6 ms·
> The engineers are not in control, it's pretty darn obvious. As a software engineer, I take offense at that. This is precisely the right decision to make if y
by jsolson 15y ago
> The engineers are not in control, it's pretty darn obvious.
As a software engineer, I take offense at that. This is precisely the right decision to make if you observe that this is how your customers are using your product. You don't need a product guy to tell you that.
- ck2 15y agoSo what is the logical opposite of using a minus to remove terms? Quotes? This is what customers remember and do? I highly doubt that. Or are they trying to reserve the plus now for another feature in the future?
- NinetyNine 15y agoI agree with the implication of your last question. It would certainly make sense for google to integrate Google Plus directly into their core product. I haven't thought of an exact path this would take, but if you're branding an operator, brand it everywhere.
- katovatzschyn 15y ago> but if you're branding an operator, brand it everywhere. And this behavior is what provoked the statement that the engineers are no longer in control- branding trumping usability.
- ericd 15y agoBut, consistency is an important part of usability.
- nhebb 15y agoConsistency cuts both ways. There is the branding consistency of the + symbol, and then there is the consistency of how + worked for searches last week vs. this week. My vote is that consistency in usage trumps consistency in branding.
- ericd 15y agoGoogle+ probably gets much more usage than the + search operator. I'm sad that that part is becoming harder, but if they have a use for + that's integral for a future piece that relates to Google+, the needs of the many and all that.
- jaylevitt 15y agoRemember, on Google +, you don't mention @somebody, you mention +somebody. I'm sure they're going to reuse + so you can search for +somebody.
- ajays 15y agoThis is stupid on Google's part. People are used to mentioning others via "@" (unless, maybe, Twitter has copyrighted/patented this). Forcing people to use "+" will just make adoption of G+ harder. Google should remember that they're the underdog here, playing catchup to Twitter and FB. Raising the barrier to entry only hurts them.
- pyrmont 15y agoI think that, while nerds are used to mentioning others via @, regular people are used to putting @ in email addresses. Frankly, I find this change frustrating (for the reason that " is not the opposite of -) but I don't believe regular people are going to have any more difficulty with +Adam than they did with @Adam.
- cubicle67 15y agopeople have been using @ to mention others since pretty much the beginnings of online discussion, way before facebook and twitter (I'm agreeing with you - this is a stupid move by Google and goes against 15+ years of convention)
- MichaelApproved 15y agoJust because something has always been done one way doesnt mean it always has to be done that way.
- bhickey 15y agoIf you type @<name> it gets converted into +<name>.
- jotson 15y agoI wonder how ignoring + in all of the millions of existing search links on the internet affects Google's ad revenue...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]