4 ms·

The only problem with g+ is that none of my friends use it. Personally I'd choose g+ over facebook's shitty interface and quality any day.

by 10098 14y ago

bratsche 14y ago
I pop into Google+ occasionally, but I usually regret it. They always blast me with some "what's hot and popular" post by someone who I don't follow, and as often as not that post is just some fanboy bitching about how much iPhones suck and every time he is forced to use one for even a few seconds he has a sudden urge to physically vomit. At my undergrad school we had some preacher who used to hang out at a certain spot in the middle of campus and yell at passing students to tell them what sinners they are. Google+'s "what's hot and popular" often feels like the Internet's version of that spot, except it's for those whose religion is based on smartphones. I definitely agree about the interface. Google+ has a beautiful interface for viewing these types of posts. Facebook's interface seems to be a little too optimized for viewing George Takei posts for my taste.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  > just some fanboy bitching about how much iPhones suck Two anecdotes still don't make a a solid point, but this is what made me exclude "popular postings" from my feed. Twitter, which has a similar focus on following celebrities instead of people you know, suffers from the same problem...the top tweets on (German) Twitter sound terribly typical of things that Twitter users would say. I think networks should curate these "highlights" a lot more wisely.
- haakon 14y ago
  > They always blast me with some "what's hot and popular" post by someone who I don't follow, and as often as not that post is just some fanboy bitching about how much iPhones suck and every time he is forced to use one for even a few seconds he has a sudden urge to physically vomit. At least for me, these posts have gradually changed into embarassing images with trifles about friendship and love, as well as images with pseudoscientific and borderline superstitious claims about health etc. This "facebookification" has lead me to believe that Google+ is now really taking off. Honestly I'd rather have the kneejerk tech rants back.
muuh-gnu 14y ago
> The only problem with g+ is that none of my friends use it. At one point in time, you and everybody else had the same problem in Facebook, yet everybody still switched. Sometimes, if you really want something but social inertia is against you, you have to be a trendmaker/leader and force your friends to follow you against their will. Make yourself rare, and if you're valuable enough in your circle, they will follow you. If they dont, it only means that using Facebook is more valuable for them than keeping in touch with you. Thats how Facebook won. All the cool and rich and influential ivy league kids got there first, and the sheep had no choice but to follow. Do you remember arguments like "Why should I use FB? None of my friends are there?" from the early era where every early adopter's friends were somewhere else? If your _only_ argument for one network and against another is where your "friends" already are, this means only that you are one of the following-only sheep without any social influence whatsoever, and will simply use whatever you're socially pressured into. With enough FB data about you, it would probably be possible to tell whom Google would have to make to switch to G+ first, so that you as the weaker link have no other choice than to follow.
- paganel 14y ago
  > if you really want something but social inertia is against you, you have to be a trendmaker/leader and force your friends to follow you against their will. Honest question, why would anyone "want" to move from FB into G+ so much so as to be a "leader" and having to convince his/her friends into following? This pretty much sounds like a cult.

The only problem with g+ is that none of my friends use it. Personally I'd choose g+ over facebook's shitty interface and quality any day.

by 10098 14y ago

The only problem with g+ is that none of my friends use it. Personally I'd choose g+ over facebook's shitty interface and quality any day.

bratsche 14y ago

I pop into Google+ occasionally, but I usually regret it. They always blast me with some "what's hot and popular" post by someone who I don't follow, and as often as not that post is just some fanboy bitching about how much iPhones suck and every time he is forced to use one for even a few seconds he has a sudden urge to physically vomit. At my undergrad school we had some preacher who used to hang out at a certain spot in the middle of campus and yell at passing students to tell them what sinners they are. Google+'s "what's hot and popular" often feels like the Internet's version of that spot, except it's for those whose religion is based on smartphones. I definitely agree about the interface. Google+ has a beautiful interface for viewing these types of posts. Facebook's interface seems to be a little too optimized for viewing George Takei posts for my taste.

gurkendoktor 14y ago
> just some fanboy bitching about how much iPhones suck Two anecdotes still don't make a a solid point, but this is what made me exclude "popular postings" from my feed. Twitter, which has a similar focus on following celebrities instead of people you know, suffers from the same problem...the top tweets on (German) Twitter sound terribly typical of things that Twitter users would say. I think networks should curate these "highlights" a lot more wisely.
haakon 14y ago
> They always blast me with some "what's hot and popular" post by someone who I don't follow, and as often as not that post is just some fanboy bitching about how much iPhones suck and every time he is forced to use one for even a few seconds he has a sudden urge to physically vomit. At least for me, these posts have gradually changed into embarassing images with trifles about friendship and love, as well as images with pseudoscientific and borderline superstitious claims about health etc. This "facebookification" has lead me to believe that Google+ is now really taking off. Honestly I'd rather have the kneejerk tech rants back.

muuh-gnu 14y ago

> The only problem with g+ is that none of my friends use it. At one point in time, you and everybody else had the same problem in Facebook, yet everybody still switched. Sometimes, if you really want something but social inertia is against you, you have to be a trendmaker/leader and force your friends to follow you against their will. Make yourself rare, and if you're valuable enough in your circle, they will follow you. If they dont, it only means that using Facebook is more valuable for them than keeping in touch with you. Thats how Facebook won. All the cool and rich and influential ivy league kids got there first, and the sheep had no choice but to follow. Do you remember arguments like "Why should I use FB? None of my friends are there?" from the early era where every early adopter's friends were somewhere else? If your _only_ argument for one network and against another is where your "friends" already are, this means only that you are one of the following-only sheep without any social influence whatsoever, and will simply use whatever you're socially pressured into. With enough FB data about you, it would probably be possible to tell whom Google would have to make to switch to G+ first, so that you as the weaker link have no other choice than to follow.

paganel 14y ago
> if you really want something but social inertia is against you, you have to be a trendmaker/leader and force your friends to follow you against their will. Honest question, why would anyone "want" to move from FB into G+ so much so as to be a "leader" and having to convince his/her friends into following? This pretty much sounds like a cult.