen people wanting write access is so the can "automatically post to G+ when they post to twitter or facebook" - um, no thanks.
However, I would like to see them improve their API by supporting some realtime notifications like PubSubHubBub (for stream items and comments).
For purely selfish reasons, I'd like to see them consider allowing write access to comments.
If you're interested in adding your vote to allowing write access, join the others here http://code.google.com/p/google-plus-platform/issues/detail?...
However, I would like to see them improve their API by supporting some realtime notifications like PubSubHubBub (for stream items and comments).
For purely selfish reasons, I'd like to see them consider allowing write access to comments.
If you're interested in adding your vote to allowing write access, join the others here http://code.google.com/p/google-plus-platform/issues/detail?...
Google wants to build content in Google+ organically.
It's the longer & more difficult way and I applaud them for it.
If they open up a WRITE API right away, it's going to be exactly like Google Buzz.
It's the longer & more difficult way and I applaud them for it.
If they open up a WRITE API right away, it's going to be exactly like Google Buzz.
I would certainly be using G+ more were the API for posting available.
I had an idea very early on in G+'s life that it'd work great as a sort of bookmarking tool (nb: for myself, not necessarily others). I wanted to create an extension that I could use to "post" articles to circles I created (e.g. tech, or food or whatever) when I came across an interesting article.
I've tried other bookmarking services in the past, but never had the discipline to keep going (or I forgot). I figured because I use gmail frequently, and am always logged in, it would work well as a place I could aggregate things I wanted to read, but didn't have time to read at the time. It would also have the added benefit of being a list, or collection of things I found interesting/relevant that I could then share with other people. Could even have communal bookmarking with my closest friends.
Alas, I haven't opened G+ in months.
I had an idea very early on in G+'s life that it'd work great as a sort of bookmarking tool (nb: for myself, not necessarily others). I wanted to create an extension that I could use to "post" articles to circles I created (e.g. tech, or food or whatever) when I came across an interesting article.
I've tried other bookmarking services in the past, but never had the discipline to keep going (or I forgot). I figured because I use gmail frequently, and am always logged in, it would work well as a place I could aggregate things I wanted to read, but didn't have time to read at the time. It would also have the added benefit of being a list, or collection of things I found interesting/relevant that I could then share with other people. Could even have communal bookmarking with my closest friends.
Alas, I haven't opened G+ in months.
You can do this with +1 -> Share.
For sites that don't implement a +1 button, there are browser extensions (at least for Chrome) that will do it for you.
For sites that don't implement a +1 button, there are browser extensions (at least for Chrome) that will do it for you.
They tried this before. Doesn't anyone remember Google Buzz (and before that FriendFeed)?
You end up with streams of auto-posted Twitter junk.
Maybe at some point in the future they will develop algorithms that filter out this stuff to the point where it is useful. At the moment I prefer it the way it is.
You end up with streams of auto-posted Twitter junk.
Maybe at some point in the future they will develop algorithms that filter out this stuff to the point where it is useful. At the moment I prefer it the way it is.
I use Tweetdeck (on my phone) and Rockmelt (on desktop) to post to Facebook and Twitter. I don't always post to both at the same time but when I want to... it is easy. I just need to select where it goes before I send it. I would very much LOVE to include G+ in this scenario but I cannot. In the beginning I was really trying to give G+ the shot it deserved. I was making the extra effort to make common posts in my G+ app, too. I even went a couple days where I only posted stuff to G+. But it was too early. Now I check in on my G+ stream maybe once a week to catch up with stuff from a few friends that have made the full jump and I rarely post anything. I would really like an app that can post via an API. I would certainly use G+ more.
On a side note, I kind of like what G+ was thinking with the Circles concept as a way of filtering but I don't really like it in practice... or maybe it was just how my friends were using it. Most of the people I know on G+ created Circles and used them like you might use tags in a blog post. A post from a Mac person about a cool photo app or feature they found in the latest iOS might be visible only to people in their "Mac-heads", "Photog" and "iOS" circles. I'm not a Photog or a Mac/iOS person but still might be interested in content of that nature. I can understand having Circles like "Coworkers" and "Bible Study Group" where there might be discussions that should be kept private. But using Circles like tagging seems excessively exclusionary when it is not done for privacy reason. While I appreciate the sentiment of people not wanting to bore me with stuff I may not be interested in, I think it made the "share ALL the things" pendulum swing too far the other way. (just my opinion)
On a side note, I kind of like what G+ was thinking with the Circles concept as a way of filtering but I don't really like it in practice... or maybe it was just how my friends were using it. Most of the people I know on G+ created Circles and used them like you might use tags in a blog post. A post from a Mac person about a cool photo app or feature they found in the latest iOS might be visible only to people in their "Mac-heads", "Photog" and "iOS" circles. I'm not a Photog or a Mac/iOS person but still might be interested in content of that nature. I can understand having Circles like "Coworkers" and "Bible Study Group" where there might be discussions that should be kept private. But using Circles like tagging seems excessively exclusionary when it is not done for privacy reason. While I appreciate the sentiment of people not wanting to bore me with stuff I may not be interested in, I think it made the "share ALL the things" pendulum swing too far the other way. (just my opinion)
I think that this is the biggest challenge that G+ needs to solve, at least for the way that I use the service.
I want to share things publicly without spamming my friends with things they would not be interested in. What I want to be able to do is share something publicly that my Hackers circle or my Rock Climbing circle would appreciate without spamming the other.
Similarly, there are plenty of people that I want to follow because of their insight in one area, but I don't want to see their lolcats.
Similarly, there are plenty of people that I want to follow because of their insight in one area, but I don't want to see their lolcats.
I think the difference is like this:
Circles: I don't think you want to see my lolcats so I'll just deny you access to see them.
Filters: I don't want to see your lolcats so I'll just hide them from my stream.
As a consumer of my stream, I would like to have as much control over it as I can. Circles gives me almost no control over what I see. Since we don't know what Circles we've been put in and we don't see content for Circles we're not in, we really have no idea what we've missed.
Circles: I don't think you want to see my lolcats so I'll just deny you access to see them.
Filters: I don't want to see your lolcats so I'll just hide them from my stream.
As a consumer of my stream, I would like to have as much control over it as I can. Circles gives me almost no control over what I see. Since we don't know what Circles we've been put in and we don't see content for Circles we're not in, we really have no idea what we've missed.
+1. The fear that APIs would increase noise can easily mitigated by providing filter for source application (just like FB allows to block posting from apps). Regardless of the noise issue, the fact is that most people do not their presence exclusively on G+ and no one likes to copy-paste their posts across multiple social networks. G+ is losing out on lots of valuable data by worrying about noise that otherwise can easily filtered out algorithmically.
Social Automation? Is it just me or do the two just not go together? I like the fact that when I look at my G+ account, I only see what others want to share, took the time to share.
It's a nice break from FB and Twitter...if I was running g+ I wouldn't enable write access at all, make a niche on the fact that everything is organic.
Automation comes with marketers and spammers, and I want them off my feeds for good to be honest.
It's a nice break from FB and Twitter...if I was running g+ I wouldn't enable write access at all, make a niche on the fact that everything is organic.
Automation comes with marketers and spammers, and I want them off my feeds for good to be honest.
+1. I am frustrated when I see discussions and demands made in the media that are fomented by SEO and marketers. They are strip miners of communities, who happily exploit loopholes for profit until no trust remains in the system.
All social platforms need time to find their own voice/posting behavior. Think of how Instagram evolved it's own etiquette instead of being yet another place to dump your photos.
I'm with Google here. Allowing people to use the API and cross-post might get them short term wins but will cause long term harm; they will be commoditizing themselves and worse, not giving themselves the chance to build an organic community.
I'm with Google here. Allowing people to use the API and cross-post might get them short term wins but will cause long term harm; they will be commoditizing themselves and worse, not giving themselves the chance to build an organic community.
How exactly would those who really want a post API to G+ use it?
The uses that come to mind are the convenience of posting from a multi-network client (e.g. TweetDeck), cross-posting from other networks and for those "RSS/new blog post to network" type scripts. In my opinion, the latter two are the robotic posts that can bog down G+ and the third isn't too far from that.
The uses that come to mind are the convenience of posting from a multi-network client (e.g. TweetDeck), cross-posting from other networks and for those "RSS/new blog post to network" type scripts. In my opinion, the latter two are the robotic posts that can bog down G+ and the third isn't too far from that.
I would disagree with this article. Most posts through third-party applications will have a motivation to reach the largest possible audience. This will lead to an excessive amount of public posts. Not only will this defeat the purpose of "circles", it will also flood G+ search with noise. This will destroy much of the usefulness of the network.
I would settle for at least a comments plugin! That's really the only big problem with Plusify (https://github.com/lylepratt/Plusify), in order to comment on a post, you have to go to Google+.
There does appear to be an unofficial way to do this, though - naturally - it may not last: https://github.com/mohamedmansour/google-plus-extension-jsap...
Google+ will enable posting via its API. You can bet your 2 cents on it.
"By updating its API to support posting, users of clients and plugins would start to actively publish to Google+. This would quickly increase the amount and quality of content available on this platform and in turn attract users and engagement."
No, it wouldn't. It would turn into Facebook, which right now is a stream of unreleated, unuseful junk. Why do I care if my friends on the other side of the state check into a bar? I don't. It's pointless, useless information.
What Facebook has built is a data dumping ground, songs listened to, bars checked into, and the always obnoxious comment from someone you know to someone you don't.
What G+ has tried to do, at least with games, is contextualize the notifications. If I'm playing a game, then I see the game notifications. They never appear in the main stream. I like this. I really hate the Spotify track notifications in Facebook, they're awful. I'm perfectly fine with seeing them in Spotify, because I've already made a decision to listen to music.
Facebook opened up the flood gates, and everyone is drowning. Google is taking the opposite approach, but everyone is thirsty. It seems a lot easier for Google to move towards more useful notifications than for Facebook to back away from them.