3 ms·

The "called-out" comment is the only thing about this link worth reading. The writer has never used Google+ yet complains about the lack of activity within his

by brd 15y ago

The "called-out" comment is the only thing about this link worth reading. The writer has never used Google+ yet complains about the lack of activity within his own news and invite feeds.

jsavimbi 15y ago
Yep, that pretty much calls it for Paul Tassi.
kenjackson 15y ago
I'm not sure I get the problem? The thing I find odd about Google+ is that only one person has ever asked me to join it, and they no longer use it. Whereas with Facebook I used to get an invitation at least once a week from someone to join. As a Facebook member, I only post pictures, yet my feed is crazy. The first page is full of status notes, yet it only goes back one hour. People seem to use Facebook like crazy. No one but tech pundits, like Robert Scoble, seem to use Google+. Maybe I'm wrong, but my experience matches those of the Forbes article.
gmac 15y ago
The writer has never used Google+ yet complains about the lack of activity within his own news and invite feeds. That seems a strange way to put it. Essentially, the writer makes the rather obvious point that if you run a social network, network effects[1] are everything. I have the exact same experience: I'm signed up, but why would I visit when I can see updates from the same people and 10x more on Facebook? Likewise, why would I post there when a post would reach the same people and 10x more on Facebook? Unless Google+ can offer something amazing, new and different -- which best as I can see, they haven't so far -- network effects will surely doom them. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
- Hyena 15y ago
  First: the service is invite only for the time being. Second: the network effect can be a curse as well. Linkedin has succeeded because its network is limited to work contacts. There are costs to having a complete public network. Third: Google+ does offer an amazing, new and different service. It's not Facebook. Facebook is built on its social network, which is the product most users want, not the features (which a lot of users seem to hate). But Facebook expanded initially by being a high prestige social network; that's changed and, given Google's invite strategy, it's reasonable to believe that G+ is now higher prestige.
rospaya 15y ago
Which doesn't have to mean anything. If I don't post on Facebook, my feed is still full, the same can't be told for Google Plus, at least from the author's perspective.

by brd 15y ago

The "called-out" comment is the only thing about this link worth reading. The writer has never used Google+ yet complains about the lack of activity within his own news and invite feeds.

jsavimbi 15y ago

Yep, that pretty much calls it for Paul Tassi.

kenjackson 15y ago

I'm not sure I get the problem? The thing I find odd about Google+ is that only one person has ever asked me to join it, and they no longer use it. Whereas with Facebook I used to get an invitation at least once a week from someone to join. As a Facebook member, I only post pictures, yet my feed is crazy. The first page is full of status notes, yet it only goes back one hour. People seem to use Facebook like crazy. No one but tech pundits, like Robert Scoble, seem to use Google+. Maybe I'm wrong, but my experience matches those of the Forbes article.

gmac 15y ago

The writer has never used Google+ yet complains about the lack of activity within his own news and invite feeds. That seems a strange way to put it. Essentially, the writer makes the rather obvious point that if you run a social network, network effects[1] are everything. I have the exact same experience: I'm signed up, but why would I visit when I can see updates from the same people and 10x more on Facebook? Likewise, why would I post there when a post would reach the same people and 10x more on Facebook? Unless Google+ can offer something amazing, new and different -- which best as I can see, they haven't so far -- network effects will surely doom them. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

Hyena 15y ago
First: the service is invite only for the time being. Second: the network effect can be a curse as well. Linkedin has succeeded because its network is limited to work contacts. There are costs to having a complete public network. Third: Google+ does offer an amazing, new and different service. It's not Facebook. Facebook is built on its social network, which is the product most users want, not the features (which a lot of users seem to hate). But Facebook expanded initially by being a high prestige social network; that's changed and, given Google's invite strategy, it's reasonable to believe that G+ is now higher prestige.

rospaya 15y ago

Which doesn't have to mean anything. If I don't post on Facebook, my feed is still full, the same can't be told for Google Plus, at least from the author's perspective.