3 ms·

> Shoelace is currently in an invite-only testing phase So Google is using their proven method of building a social network. It's proven to not work, mind you,

> Shoelace is currently in an invite-only testing phase So Google is using their proven method of building a social network. It's proven to not work, mind you, but it's proven. Are there any reasons why Google might be doing this apart from broken incentive structures?

corin_ 7y ago
How is it proven not to work just because one or more times it hasn't worked, especially with an example as notable as Facebook on the other side? There are pros and cons for sure, and perhaps you're right that on balance the cons outweigh the pros, but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all.
- anoncake 7y ago
  AFAIK Facebook didn't restrict its user base by giving out limited invites but by only admitting certain groups (initially, Harvard students). That's a very different thing. In any case, the world was quite different back then. Facebook didn't have take on Facebook. Still, "proven" is too strong a statement, this isn't mathematics. > but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all. Not everything is a statement of an opinion. Sometimes a question mark indicates a question.
  - corin_ 7y ago
    You're right about how Facebook did it, but I'd describe it as a pedantically different thing, not a very different thing. It's just a different method of artificially restricting who can sign up. And to your edit: "It's proven to not work" seems like a statement, and it's the statement I was responding to. Had you simply asked the question about whether it's a good idea I wouldn't have written my response.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      "Proven" was hyperbole, sorry. I think the difference is significant: Facebook was a place for Harvard students to communicate with other Harvard students. That is useful. Google+ was a place where you could communicate with a random subset of your friends and acquaintances. That's mostly useless. For one-to-one communication it's okay, but a social network is also about group discussions and broadcasting.
whydoineedthis 7y ago
Yeah, Gmail was such a flop. Orkut also comes to mind, although they botched/killed that for different reasons.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Gmail didn’t depend on network effects beyond being able to send email to anyone.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Gmail isn't a social network.

corin_ 7y ago

How is it proven not to work just because one or more times it hasn't worked, especially with an example as notable as Facebook on the other side? There are pros and cons for sure, and perhaps you're right that on balance the cons outweigh the pros, but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all.

anoncake 7y ago
AFAIK Facebook didn't restrict its user base by giving out limited invites but by only admitting certain groups (initially, Harvard students). That's a very different thing. In any case, the world was quite different back then. Facebook didn't have take on Facebook. Still, "proven" is too strong a statement, this isn't mathematics. > but you haven't made a case for that opinion at all. Not everything is a statement of an opinion. Sometimes a question mark indicates a question.
- corin_ 7y ago
  You're right about how Facebook did it, but I'd describe it as a pedantically different thing, not a very different thing. It's just a different method of artificially restricting who can sign up. And to your edit: "It's proven to not work" seems like a statement, and it's the statement I was responding to. Had you simply asked the question about whether it's a good idea I wouldn't have written my response.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    "Proven" was hyperbole, sorry. I think the difference is significant: Facebook was a place for Harvard students to communicate with other Harvard students. That is useful. Google+ was a place where you could communicate with a random subset of your friends and acquaintances. That's mostly useless. For one-to-one communication it's okay, but a social network is also about group discussions and broadcasting.

whydoineedthis 7y ago

Yeah, Gmail was such a flop. Orkut also comes to mind, although they botched/killed that for different reasons.

scarface74 7y ago
Gmail didn’t depend on network effects beyond being able to send email to anyone.
anoncake 7y ago
Gmail isn't a social network.