5 ms·

What strikes me the most about this whole debacle is that people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social. Its products have been poorly integr

by cheald 15y ago

What strikes me the most about this whole debacle is that people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social. Its products have been poorly integrated and incongruent. Then, when Google says "Okay, we're going to integrate the balls off of everything, and provide a single consistent experience across all our products", people pitch a fit. It seems they can't win either way. This is a necessary step in fixing Google's broken approach to social and personalized information. Personally, I like this direction. I really don't care Google will have the my same data in Picasa and Docs and Gmail. If anything, it's going to mean a better product for me. It's not like Google is suddenly sharing all this data with an external entity - it already had it. It already used it. Now it's just using it across multiple facets rather than limiting it to a single one. I'm just not sure I get the brouhaha. Maybe it's because I already use all those services as a single user, and have wanted better integration between them, so this just fits me better. Maybe I'm just ignorant about the implications. I'm not sure. I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services? As with any web property, if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.

scottkrager 15y ago
My issue with it is mostly in the visual implementation. I had hoped that Google would be more subtle about it, instead I look at the SERPs and see them shouting at me.
- cheald 15y ago
  I think that's a fair point. Some people like the simpler search results. Does the SPYW toggle solve that complaint for you, though, or is there a deeper problem that I'm missing?
  - scottkrager 15y ago
    It does, but it's not just SPYW. It's the endless amounts of "extra" stuff that keeps getting added to the formally very clean SERP.
redthrowaway 15y ago
> It seems they can't win either way People like to bitch and gossip about whoever's on top. It's why celebrity tabloids exist, it's perversely why shows like Jersey Shore and My Super Sweet 16 exist, it's why people complain about Apple or Google or Microsoft back in the day. Couple the innate tendency towards bitching with the prospect of ad revenue from eyeballs, and you get the kind of tabloidy trash we've seen from pandodaily et al. It's just people capitalizing on some of the seedier aspects of human nature. Google will survive this "controversy" (which 99.99% of its users haven't heard of), just as it will endure the cyclic cries of "you're being evil!". Sarah Lacy will continue to write sordid tales of no-goodery, and the Internet will continue to lap it up. Bloggers will continue to seize on the latest controversy to get pageviews, and so on. > I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services? Because no one does have a real issue with it. They might be bugged by the abstract thought of it, but they certainly aren't bothered enough to do anything. Empty words, floating on the wind...
- mattmanser 15y ago
  Do you honestly think MS's actions didn't have serious consequences? Broken companies, destroyed dreams, lack of progress? We're 5 or 6 years behind where we should have been with the web because of them. And I still buy their stuff. Good Guy Gates is a disturbing meme in my book, the greatest trick and all that. But on to my point, you must have an extremely short attention span, do you not even remember what happened with Buzz? As it pretty much invalidates your entire point. That big BOOM, straight in their face. Happened pretty much exactly two years ago? People do have issues with this stuff, if you don't, and I really mean this: Shut up and sit down. This is serious stuff, dangerous stuff, very, very, very dangerous stuff. You don't get that. That Google engineer above doesn't get that, disingenuously comparing fantastic user experiences with tracking you and invading your privacy for better advertising. The worst thing in life you can do is live in this little bubble of 'I don't see the problem, I wish people would stop complaining'. If you don't, don't assume it's because you know best. Learn from history, this kind of consolidation of power is bad news. First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. I'm not talking about people invading your home and sweeping you off into the night tomorrow. But history has taught us time and time and time again that there's every chance that'll be happening 20 years from now. Maybe you think I'm being melodramatic, but it's the erosion between your life and what any sort of organisation can easily take from you that has to be continually fought, be it a government or corporation. Just be glad there's people doing it for you. But never compare it to celebrity gossip. EDIT: I feel a bit of a fool for posting this, but in the end it comes down to this. If you knew that on average every 50 years the world get hit by meteorites somewhere, you'd build a bomb shelter. No question. You'd take precautions. We know that every few generations some force in power will go crazy and do evil things. Giving them tools to seriously screw you up now when they're not evil is not good forward planning.
bambax 15y ago
> people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social Who exactly "complained"? Google didn't get social, and it was fine. Now they still don't, but they've decided to try anyway. It's like an awkward teenager who thinks they can dance. It's embarrassing.
brown9-2 15y ago
What strikes me the most about this whole debacle is that people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social. Its products have been poorly integrated and incongruent. Then, when Google says "Okay, we're going to integrate the balls off of everything, and provide a single consistent experience across all our products", people pitch a fit. That's because there are two entirely different classes of people that are do the bitching: 1) industry "analysts" and commentators claiming that Google doesn't "get" social and will one day lose out because of it 2) actual users of Google disliking the way that Google, in an effort to be "social" (whatever that is) is inserting unhelpful crap into the previously-pristine search results. Isn't it possible that this diversion into "social" will end up being a big mistake down the road if it fundamentally alters the main Search product? "Social search" seems to be something that prognosticators always claim is right around the corner and is going to change the way we do things, but I don't know a single person that really wants results from their social network in their search results. If we wanted to know what our friends thought about Search Topic X, we would just ask them.
pdonis 15y ago
> I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services? As with any web property, if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound. This is exactly why I don't use Google's services, except for search and Google Maps. What bothers me is the possibility that even those basic services are being compromised in order to further Google's social media goals.

by cheald 15y ago

scottkrager 15y ago

My issue with it is mostly in the visual implementation. I had hoped that Google would be more subtle about it, instead I look at the SERPs and see them shouting at me.

cheald 15y ago
I think that's a fair point. Some people like the simpler search results. Does the SPYW toggle solve that complaint for you, though, or is there a deeper problem that I'm missing?
- scottkrager 15y ago
  It does, but it's not just SPYW. It's the endless amounts of "extra" stuff that keeps getting added to the formally very clean SERP.

redthrowaway 15y ago

> It seems they can't win either way People like to bitch and gossip about whoever's on top. It's why celebrity tabloids exist, it's perversely why shows like Jersey Shore and My Super Sweet 16 exist, it's why people complain about Apple or Google or Microsoft back in the day. Couple the innate tendency towards bitching with the prospect of ad revenue from eyeballs, and you get the kind of tabloidy trash we've seen from pandodaily et al. It's just people capitalizing on some of the seedier aspects of human nature. Google will survive this "controversy" (which 99.99% of its users haven't heard of), just as it will endure the cyclic cries of "you're being evil!". Sarah Lacy will continue to write sordid tales of no-goodery, and the Internet will continue to lap it up. Bloggers will continue to seize on the latest controversy to get pageviews, and so on. > I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services? Because no one does have a real issue with it. They might be bugged by the abstract thought of it, but they certainly aren't bothered enough to do anything. Empty words, floating on the wind...

mattmanser 15y ago
Do you honestly think MS's actions didn't have serious consequences? Broken companies, destroyed dreams, lack of progress? We're 5 or 6 years behind where we should have been with the web because of them. And I still buy their stuff. Good Guy Gates is a disturbing meme in my book, the greatest trick and all that. But on to my point, you must have an extremely short attention span, do you not even remember what happened with Buzz? As it pretty much invalidates your entire point. That big BOOM, straight in their face. Happened pretty much exactly two years ago? People do have issues with this stuff, if you don't, and I really mean this: Shut up and sit down. This is serious stuff, dangerous stuff, very, very, very dangerous stuff. You don't get that. That Google engineer above doesn't get that, disingenuously comparing fantastic user experiences with tracking you and invading your privacy for better advertising. The worst thing in life you can do is live in this little bubble of 'I don't see the problem, I wish people would stop complaining'. If you don't, don't assume it's because you know best. Learn from history, this kind of consolidation of power is bad news. First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. I'm not talking about people invading your home and sweeping you off into the night tomorrow. But history has taught us time and time and time again that there's every chance that'll be happening 20 years from now. Maybe you think I'm being melodramatic, but it's the erosion between your life and what any sort of organisation can easily take from you that has to be continually fought, be it a government or corporation. Just be glad there's people doing it for you. But never compare it to celebrity gossip. EDIT: I feel a bit of a fool for posting this, but in the end it comes down to this. If you knew that on average every 50 years the world get hit by meteorites somewhere, you'd build a bomb shelter. No question. You'd take precautions. We know that every few generations some force in power will go crazy and do evil things. Giving them tools to seriously screw you up now when they're not evil is not good forward planning.

bambax 15y ago

> people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social Who exactly "complained"? Google didn't get social, and it was fine. Now they still don't, but they've decided to try anyway. It's like an awkward teenager who thinks they can dance. It's embarrassing.

brown9-2 15y ago

What strikes me the most about this whole debacle is that people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social. Its products have been poorly integrated and incongruent. Then, when Google says "Okay, we're going to integrate the balls off of everything, and provide a single consistent experience across all our products", people pitch a fit. That's because there are two entirely different classes of people that are do the bitching: 1) industry "analysts" and commentators claiming that Google doesn't "get" social and will one day lose out because of it 2) actual users of Google disliking the way that Google, in an effort to be "social" (whatever that is) is inserting unhelpful crap into the previously-pristine search results. Isn't it possible that this diversion into "social" will end up being a big mistake down the road if it fundamentally alters the main Search product? "Social search" seems to be something that prognosticators always claim is right around the corner and is going to change the way we do things, but I don't know a single person that really wants results from their social network in their search results. If we wanted to know what our friends thought about Search Topic X, we would just ask them.

pdonis 15y ago

> I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services? As with any web property, if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound. This is exactly why I don't use Google's services, except for search and Google Maps. What bothers me is the possibility that even those basic services are being compromised in order to further Google's social media goals.