4 ms·

> no they didn't. google plus was half-assed, underhanded, and self-destructive. Google+ the social network was surprisingly nice to use especially towards the

> no they didn't. google plus was half-assed, underhanded, and self-destructive. Google+ the social network was surprisingly nice to use especially towards the end. > profiles were automatically created if you had another google profile, pissing everyone off. Yep, that was part of the commitment. They were fully committed and did it even how many people the annoyed along the way. > they provided essentially no feature advantage over other social networks, Towards the end it had a lot of advantages like one login account but still true pseudonymity wrt to other users as well as at least one advantage towards each other network. Of course by then they'd made everyone angry and made everyone here shun them > which means they had no weapon to fight against network effect. Probably more what I wrote above IMO. Mixing the brilliant Google+ social network with the despised Google+ identity solution wasn't the most brilliant thing they did. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but still. > they enforced a real name policy even as facebook became notorious for doing the same. Yep. And when they finally created the best solution the web have seen so far it was too late. > they aggressively banned business accounts, with obvious results. Can't remember it but wouldn't surprise me at all.

CaptainZapp 6y ago
> Towards the end it had a lot of advantages like one login account but still true pseudonymity How is that compatible with their enforced (and disastrous) real name policy?
- mulmen 6y ago
  Privacy from other users, not privacy from big G. I don’t recall the specifics but I remember the whole thing being very confusing as a user. It was definitely when I started losing trust in Google because there was never a clear benefit to me as a user.
  - CaptainZapp 6y ago
    Thanks for the clarification.
  - eitland 6y ago
    > like one login account but still true pseudonymity wrt to other users Exactly. FWIW: That's what I tried to explain above: "like one login account but still true pseudonymity wrt to other users" > I don’t recall the specifics but I remember the whole thing being very confusing as a user. It was definitely when I started losing trust in Google because there was never a clear benefit to me as a user. On Google+ the social network it became really simple: You logged in using your main account. Then in the upper right corner of the desktop (and probably in the hamburger menu on mobile) you could choose which connected identity you would like to post as. Meaning one identity to answer serious questions about programming on the backend and another identity in a support group for front end developers etc ;-) Google of course knew but back then we trusted Google.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      Yeah, when you explain it that makes sense. But it was never clear to me how that related to circles or whatever. Also that identifies were even a thing. Plus even back then I didn’t trust Google to retain the functionality. How do I know they won’t merge those identities later to “streamline the experience” or something. I never used Google+ because it never made sense to me. There were probably a lot of great ideas that were just not obvious. In hindsight it really looks like Yahoo all over again.
mullingitover 6y ago
> Towards the end it had a lot of advantages like one login account but still true pseudonymity wrt to other users They required real names at first (slavishly copying FB in that regard), and then later as they were obviously failing they tried offering the option to use a pseudonym. I tried it, and they rejected my handle for no reason given. This was the day I started to really have deep-rooted negative feelings for Google, it was just insulting to have my time wasted by an also-ran social network. That was the last straw for me and I burned my G+ account to the ground. I think Google suffers from something akin to the oil curse. They're throwing out dilettante efforts to diversify but never accomplishing anything noteworthy outside their core business. In that regard they're making the world worse, because they're soaking up top-tier talent and then producing garbage with it.

CaptainZapp 6y ago

> Towards the end it had a lot of advantages like one login account but still true pseudonymity How is that compatible with their enforced (and disastrous) real name policy?

mulmen 6y ago
Privacy from other users, not privacy from big G. I don’t recall the specifics but I remember the whole thing being very confusing as a user. It was definitely when I started losing trust in Google because there was never a clear benefit to me as a user.
- CaptainZapp 6y ago
  Thanks for the clarification.
- eitland 6y ago
  > like one login account but still true pseudonymity wrt to other users Exactly. FWIW: That's what I tried to explain above: "like one login account but still true pseudonymity wrt to other users" > I don’t recall the specifics but I remember the whole thing being very confusing as a user. It was definitely when I started losing trust in Google because there was never a clear benefit to me as a user. On Google+ the social network it became really simple: You logged in using your main account. Then in the upper right corner of the desktop (and probably in the hamburger menu on mobile) you could choose which connected identity you would like to post as. Meaning one identity to answer serious questions about programming on the backend and another identity in a support group for front end developers etc ;-) Google of course knew but back then we trusted Google.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Yeah, when you explain it that makes sense. But it was never clear to me how that related to circles or whatever. Also that identifies were even a thing. Plus even back then I didn’t trust Google to retain the functionality. How do I know they won’t merge those identities later to “streamline the experience” or something. I never used Google+ because it never made sense to me. There were probably a lot of great ideas that were just not obvious. In hindsight it really looks like Yahoo all over again.

mullingitover 6y ago

> Towards the end it had a lot of advantages like one login account but still true pseudonymity wrt to other users They required real names at first (slavishly copying FB in that regard), and then later as they were obviously failing they tried offering the option to use a pseudonym. I tried it, and they rejected my handle for no reason given. This was the day I started to really have deep-rooted negative feelings for Google, it was just insulting to have my time wasted by an also-ran social network. That was the last straw for me and I burned my G+ account to the ground. I think Google suffers from something akin to the oil curse. They're throwing out dilettante efforts to diversify but never accomplishing anything noteworthy outside their core business. In that regard they're making the world worse, because they're soaking up top-tier talent and then producing garbage with it.