4 ms·

The Forced Social Network

8 points by DanBlake 14y ago

thekungfuman 14y ago
No mention of the 35 million fake twitter accounts. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-much-of-twitter-is-spam http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-much-of-twitt... And isn't it unfair that a retweet is a worthwhile metric but a +1/reshare is not? And why would "Google find some way to fudge the numbers"? So Google, a gigantic company, one of the most valuable in the world, would lie through it's teeth but Twitter, a struggling company desperately trying to prove they are worthwhile, would not? What are you basing this accusation on? I don't understand the hate on Google+. I love and use both services for different things. I read lots of great stuff AND lots of crap on BOTH services every day, but it's a largely different kind of material. I would even say I use them both equally (maybe G+ a bit more these days.) Why does one have to win? And one other thing, Twitter had FAR less to do with the arab spring and other activist movements than it gets credit for. Until I see legitimate data otherwise, that claim will continue to annoy me.
YuriNiyazov 14y ago
thekungfuman: you've been hellbanned for almost two months now.
mladenkovacevic 14y ago
It takes 5 seconds to create an account. It takes up to a year to start using it. I would venture a guess that # of posts is the shyest metric and takes a while to gain momentum with new social networks. But here's a metric which doesn't exist but probably should: how much perceived value are users getting out of a service? On Google+ I can watch a live stargazing session take place complete with through the telescope views. On Facebook I can see what that douche I talked to once had for brunch.
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  G+ definitely feels "higher quality" for some reason. Some of it is the interface (Google's a lot better at this stuff than FB) and some of it is the userbase (G+ seems to skew towards techies, and er, "intentional" users, rather than "everybody, and that includes uncle merl"). The question I have is if G+ manages to really get some traction, and does start to attract the unwashed masses, how will this feel change? G+'s more nuanced contact model might help a bit, but...

8 points by DanBlake 14y ago

No mention of the 35 million fake twitter accounts. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-much-of-twitter-is-spam http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-much-of-twitt... And isn't it unfair that a retweet is a worthwhile metric but a +1/reshare is not? And why would "Google find some way to fudge the numbers"? So Google, a gigantic company, one of the most valuable in the world, would lie through it's teeth but Twitter, a struggling company desperately trying to prove they are worthwhile, would not? What are you basing this accusation on? I don't understand the hate on Google+. I love and use both services for different things. I read lots of great stuff AND lots of crap on BOTH services every day, but it's a largely different kind of material. I would even say I use them both equally (maybe G+ a bit more these days.) Why does one have to win? And one other thing, Twitter had FAR less to do with the arab spring and other activist movements than it gets credit for. Until I see legitimate data otherwise, that claim will continue to annoy me.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago

thekungfuman: you've been hellbanned for almost two months now.

mladenkovacevic 14y ago

It takes 5 seconds to create an account. It takes up to a year to start using it. I would venture a guess that # of posts is the shyest metric and takes a while to gain momentum with new social networks. But here's a metric which doesn't exist but probably should: how much perceived value are users getting out of a service? On Google+ I can watch a live stargazing session take place complete with through the telescope views. On Facebook I can see what that douche I talked to once had for brunch.

snogglethorpe 14y ago
G+ definitely feels "higher quality" for some reason. Some of it is the interface (Google's a lot better at this stuff than FB) and some of it is the userbase (G+ seems to skew towards techies, and er, "intentional" users, rather than "everybody, and that includes uncle merl"). The question I have is if G+ manages to really get some traction, and does start to attract the unwashed masses, how will this feel change? G+'s more nuanced contact model might help a bit, but...