4 ms·

Those are all things that nobody wants. Not only do we not want them, we abhor the thought. That's what Google isn't getting. We just want to search. Or keep u

Those are all things that nobody wants. Not only do we not want them, we abhor the thought. That's what Google isn't getting. We just want to search. Or keep using email like we have been for a decade. People switched to Gmail because it was like hotmail with a nicer interface and a large mailbox limit. Maybe some people do want those other things. That's fine, give them their own corner, let them play with the toy social network or social layer or however you want to pitch it. Stop force-feeding it to the rest of us. I don't want to know what my friends are searching for or what recipes they like. It's just unwanted noise. And let's call a spade a spade - "sharing" has very little to do with friends and everything to do with advertisers. It's very disingenuous and insulting of Google to pretend that the primary purpose of +1 buttons is to "share with friends".

moultano 13y ago
> And let's call a spade a spade - "sharing" has very little to do with friends and everything to do with advertisers. It's very disingenuous and insulting of Google to pretend that the primary purpose of +1 buttons is to "share with friends". This is calling a spade a turkey. How did you possibly come to that conclusion? > I don't want to know what my friends are searching for or what recipes they like. It's just unwanted noise. On the right-hand side of your search page, there's a button for turning off personalisation.
- cageface 13y ago
  On the right-hand side of your search page, there's a button for turning off personalisation. For now. Maybe not tomorrow. Google has already demonstrated its willing to run roughshod over some of its users in order to advance its agenda for Google+, which clearly is much more in Google's interest than the interest of Google's users. The information I store with Google is actually quite a bit more valuable than anything I might post on Facebook so their recent willingness to stuff all their other services into a shitty social network with a creepy "real name" policy has me eying alternatives.
  - sangnoir 13y ago
    So you are blaming Google not for what it has done, but what it could do?
    - cageface 13y ago
      If they want me to trust them with that much information then what they seem likely to do with it is extremely relevant to my decisions about how much I rely on them today. Even a few years ago I had no second thoughts about depending on Google for critical web services but their tactics with G+ have me seriously second guessing them.
- reidrac 13y ago
  I think that the problem is not the personalisation but all the stuff they had to build to make it happen, the side effects of prioritising Google+. I don't mind a functionality that I can disable, the real issue is all the stuff I need to go through to have that functionality that turns out... I don't need or want! So Hangouts will provide some advantages over XMPP, at a cost. It doesn't matter I don't really need/want the improvement if I can't keep using the stuff that was already useful to me.
coopdog 13y ago
The problem is that not everyone knows everything about 'the market'. Advertising partially solves that, but relying on your social graph is also a really good way to find out which kinds of things in the market you'd like. If I see 50 restaurants nearby, but ten of them have been +1'd by people I know and trust, that's great and helps me. And I'm happy to recommend my favourite places, books, games too. I think it's an important problem that Google (and others) are solving and it actually reduces the need for advertising. What I really hate though is facebook selling their 'likes' to appear in your feed again and again, long after you liked it. It's a lie, because it gives the impression that you're liking it again, right now, which might not be true. For example let's say you liked tiger woods, that might be news feed worthy at the time. And if someone searched for tiger woods then yes show the like as part of that information, but to put it up again at a later date, say immediately after he's caught being dishonest is misleading people and sending the wrong message. The fact that they're being paid just makes it worse. What's more they don't even show you what likes they're putting on on your behalf in your own news feed which would give you the option to unlike <x> if necessary. In short not everyone hates G+

moultano 13y ago

> And let's call a spade a spade - "sharing" has very little to do with friends and everything to do with advertisers. It's very disingenuous and insulting of Google to pretend that the primary purpose of +1 buttons is to "share with friends". This is calling a spade a turkey. How did you possibly come to that conclusion? > I don't want to know what my friends are searching for or what recipes they like. It's just unwanted noise. On the right-hand side of your search page, there's a button for turning off personalisation.

cageface 13y ago
On the right-hand side of your search page, there's a button for turning off personalisation. For now. Maybe not tomorrow. Google has already demonstrated its willing to run roughshod over some of its users in order to advance its agenda for Google+, which clearly is much more in Google's interest than the interest of Google's users. The information I store with Google is actually quite a bit more valuable than anything I might post on Facebook so their recent willingness to stuff all their other services into a shitty social network with a creepy "real name" policy has me eying alternatives.
- sangnoir 13y ago
  So you are blaming Google not for what it has done, but what it could do?
  - cageface 13y ago
    If they want me to trust them with that much information then what they seem likely to do with it is extremely relevant to my decisions about how much I rely on them today. Even a few years ago I had no second thoughts about depending on Google for critical web services but their tactics with G+ have me seriously second guessing them.
reidrac 13y ago
I think that the problem is not the personalisation but all the stuff they had to build to make it happen, the side effects of prioritising Google+. I don't mind a functionality that I can disable, the real issue is all the stuff I need to go through to have that functionality that turns out... I don't need or want! So Hangouts will provide some advantages over XMPP, at a cost. It doesn't matter I don't really need/want the improvement if I can't keep using the stuff that was already useful to me.

coopdog 13y ago

The problem is that not everyone knows everything about 'the market'. Advertising partially solves that, but relying on your social graph is also a really good way to find out which kinds of things in the market you'd like. If I see 50 restaurants nearby, but ten of them have been +1'd by people I know and trust, that's great and helps me. And I'm happy to recommend my favourite places, books, games too. I think it's an important problem that Google (and others) are solving and it actually reduces the need for advertising. What I really hate though is facebook selling their 'likes' to appear in your feed again and again, long after you liked it. It's a lie, because it gives the impression that you're liking it again, right now, which might not be true. For example let's say you liked tiger woods, that might be news feed worthy at the time. And if someone searched for tiger woods then yes show the like as part of that information, but to put it up again at a later date, say immediately after he's caught being dishonest is misleading people and sending the wrong message. The fact that they're being paid just makes it worse. What's more they don't even show you what likes they're putting on on your behalf in your own news feed which would give you the option to unlike <x> if necessary. In short not everyone hates G+