9 ms·
Google Posts
- rrggrr 11y agoThis infuriates me as a Twitter stockholder and user. Has everyone at Twitter fallen asleep? How could they not have the jump on Google on this.
- axg 11y agoI think part of it is due to the fact that Google has greater access to a broader audience. Not everyone will search Twitter for "Donald Trump" but they will certainly search Google - so Google is providing a way for the candidates to take advantage of what is already happening probably millions of times every day.
- PhrosTT 11y agoI also hope it will expand the conversation to longer formats... Twitter and Instagram are only worsening the "Soundbite Politics".
- ianstormtaylor 11y agoAgreed. I'd argue further that Twitter has done close to nothing to make their search a useful feature in the first place, which is why people aren't searching Twitter with "Donald Trump". If I was Twitter, this would be very worrying. All they've managed to do so far is "firehose search", which is only useful for realtime events unfolding. They probably should have been thinking about "topic search" and "person search" for a while now...
- rjurney 11y agoYeah, the inability to search your Twitter feed is simply infuriating. This is an embarrassingly parallel problem, so the issue isn't scale slowing the development of Search down. Twitter just doesn't give a shit.
- calinet6 11y ago*twitter does not have the systems in place to be able to give a shit.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- macrael 11y agoIsn't this more just a response to Twitter? People already find what the politicians are saying on their twitter feeds...
- ebbv 11y agoWhat exactly do you wish Twitter had done? Allow longer posts? That's not going to have the big positive impact some people think it will. Hosting longer posts on Twitter isn't going to bring more users to Twitter or keep more people more engaged with it. This is a big deal because Google is leveraging their dominant position in search to coerce people into using it as a social platform.
- trollingineer 11y agoNext time invest in a company that knows what it's doing.
- jeo1234 11y agoThis is a bit of a snide remark on my part, but maybe the fact that that Dorsey is trying to run two separate companies at the same time may explain some of Twitters aimlessness.
- kmfrk 11y agoYou will use the gifs and like them.
- obelix150 11y agoI can imagine the development of the use case for this story: "As a presidential candidate I want a platform that every one of my constituents can use to follow my ramblings..."
- jryan49 11y agoToo bad no candidate is worth listening to. :P
- chipperyman573 11y agoLike it or not, one of them is going to lead one of the world's most powerful nation. Educating yourself on their policies is worth it imo.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- trollingineer 11y agoI'd try to explain to you how dumb that statement is, but you're too dumb to get it? :P
- Touche 11y agoCan I get the opposite of this; where the latest political circus news is excluded from Google?
- johansch 11y agoYou could avoid searching for those topics. Just a thought...
- lukegb 11y agoSome examples of these seem to be: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hillary+issues https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hillary+issues https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bernie+issues https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bernie+issues I'm referring to the postings with the photo and the checkmark and the "On Google" text, not the ones pulled from news sources, like the ones for "trump issues"
- dublinben 11y agoI'm thrilled to report that uBlock Origin completely strips out this spam on the search results page. I was worried that it might take some time to filter out this noise from the search results page, but apparently not!
- markdown 11y agoIf you search for widgets, why is relevant info from the foremost expert on widgets spam?
- lukegb 11y agoSomeone else was reporting that it's not showing up - I use unlock Origin on desktop and it was appearing for me. Screen cap from mobile: http://i.imgur.com/X1M5YZn.jpg http://i.imgur.com/X1M5YZn.jpg
- Kiro 11y agoSo uBlock is actually blocking a site's own content? I've heard a lot about false positives but this takes the price.
- ppod 11y agoIt could be that this is massive, and has little or nothing to do with the US presidential election. They're going to try to force their way into social by grafting social media posts onto the one thing basically everyone uses - the search page.
- dgacmu 11y agoOr it could be a desire to provide maximally relevant search results. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Dr. Freud. Not-a-disclaimer: I'm spending the year at Google (as a visiting scientist; I don't own stock and have no financial interest in its success). You might be surprised by how strong the desire is to do the right thing by users and make it easy for them to find what they're looking for. There's not always an ulterior motive -- happy searchers made Google what it is today.
- lightyrs 11y agoHappy searchers _and_ AdWords.
- franze 11y ago"Gut gemeint ist das Gegenteil von gut!" German saying! Even with the right motive, you can make - in Googles case: systematic - wrong decisions.
- camillomiller 11y ago"Hell is paved with good intentions" 1600 Mystic John Ray, later repurposed by Karl Marx.
- TillE 11y agoThe literal translation is much stronger: "good-intentioned is the opposite of good".
- dhaivatpandya 11y agoThis doesn't seem like such a bad idea. I don't care about most of the stuff on Twitter. But, if I'm searching for something and a Tweet-like "post" exists that is relevant to what I'm searching for, I might like that.
- igravious 11y agoArs Technica analysis: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/03/google-posts-embeds-a-one-way-social-network-directly-into-search-results/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/03/google-posts-embeds-a... (Found via a Google search sadly enough.)
- ebbv 11y agoWow, when Google makes this available to businesses they're going to be able to charge whatever they want and every business is going to have to use it. This is not good.
- garrettgrimsley 11y agoIs that so different than the advertising space that they currently sell? Everyone that has posted screenshots of the new feature is using ad-blocking, so maybe we just don't even think about the ads any more? [0] http://i.imgur.com/mkTaMJo.png http://i.imgur.com/mkTaMJo.png
- lowglow 11y agoIs this like twitter meets google ads in my search? I've moved to Duck Duck Go already, It's about 90% effective, but worth it.
- Animats 11y agoDoes anybody go directly to "google.com" any more? Most search is through the browser's search box.
- dredmorbius 11y agoMine is through my browser's search box ... which has defaulted to DDG for years.
- asdfologist 11y agoMaybe I'm being nitpicky here, but perhaps blue is not the best choice for this page, if they want to stay neutral (or perhaps they dont?).
- rjurney 11y agoJust like Google. Give people no reason to use something, just put it out there, and hey "We're Google!" and they will come. Except no, they don't.
- asdfologist 11y agoYeah seriously, they keep putting out these products that no one ever wants to use. Like that Google Maps thing or that Chrome browser or whatever. Geez.
- rjurney 11y agoObviously I'm talking about social networks ;)
- scrollaway 11y agoThat's neither obvious from your post, nor is it even valid in this context.
- w1ntermute 11y agoIt's worked multiple times for them in the past, most notably with search.
- Lanari 11y agoI just don't like when they make it a part of Google, Orkut was better than Google Plus IMO for that reason.
- md224 11y agoCould be an interesting way for candidates to get in front of third-party spin. When you Google "Bernie Sanders" you could be greeted with rich content from the Sanders campaign explaining his positions, rather than links to hit pieces and other info-detritus. Of course, either way you're getting somebody's propaganda.
- plcancel 11y agoMy concern is then the composition of the rich content when Google offers itself as the platform. "Welcome, to our podium, Canditate A. We've already constructed the stage and backdrop, too, with these accompanying articles, images, and layout." It sounds, initially, like Google's role is very passive, but I think control over what surrounds the podium has the potential to be very active. "Hey, Candidate B has better lighting!" Google as active medium becomes the active message? Thoughts?
- wcdolphin 11y agoIs this really an intentional product launch? Being late on a Friday evening seems quite strange.
- Lambent_Cactus 11y agoThis is the Google version of Twitter's little 'verified' checkmarks, just for whole web pages instead of tweets. The presidential election is actually a great place to roll out that kind of service given him much domain squatting goes on (e.g. http://www.tedcruz.com http://www.tedcruz.com), but it's clearly of general applicability. If it takes off, it makes Google the place to go to for establishing a page as the 'official' version.
- Dowwie 11y agothis is like having a real time stream of every psychological profile in the DSM Thanks, Google, but I need more space, not less, from this madness
- chippy 11y agoI believe it's a voluntary service, not mandatory.... currently.
- drubenstein 11y agoThis seems like a bad idea in that it allows the powerful to completely control the messages that are affiliated with them. Suppose celebrity x does wrong to a regular citizen, and they have Google posts at their disposal while Jane Smith does not. On the other hand, this seems like something Rick Santorum might have been grateful for.
- chippy 11y agoI can imagine the popular, rich and powerful to love it. Imagine avoiding all the abuse, threats, snide remarks, witty rebuttals, imaginative memes and uncomfortable truths that Twitter gives them as a platform. People want something more sanitized as a platform. It's quite an interesting development.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- BinaryIdiot 11y agoThis seems like a terrible idea. If given access you can now completely control the primary message regarding search terms of yourself. Kinda defeats the purpose of using search as discovery, no?
- grimmdude 11y agoTwitter?
- hyperion2010 11y agoWow. This is terrifying.
- hobarrera 11y agoSo... Twitter?
- chippy 11y agowithout the opposing views, trolls, abuse, other points of view, memes, snide remarks, outrage, support and morsels of truth and without a Safety Council, perhaps, yes like Twitter.
- fwn 11y agoAnd with the clever twist that behind the "Tweet", there is an actual article. With actual information. So yes, like Twitter. ..if you only use it to share Medium posts.
- ptrincr 11y agoGoogle already does something a little like this with Google plus pages. Let's say someone google's for my website name, and I have a Google plus page associated with it. If I have recently posted new content on my Google plus page, this post is displayed in the top right hand side of the Google search results. I wonder if these new posts will appear in the same place or actually embedded in the main results.
- elcapitan 11y ago"I am Hillary Clinton, and I approve this search result."
- msoad 11y agoIs Google building a version of Facebook news feed in Google Now?! For many people Facebook is for getting updates from their news source and use less social material
- benjaminjosephw 11y agoIt is scary how much power and influence Google now have in setting the agenda for public discourse. When this opens up to other "prominent figures and organizations", it will be at Google's discretion who is worthy of the public's attention and which issues and areas will get this treatment. This seems a step beyond simply organising the world’s information. Even if it's with the best intentions, the fact is that they will have a significantly influence on the discourse itself.
- gtf21 11y agoThe potential for Google to therefore decide who gets to speak, and therefore who doesn't, is terrifying.
- leppr 11y agoTerrifying? I assume you're living in a constant state of fear then, because television networks already have and use that power. On the contrary I'd say that in this field the more players there are, the better.
- k-mcgrady 11y agoThere are thousands of television channels. As far as most people are concerned, when it comes to search, there is only Google.
- adventured 11y agoThere are not thousands of television channels in the US that will broadcast political content such that presidential candidates can push their message across them. The average American household has access to just 150-200 TV channels, total. Most of those would never carry anything related to the election. The vast majority of those are specific content carriers: movies, music, on-demand, sports. You're down to having a few dozens channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNBC, MSNBC, local affiliates etc) that a candidate can push through. There are 2,200x tv stations in the US. Most of those are small, local stations with zero national or regional reach. There are thousands of online sites and platforms that at least have as large of an audience as those stations. All of those sites can be reached by almost anyone in the US, which is not true of the local TV stations. Further, there is nothing even remotely like: Reddit, Twitter, Wordpress, Tumblr, Facebook, et al. in the television realm, where just about anyone can reach a national audience if their message resonates (and do so for free). There is also nothing like the app options that are available online, whether Snapchat, Instagram, or voter reach apps like NationBuilder.
- troymc 11y agoDoesn't Google already have Blogger.com? Is this an April Fools joke posted early by accident?
- em3rgent0rdr 11y agoHow long until Google deprecates this feature?
- calinet6 11y agoIn a big way, it's extremely beneficial that they remove features. Organizations that don't die of bloat.
- chishaku 11y agoI wonder if this is open to all 1,649 presidential candidates, or just 2 or 5? http://www.fec.gov/data/Form2Filer.do?format=html http://www.fec.gov/data/Form2Filer.do?format=html On another note, I wonder if this has anything to do with Medium who has been positioning itself in Washington and C-suites as the "default place for people to go when they have ideas of consequence." http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-medium-is-breaking-washingtons-op-ed-habit-217230#ixzz421zzVeTc http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-medium-is-breaking...
- hasenj 11y agoThere's something comical about that list of candidates. Why haven't heard of these guys before? Does this happen every year?
- jerf 11y agoAs far as I know, yes. For that matter, read your ballot carefully. There's more than just Republican and Democrat that make it to the final ballot. If nothing else you can pick up some terms to Google and learn about. Mostly for your intellectual curiosity, since generally the other parties manage to pick up little more than low-dozens of County Dogcatcher-level positions per election in the entire nation.
- ikeboy 11y agoSo if it's open to the whole list, then the cost to get access is effectively $5000.
- ki85squared 11y agoMaybe on paper, but the FEC makes it easy to get on that list without any proof of identity. There are tons of joke candidates, like Crawfish Crawfish.
- arihant 11y agoWhile there would be a lot of fear of Google interfering with public discourse, it is key to point out that there are over 1,600 presidential candidates. How many of them do you even recognize? How does the country know that there isn't another great president who just didn't make enough to have public impact? This can actually decouple correlations between spending and winning. Maybe then we would have a government by the people, not by the big corp.
- jaunkst 11y agoNo problem here.
- dbcurtis 11y agohow did The Onion hijack a Google URL?
- my5thaccount 11y ago"Join the waitlist" Really? There are only, what, 10 candidates?? Srsly Google?
- timmyd 11y agoI do find it amusing that all comments are focused on the US. There are hundreds of countries around the world were TV stations are black boxes and presidential / prime ministerial hopefuls have no platform to express themselves. Having access to a platform that can promote and answer content as users are searching for answers on them (at least how it reads on face value) seems incredibly important. I do however agree that transparency around who gets access to the platform is critical for user trust.
- passionfruit 11y agoThis could be even more dangerous than Facebook's walled garden in that it further defines Google as "The Internet." Why is this necessary if Google Plus already exists? Couldn't they just add the features to Google Plus and include them in the search results?