6 ms·
Google doesn't get social... that's all. They demand everyone that applies for a job knows algorithms, but they fail to understand that to nail social, they nee
by Hisoka 15y ago
Google doesn't get social... that's all. They demand everyone that applies for a job knows algorithms, but they fail to understand that to nail social, they need to hire people with a different type of intelligence: emotional and psychological. People who know what makes other people tick. We human beings crave attention, impressing others, and thinking we're special. We don't give a damn about placing people in Circles - that's a problem you solve once you give what people crave, not a problem that convinces people to join your social network.
Google does need computer scientists but the company has enough of them. This isn't a knock against Google employees, but the vast majority of their employees know how to scale search engines, or write efficient code, or write the next generation NLP parser, but to get social right, those things are unimportant.
To create a great social network requires less technical expertise, and more getting the little things right. Think about LinkedIn: You can't help but tweak with your skills and experience so it looks impressive to you, and to others (even if they aren't recruiters). Think about how much people care about filling in their Facebook profile, and making it look good. Now look at Google+. It's TOO clean. It's TOO private. That's a great recipe for a search engine. A horrible recipe for a social network.
- ditojim 15y agoIf google doesn't get social, who developed Google+? Too clean? I find the page very easy on the eyes and easy to use. Too private? I have put way more info in public (intentionally) on Google+ than Facebook. They make it easy. You are just making general statements and assumptions we have heard all over the internet, meanwhile, Google+ continues to delight its users. I will say: Google finally gets social. It is called Google+
- scanr 15y agoSo far, most of the people that I know that actively use Facebook don't even know that Google+ exists. Most of them are women. This is by no means a scientific sample and they are typically not early adopters but until I see them joining Google+, I won't be convinced the Google finally gets social.
- ry0ohki 15y agoGoogle copied a bunch of technical features from other networks (Facebook mainly) that do get social. But as the parent points out, they don't truly get social because there is a complexity that confuses me let alone my mom in using Google Plus.
- ditojim 15y agoWhat complexity do you refer to? Facebook has groups, it just has a crappy UX for it. Google's Circles are way better, easy, and kinda fun to setup with a slick UI. Once they are setup, it is easy to filter your content based on circles. Circles make a ton of sense to me (and a lot of other people, too). I can finally share all my information in one place, with different groups and view those groups in context in my stream. No one is forcing anyone to use Google+ though. Users have a choice and we shall see where the cards fall over the next year.
- ry0ohki 15y agoI agree, but you are talking about technical features again. The interface for circles is slick, it allows new technical fun. I think this is why Google+ is pretty popular with the tech crowd. But now, one month on, even though 60% of my Facebook friends join G+, none of them are using it. My feed is littered with celebrities that overpost because circles are great for limiting who you share with, but poor for limiting what you view. (Google doesn't let you say: show me every circle but X, and if you choose to view a specific circle it will always reset to all)
- bhc3 15y agoI'd say that Google doesn't really get user experience in this case. Things like making it clearer what +1 does. Does it show up somewhere? (yes) Does it affect search (sorta, but not really) Does it feed into my Google+ account? (no) Maybe even the name "+1", which is a given for regular forum participants, but may be hard to get for others.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- watty 15y agoI'm not sure what your point is. Google HAS changed the world , what more can you ask? In order for them to continue to change the world they need money (they are a business), and some of their products like Google+ and AdWords are more geared towards making money rather than changing the world.
- ZephyrP 15y agoI can already see the arguments of the future pouring in today. "Well, you see, Google+ just got lucky, to REALLY understand social you have to talk to people who don't know anything about science and technology or icky subjects like math" I like how this line of reasoning comes up all the time - "I can't spend 15 minutes of my life understanding a basic procedure for sorting lists of things and subsequently got booted before the phone interview, so that must mean I understand social/seo/ux/insert_other_relatively_bullshit_job_or_industry_title and Google doesn't"
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- brudgers 15y ago>"Google doesn't get social..." The name '+1' bears this out. On the one hand, it's meaning is geeky enough that my mom won't understand it. On the other hand, it's use is so pathetically inarticulate, that I wouldn't want my online profile to be associated with it.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- cbs 15y ago>We don't give a damn about placing people in Circles "We"? Who the hell is this "we"? I love the functionality of circles.