6 ms·

>The problem was the G+ was pitched as a social network. It grew, like a cancer, into some weird meta-project that defies description Really? It was a single

by tedks 12y ago

>The problem was the G+ was pitched as a social network. It grew, like a cancer, into some weird meta-project that defies description Really? It was a single sign-on system to Google properties, tied to a social networking thing. accounts.google.com came not far after plus.google.com. Google wanted to avoid becoming MySpace and wanted to mimic Facebook, and miscalculated slightly. Personally, I really like being able to sign in once to Google properties. I like that YouTube comments now have real names on them. It makes them much less toxic. How is it that Google+ shut down youtube channels? Changing the display name is all I've seen it do.

MicroBerto 12y ago
I agree on the real names. It truly cleaned up the nonsense and brings more peace of mind to those who scyually make YouTube money - the popular channel operators. We get way less idiocy now.
- sesqu 12y ago
  See, I don't see that as a user. The bad comments sections used to be full of bad puns and arguments, but now they're just smaller and full of contentless "watch this" mentions. On channels where the comments used to be good, they are now rare and inaccurate.
  - MicroBerto 12y ago
    The "watch this" mentions are something different - that's Google's way of trying to make things go viral (or something like that) on their social feeds, and I believe is completely unnecessary.
    - sesqu 12y ago
      I believe they're just comments pulled in from google+ threads that mention the video in question, based on the logic that all comments on the video should be grouped. The problem is that people don't actually comment on videos on google+, they just share content.
vertex-four 12y ago
Google had a single sign-on system before G+. I still use it, refusing to sign up for G+. What it didn't have was a single identity system; you didn't have one public identity across all services, although you did have one account.
nacs 12y ago
> I like that YouTube comments now have real names on them. It makes them much less toxic. Not sure what part of Youtube you're browsing but comment quality has not increased in any way with the real names policy from what I've seen. Just a lot of Google+ mentions embedded in comments now with the same asinine comments.

by tedks 12y ago

MicroBerto 12y ago

I agree on the real names. It truly cleaned up the nonsense and brings more peace of mind to those who scyually make YouTube money - the popular channel operators. We get way less idiocy now.

sesqu 12y ago
See, I don't see that as a user. The bad comments sections used to be full of bad puns and arguments, but now they're just smaller and full of contentless "watch this" mentions. On channels where the comments used to be good, they are now rare and inaccurate.
- MicroBerto 12y ago
  The "watch this" mentions are something different - that's Google's way of trying to make things go viral (or something like that) on their social feeds, and I believe is completely unnecessary.
  - sesqu 12y ago
    I believe they're just comments pulled in from google+ threads that mention the video in question, based on the logic that all comments on the video should be grouped. The problem is that people don't actually comment on videos on google+, they just share content.

vertex-four 12y ago

Google had a single sign-on system before G+. I still use it, refusing to sign up for G+. What it didn't have was a single identity system; you didn't have one public identity across all services, although you did have one account.

nacs 12y ago

> I like that YouTube comments now have real names on them. It makes them much less toxic. Not sure what part of Youtube you're browsing but comment quality has not increased in any way with the real names policy from what I've seen. Just a lot of Google+ mentions embedded in comments now with the same asinine comments.