4 ms·

The article says it's a mystery but then nails it: "In line with Google’s vision to organize the world’s information, the focus on Google+ seems to be shifting

The article says it's a mystery but then nails it: "In line with Google’s vision to organize the world’s information, the focus on Google+ seems to be shifting to content more than relationships. ... I wonder if Google is more interested in being Reddit (the front page of the Internet), than it is in being a Facebook/Twitter clone (what your friends are up to)."

goatcurious 13y ago
..but reddit won't be reddit if there was no anonymity
- gcb0 13y ago
  sorry but you have to be really disconnected with reality to think there's no anonymity in g+ Just pick a new name instead of a lame novelty reddit user name. Just look the amount of names ending in Goldstein there. It's like the whole state of new York signed up.
  - netrus 13y ago
    You can be anonymous, but most people aren't. Have you spend some time at reddit? It's about the culture, not the policy.
scholia 13y ago
Problem with that is that G+ is an even worse version of Reddit than it is a Facebook clone. Reddit already has (a) anonymity; (b) a working karma system; (c) proper threading; (d) organisation by subject/topic; (e) freedom to start new boards; and (f) a lot more intelligent debate than G+. Fixing all of these G+ deficiencies in the current system looks a long way beyond Google's capabilities, even if it wanted to. The dog-slow operation of G+ and the extreme information-poverty of the UI (which makes it impossible to scan topics quickly) add to G+'s problems in being a pseudo-Reddit.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  I was with you until you said intelligent debate. Aside from a few pockets like /r/askscience, Reddit is an awful place for an intelligent conversation. I don't know if Google+ is worse, but there are great pockets there too (Linus Tovalds for instance).
  - scholia 13y ago
    Reddit is certainly variable, but I often find the debates interesting. On G+, I mostly see people on soapboxes: it's not so much debate as the defending of entrenched positions....

goatcurious 13y ago

..but reddit won't be reddit if there was no anonymity

gcb0 13y ago
sorry but you have to be really disconnected with reality to think there's no anonymity in g+ Just pick a new name instead of a lame novelty reddit user name. Just look the amount of names ending in Goldstein there. It's like the whole state of new York signed up.
- netrus 13y ago
  You can be anonymous, but most people aren't. Have you spend some time at reddit? It's about the culture, not the policy.

scholia 13y ago

Problem with that is that G+ is an even worse version of Reddit than it is a Facebook clone. Reddit already has (a) anonymity; (b) a working karma system; (c) proper threading; (d) organisation by subject/topic; (e) freedom to start new boards; and (f) a lot more intelligent debate than G+. Fixing all of these G+ deficiencies in the current system looks a long way beyond Google's capabilities, even if it wanted to. The dog-slow operation of G+ and the extreme information-poverty of the UI (which makes it impossible to scan topics quickly) add to G+'s problems in being a pseudo-Reddit.

snowwrestler 13y ago
I was with you until you said intelligent debate. Aside from a few pockets like /r/askscience, Reddit is an awful place for an intelligent conversation. I don't know if Google+ is worse, but there are great pockets there too (Linus Tovalds for instance).
- scholia 13y ago
  Reddit is certainly variable, but I often find the debates interesting. On G+, I mostly see people on soapboxes: it's not so much debate as the defending of entrenched positions....