The plebs rebel: the 99% wonder where G+ is heading #SocMed
Originally shared by +Paddy Hoolahan
#tcsummit2013 #tcsummit +Ayoub Khote +John Skeats
This is an open letter to the Top Contributors summit. This is not a letter of anger, this is not a letter of jealousy and this is not a letter of hatred. This is a plea to cool people I know who are there. This is a plea to the people I don't know but who are there. This is a plea from those of us who are voiceless to those who are more likely to be heard. From what I know, you're good people and I hope this will not fall on deaf ears or blind eyes.
There is, sadly, a perception of elites versus non-elites here on google+. There are those who seem to be let behind the curtain more, those who get more favored treatment from google and generally more attention when posts are made. This is in comparison to us plebs, we of few followers, smaller posts and generally minor players in the google+ world. This is not a source of shame, not all of us are looking for fortune and glory. Some people are looking to maximize readership and followers and others are looking to just be social but not huge. The Plebs and the Plussers all together here want one thing: we want google+ to be better. We want better functionality. So, Plussers, please pass these on since you have louder voices.
1) Finding hangouts. Hangouts are the best thing going here on google+ and the reason many of us jumped from facebook. It's great meeting new people in hangouts, it's great talking with people using video and it's a great feature that really does make one community rather than a bunch of cliques. Until recently. With the latest redesign, hangouts have become harder to find, harder to create and less stable. We used to be able to see when people we knew were hanging out and who was hanging out with them right from our main stream. It was fantastic and now that's gone. PLEASE ask them to bring something like that back.
2) Creating Hangouts. Since they're harder to find, we have to create more of them, but now there are distinctions between hangout and hangout party, which is not all that clear. At one point, hangout party means it didn't notify everyone invited, but video calls did. Now, given my latest experiences, neither of them will notify people directly but merely put a story in a stream. Currently, I have to invite people individually if I want them to know they're invited to a hangout. I know there's a work around that involves getting apps to work in Chrome, but it should work, not be a work around. Make it simple, we will use it and google+ more often.
3) Stable Hangouts. If hangouts get made and seen, people are often being randomly dropped in and out of them. There have been some classic times when there were multiple instances of one person because the system added and dropped them so many times. If we feel a hangout cannot last, then one of google+'s greatest draws has now fallen apart. There are random warning messages about an unstable connection when connections are fine, a warning we are about to be dropped from a hangout which then doesn't happen and applications that can cause hangouts to crash unexpectedly. Please ask them to fix this.
4) Stop Fixing What Isn't Broken. We understand that Google has to expand in order to do better. We get this is a competitive marketplace and that to stand still is to die. We understand a lot. However, stop fixing problems that are not problems. Recently, the black bar went to a grid. The black bar was fine; no one complained about the black bar. Maybe there's a real reason, but we're unsure. The notifications went from a box to a bell. Why? The time spent coding that could have been spent making hangouts better. Some hangouts are now available in HD. I get the SEOs and major Plussers wanted this to happen, but it doesn't help the basic functionality of hangouts. . .which is faulty at best. Fix the hangouts, make the streams easier to navigate and give it a more "intuitive" feel. One of the biggest obstacles to new people joining is that it looks like it is way more complicated than facebook. Let's be friendly.
5) Give us control of our streams. The +1 forcing is great for the SEOs, but clogs up a lot of streams. But, some people love it. Some people love seeing posts they otherwise would not have seen, and others of us think we are being forced to see things we don't care about. Give us the choice. Give us one button that says "do not show +1s in my stream". Don't make it an app, don't make it a complicated workout and don't make it only feasible by changing circle management styles. Let us choose to see or not see +1 shares. Let us choose how we see posts rather than some algorithm that doesn't make sense to us. If we want to see things chronologically, give us that option please. There are so many other options here, these should not be complicated. These are our accounts, let us have control over them. And if we could block certain hastags from appearing in our streams, we would like that control as well. Let us tell Google what we want, don't let Google tell us only what we should want.
6) Stop favoring certain kinds of posts. It is well known among the plebs that big graphic heavy link posts with minimal original content are favored over well done posts over a more verbose nature. For example, this will never make "What's Hot". My tl;dr style ensures I will never be on the Suggested User List. However, when doing stream preferences or however the algorithm works, verbose posts get lost in the stream while simpler posts are more easily found. As with above, give us more control of our streams to say what we like and what we don't like. Think of like it additional terms in a search bar. Some of us want longer posts and some of us don't ever want to see Caturday again. I get trending numbers are a good metric for you in terms of data mining, but that doesn't mean my feed should be a slave to them.
7) Explain and warn in plain English of changes coming. Some watch the big Plussers and Googlers for patterns in posting to see when releases are coming out and pray from there. Make real announcements to us. I don't know the medium or how this would work, but letting us be in the loop a little would go a long way to building trust in Google. Right now, most plebs feel that changes are made randomly or to suit the SEOs and big Plussers without regard to the effects on us plebs.
In ancient Rome, there were the plebs, the patricians and the Senate, who ultimately ruled. The patricians were favored nobility and the plebs were the majority of Rome. One of the most powerful positions was Tribune of the Plebs, who could veto laws and motions and generally wielded a lot of power. We need one of those. We need someone inside the Googleplex whom we can be sure is looking out for the smaller users of google+. We need to be sure Google is listening to at least one voice who will speak for the millions who cannot get Google's ear. Filling out feedback is one thing, but knowing there is at least one, and hopefully more, Plusser who is advocating for us would be great.
There is a division in google+. There are powerful Plussers who seem to get more attention and bring more prestige to google and are rewarded for it. Fantastic. I know some of these people and they're good people. This isn't being jealous of that. This is merely saying "hey, we know we're not as favored, but stop taking us for granted. There are many of us and we know if we are treated badly, we will leave and take our tracking data with us". Despite this large division, we are one community of Google+ here. We are tighter knit than Facebook, more civilized than Reddit, wordier than Twitter and more alive than Digg. Help us, what Plussers who can, to make this is a better experience for all. We want to use it and we want to stay, but some changes have already driven some from here and more changes may drive even more away. Let's make it better.
I for one simply turned off the "chat" after they mixed it with Hangouts. It's only noise now.
100% agreed on this post.
Wow! Are we seeing a Julius Caeser here?
+Max Huijgen "There is, sadly, a perception of elites versus non-elites here on google+." Yes I wonder how the vanity URL is given to some people but not others? Just one point.
Actually +Max Huijgen "This is not a source of shame, not all of us are looking for fortune and glory." I wouldn't say "no" to fortune and glory, if any millionaires out there want to throw a few tens of millions at me, I'd say: bring it on bad boy!
If so, lemme sharpen my knives. Sic semper tyrannis, baby.
No +Able Lawrence this is the Concilium Plebis and if anything I'm just playing the role of a Tribune. I'm just as powerless as the rest of the plebs.
Probably +Catherine Maguire I have it permanently OFF. Otherwise, it would be beeping every minute, 24/7. Annoying as you can imagine, as I spend all my waking hours here (even some of the sleeping ones)… LOL
+Max Huijgen I am not a big hangouts user so a large part of your post is irrelevant but I agree with your sentiment. One design feature I would implement would be to maximise vertical space, I'd scrap horizontal bars by moving everything to the sides. Shortening the div or whatever container is taking up the whole width of the screen, for example look at the user-name box, names are usually only around 14 characters approximately, give or take a handful, but there is a black banner going across the entire width of screen! WHY?
+Max Huijgen That is the route Julius Caeser took to power, championing the Plebs. I think he was a tribune first. Let me check
Oh boy… workarounds, detours, always leads you to adventure… LOL
+Max Huijgen He was a military tribune and not plebian tribune. He had the tribunes on his side. Still his politics in Rome was centered on pleasing plebs. I was just pulling the leg 🙂
I think the overall decrease in engagement is due to rising competition and noise. There is a huge influx of people into Google plus now. Early movers definitely have advantage
“We want to use it (G+) and we want to stay” Yes indeed we do but so many great suggestions in this wonderful post. Some extra +1’s from me for the following:
+1 Stop Fixing What Isn't Broken.
+1 One of the biggest obstacles to new people joining is that it looks like it is way more complicated than Facebook
+ 1 Let us choose how we see posts rather than some algorithm that doesn't make sense to us. c/c +M Sinclair Stevens
+1 Some of us don't ever want to see Caturday again
Thanks +Max Huijgen for sharing this post and thanks +Patrick Hoolahan and great to meet you
I agree. The experience is not getting better, it's worse. They brought in their algoritmic technician fun, but forgot it's no fun for the user. People want to choose for themselves what they like.
This is a great post! However, it confuses being on the SUL with having high engagement levels. They're very different things, and anyone can achieve high engagement levels without Google's help, if they know what to do.
I think some of the problems with G+ streams are related to the militant opposition to +1 share championed by many people. That led to a sharp drop in +1s which I think has affected the algorithms by decreasing organic feedback. +Max Huijgen
+Google+ Mockups
+Able Lawrence I can see the frustration of some people who see some rising in followers, but the same could be said of any social media platform where some were early adopters and rode those platforms to wider followings. There are some good points here in terms of improving the platform. The key thing for me is to tune the interface to allow for public posts not overwhelming the inboxes of more private circles, and to enable content channels for individual accounts.
+John Blossom The key to getting more followers is not just posting stuff, but engaging on other peoples posts. I had become somewhat busy some weeks ago and did not get much time to follow the streams but managed to keep posts going and my follower growth nearly ground to a stop. It has picked up again as I started engaging with others normally. Having said that, I have seen a distinctive drop in the number of +1s
+Max Huijgen Exactly! At some point in that rant I mention the Tribune of the Plebs. THAT is what I keep hoping the TCs will see themselves as/be. I know some took my post negatively, and I am sorry about that, but my real hope is that the TCs who read this are able to say "see, this great number of people ALSO see this problem. I am not only speaking for me, but I am speaking for them." Cicero, Pompeius and others were powerful, great leaders who were plebs. They have google's ear more than most of us (let's face it, if you have to sign an NDA, you know more than most of the rest of us) and it's not through nepotism, chicanery or anything else that was given to them. They worked with people, were respected for it and google rewarded them, yes? Awesome! I'm glad google had the brains to recognize their hard work enough to give them a kick ass party! But it makes them more than just a pleb, more like the pleb nobilis or novus homo of "risen and recognized" plebs.
Yes, I'm a dork who likes his Roman era references.
And Gaius Julius Caesar was no pleb, he was a patrician looking to fight the Optimates by harnessing the populist power of the plebs. See his works written in simple Latin as opposed to more ornate Latin like Cicero, his paying off the rents of all plebs in Rome, redistribution of wealth, etc. But he was no pleb. He went though the coursus honorum which meant he was, at varying times, a pontifex, aedile, legate, tribune, senator, and consul.
#googleplebs #plebswillbeheard and thank you for not only listening but passing on this as well 🙂
+Patrick Hoolahan I do agree that there is a lot of non-transparent hanky-panky that goes on. If you want an example, look no further than the Suggested User List for India. Nobody knows the rationale of some of the people there who have no credential other than being in that SUL. Some worthies even appeared first directly in SUL with a new account. It turned out that they were channel partners for G+ spending advertisement money in Google for their google plus hangouts and the like.
So another secret feature is the Sponsored Users May be we should change the full form of SUL as Sponsored Users List
+Able Lawrence I had not heard about that. Is there documentation of this, because I'd love to be able to post about it.
+Able Lawrence Good points. Basically social media works best when you're genuinely social. We can choose popular/inflammatory topics or content, but at the end of the day high engagement comes from more trusted relationships.
Agus +Eileen O'Duffy go raibh maith agat!
+Patrick Hoolahan I knew with a name like Patrick you have to have some Irish blood in you somewhere 😀
This gap may exist, but it seems irrelevant to those who get that numbers have little to do with quality content. And those who get this will always be few in number. There is in fact a group who disdain adding to posts that already have large numbers of +1s simply because they disdain any widely popular trend.
That said Max Huijgen, I read every word of this and found it helpful. I wonder if Google will ever realize who their real audience is in G+.
+Patrick Hoolahan Here are the three who were airdropped directly as verified users on the Sponsored User List
+Gursimran Khamba
+José Covaco
+Ramona Arena
Then there are people who only recently managed to get bail after being arrested for links to (cricket) match fixing. +Sree Santh
Viva la revolution. Storm the Bastille!
+Able Lawrence thank you for that, more areas to dig into.
+Paul Wooding that's not quite my intent, but others are free to do as they wish. I'm not looking to take over google, I'm just looking for better representation. This isn't revolution, this is petition for address of grievances.
Interesting qualms…. +Jonathan Langdale fyi.
A rebellion, not a revolution yet +Patrick Hoolahan +Paul Wooding For now those without trousers are only knocking on doors…
Although essentially a very true observation, reading it brings right back a memorable movie quote: "Help me help you."
But that's just me.
+Patrick Hoolahan Are you sure addressing the Top Contributors (TC's as you call them) makes sense? They play a large role on the Google support forums, but do they on G+?
I love this post +Max Huijgen & +Patrick Hoolahan but maybe I am too much of a cynic as I believe it is too little too late. The Big Plussers are already corrupted by the power they have. For them, G+ is a tool to market themselves and they couldn't give a rats about the community.
Try posting a photo when you're part of the Plebs and not in the circles of the Big Plussers. It can be the best photograph ever taken, and you will not get any response comment or +1 to it, even if you include a gazillion hashtags groups to make it visible.
Now if you made above the Plebs, you can post the most God-awful photo that's completely blown out, contains color noise from here to kingdom come and finished of with huge amount of motion blur and the ohhs, ahhs, wonderfuls, amazings and +1 will skyrocket the post all the way up.
Don't believe it? Been there, done that, seen it happen quite literally. The community is already sick and perverted, with the exception of some bright pockets of hope like +Max Huijgen and to be honest most of the people I see responding to this thread. It is more interested in the games held in the Colosseum than it is in together bettering the community for everyone.
+Max Huijgen It was a combination of desperation move (nowhere else to go), opportunity (I'd been seeing lots of posts for the big summit and if all kinds of people are gathered by google's invitation, it seemed like a good time) and decent people who would be sympathetic to these ideas that a lot feel about not being listened to by google. A lot of my questions were answered by people who responded to my post, both the OP and elsewhere.
I got more feedback in 24 hours after that post went up than 24 months of google help.
I would argue they do not play a large enough role in G+, but some of their ideas are listened to more often than a lot of us. Not all, but a greater chance, if that makes sense.
+Patrick Hoolahan Until I got drawn to your post by the infamous +Dieter Mueller,- guardian angel of smilies and HDR photography,- I wasn't even aware that we had Top Contributors in 'our ranks'.
Is that why you mentioned +Ayoub Khote and +John Skeats? Are they TC's?
They are TCs, in addition to being really great guys. I want to give a big thank you to Ayoub for posting this link: http://www.google.com/get/topcontributor/ explaining the Top Contributor program. He has corrected a lot of my misconceptions and mistakes so my next post will be more on point. So any credit for my improvements goes to him, any errors are still my own fault, however. He can only do so much 🙂
They are good guys who want the best google+ possible, all there is to it. They both engage well and are interesting to read, so circle them if you like their stuff.
+Patrick Hoolahan I don't think +Ayoub Khote posted this 😉
heh, I think multiple did and he was the last I saw. I see +Edward Morbius posted it as well.
Misunderstanding +Patrick Hoolahan You meant the link to that information I guess 😉
Yes, I did. sorry about that confusion
We needed a bit of Irish spirit. So good job +Patrick Hoolahan
and to you as well +Ellen Molenaar. you said in three lines what it took me paragraphs to say: "The experience is not getting better, it's worse. They brought in their algorithmic technician fun, but forgot it's no fun for the user. People want to choose for themselves what they like."
I'm so in love with you right now. Between the hidden and unstable hangouts, the loss of what I want in my stream, and switch to a basic, crap photo editor I'm rarely on G+ anymore.
I'm not a bigwig or a suggested user, but I was a major cheerleader for G+. I've been quoted in mainstream media articles singing G+'s praises. I've had several posts hit What's Hot.
Not so much anymore. Each time I log on, I sigh and wonder what thing won't work so well this week. And then I just log out.
To be clear +Cara Schulz, with whom are you in love? 😉
I genuinely think it's sad when I hear stories like yours. There are still a lot of great things in gogole+, but they get lost in the changes that don't work and the fear we now have about what's going to fail next. You are the user google should be trying to make as happy as possible, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
+Max Huijgen Google is continuing trying to address systemic issues with one-off/manual solutions… "helpers", "top contributors", etc. etc. … it all doesn't matter: NOTHING can in the long run stand up to the logic of the machine scale.
Choosing what is in our streams reminds me of the earlier G+ times, when Sparks was around.
Sparks allowed me to choose topics that interested me.
Yes, I know that we can save topics that we search for, but with Sparks, it was like having a social Google Reader. I was able to see posts and news articles. That was a cool feature.
Most didn't use it, but it could've been handled better than burying it into search.
I see it more as a Pyramid Scheme. The earlier you get in, the more followers you attract, those followers attract more … eventually the only thing you need to do is post a picture of the grilled-cheese sandwich you are eating for lunch and you are +1'd and commented all the way to the Hot List.
+Mathew Hanley
Thank you +Dirk Talamasca !
Urgh glad I'm not the only one!!
+John Fanavans I'm curious, other than time here, what makes you call yourself a patrician? I started here in August of 2011, still in the invite days. I know others who have been around longer and consider themselves plebs. I'm curious since no one has claimed that title and I'm genuinely curious.
+John Fanavans ouch, Google is in real trouble with G+ when even someone such as yourself doesn't want to lend cover to the illusion anymore…
Another example: Take +John Blossom's stream (NOT to pick on him, but merely to point out the flaw in the entire "engagement" logic since he mentioned it):
For many of his recent posts, one glance will show that he's having a hard time breaking out of the 1 in 10,000 "engagement action" rate. That's with nearly 90,000 followers, at least some sort of Google blessing by way of the vaunted "vanity URL" (on other services simply known as the username / profile link…), and talking about largely "Google positive" topics.
By that logic, someone with less than 10k followers has a 50/50 or less chance of even getting ONE solitary +1 on their posts… THAT is why G+ comes across as empty.
So why/how would we have reached this state of affairs? Because the SUL began to gravely distort the natural attention flows as early as late Fall 2011. So even though John (admirably in many ways) managed to drum up 90k followers, there are those with anywhere from 1 to nearly 2 orders of magnitude more followers, and the attendant Power Law Effect "tools" within G+ to drown out nearly everything else.
And given that these effects have been in place for 2 years, they have led to regular users dropping G+ again after mostly short trials. All of this without even getting into any of the other substantial UI/UX/usability/policy issues, which have played their parts as well…
Joe Walsh – Life Of Illusion
Best post I've read for a long time.
I feel that G+ is still struggling to compete with FB, and to an extent the other social networks. People still don't "get" G+, and in order to compete, it appears that G+ wants to become more FB-like, and needs to do things to attract FB users …. which brings the FB mentality of likes and number of friends being the dominant factor.
G+ itself is playing the numbers game and wants to measure its success by it number of followers (I don't agree with Google's recent release of user numbers) . But as most of us know, numbers is just an ego massage, and does not relate to the real point of a social network, which is all in the engagement.
I just don’t get the obsession with numbers, it’s not part of my culture, it’s not what I grew up with. C’mon two people conversing, listening and responding and having a conversation is worth way more than 2,000 sheep and their +1’s #Lemmings
+Alex Schleber You use the wrong math as +John Blossom is on the SUL or something like that since April 2013. His organic growth got him to about 22.000 so real engagement figures should be recalculated to that level.
I feel there is a confusion about the number game due to +Patrick Hoolahan addressing TC's who don't necessarily have high follower counts (or do they?)
Engagement is indeed key, non-organic followers' are completely meaningless.
Yes, if you want a sponsor deal it will help if you have a million + followers and are willing to annoy your readers with a sudden lust for Motorola phones (a famous 'G+ artist) or the qualities of Samsung photos (a very talented blogger…)
Real transactions, f.i. driving people to events is harder, but yes, it can be monetized in some cases. However this is restricted to a very limited set of people with a clear-cut, easy to monetize profile (f.i. some photographers).
All the other people with 100K and more followers are either successful in real life so their posts are done by their team or they struggle and suffer just like the little guys.
Yes, if you have 500.000 followers you will get more plusses and comments but the quality is low and no real discussion is ever triggered. Case in point is the exception to the rule +Robert Scoble He has tons of followers and drives real conversations, BUT he still complains that he has more interaction on FB with a lot less followers than on G+
+Eileen O'Duffy +John Fanavans
…if all the above is true…then G+ is a reflection of real life…
Sure +John Fanavans building up reputation is the answer to marketing through internet. It's still a number's game, but then it's about topical reputation and indirect follower count (f.i. I have 'only' 50K followers, but if I would have high reach in one specific topic and high engagement as well it could be used for marketing).
Not relevant for my profile as I'm not a single issue poster, but there are some examples on G+
Off-topic here, but this just as an aside.
Yes, numbers are used as a carrot on G+. What I noticed is that Google diversified from the Suggested User List – winner takes all – strategy to other ways to plug people.
The so-called hockey-stick which +CircleCount mapped showed people with low to medium sized follower circles who suddenly got a huge growth spurt.
I just assume this is done to counter all the arguments of the 'plebs' by showing them you can get rich quickly. Not unlike capitalism needs its 'overnight millionaire stories' as a carrot.
Does that make sense?
+Patrick Hoolahan +Eileen O'Duffy +Able Lawrence +John Fanavans +Alex Schleber?
Yeah, that was my fault in the writing, I conflated two issues that are not linked. There are TCs who do not have big numbers, and some who have pointed out they have fewer in circles than I do (I'm under 300). And +John Fanavans yeah, I can see that as being a patrician. I really do need to write the next post on this and clear up a few things. I am not here for the numbers and honestly, I don't have a desire to be a TC either. I just want a good platform for socializing online without too many hangups and pitfalls. This was advertised as being more user driven than facebook, so here I am. I like the engagement and I LOVE the hangouts. . .when they both work. Now I can't see hangouts like I used to, people don't see my posts and I can't control my stream.
and yes, that makes perfect sense. I've been told more than once that I could be all kinds of things if I "just put the work in". . .which resembled a sales pitch from amway I once heard when I was a kid.
Given some of the things being discussed, you would think G+ would be designed in a way favourable to the top posters, and this isn't true either!
For example:
(1) G+ makes it nearly impossible to see more than 50 of the people who engaged with your post;
(2) G+ makes it nearly impossible to see who your new followers are if you get moderately large numbers of new followers every day (say, more than 100); and
(3) G+ makes it too easy to do crazy things that top posters wouldn't want to do, such as: deleting a very successful post; changing your name irreversibly to something ridiculous; or deleting your whole G+ profile.
You can get around (1) and (2) to some extent by using Circloscope, but this shouldn't be necessary.
This problem is getting worse rather than better. You used to be able to see the first 100 people to +1 your post.
Well said +Patrick Hoolahan and my friend we are 100% in agreement. Thanks +Max Huijgen for sharing this
Add that after a few months Google stopped giving you access to more than about 10K of your own followers +Richard Green
I would like to know who they are, where they are based, what gender they are etc, but that's prohibited.
+Max Huijgen doesn't matter, he HAS the followers counted on his profile, doesn't he?!
If we're saying that the vast majority of people nowadays signed up through the SUL (= newly onboarded users!) are never to return, or engage the limited number of people they originally picked at onboarding then things are even worse than thought…
Followers added "organically" in say 2011-12 also have massive departure rates, so in the end it doesn't matter where they came from, bottom line: Engagement rates are actually terrible for the vast majority.
Yes, I remember you saying that when it happened, +Max Huijgen, and it doesn't make sense to me either. Why is Google throwing millions of followers at certain people if they have these policies?
Also, there will come a point, if G+ is successful, where posts often get over 10,000 +1s. When this happens, the 500 comment limit will become annoying to a lot of people.
Overall engagement and activity seems lower than say one year ago +Alex Schleber but that could all be subjective and in my circles. It feels more dead than a year ago.
Just checked my +CircleCount engagement numbers and they are still improving so I could be wrong.
63 engages (+1's, comments, shares together) per post over the last 50 posts versus 45 overall (so that's averaged over an constantly increasing audience).
True +John Fanavans I was just pondering over +Richard Green's comments and my conclusion that the limitations he mentions are part of the very number game Google seems to like.
Why would 'we' need access to our followers, the people who share or plus it, if the model is meant to fit the 'one to many' post system where 'celebs' post some amazing holiday shot and the pleps plusses and comments 'wow, great shot, would like to bet there, etc).
A system focused on low quality engagement resembling a typical broadcast model.
+John Fanavans, that depends what you mean by “favour”. The people on the SUL aren't getting anything that I've noticed other than large numbers of followers. This doesn't translate into better engagement as far as I've noticed.
I think the reason “big graphic heavy link posts with minimal original content” do well is because people like them, not because Google is pushing these posts. This may, however, be evidence that the average G+ user has no taste. It would be great if long textual posts habitually did well, but they usually don't unless they have a picture.
Google has never done anything unusually nice for me that I've noticed, and yet my last eighteen consecutive public posts have over 100 plus ones. Getting this to happen is just a matter of building the right audience, which anyone can do, although it's a lot of work.
Max as you know, like you I am fascinated with the numbers. The thing that troubles me is that the trend on G+ isnt to maximize good content but by virtue of algorithmic implementation inadvertently forcing / reinforcing people to share more sarcastic greeting cards and animated pictures of cats.
Neither of which I am real inclined to do 🙂
Yes engagement is lower. Which has had the effect of me not wanting to write as much or just wordpress my posts as I am not limited nor impacted by the statistical relevance of my work that way.
It seems shy of the SUL or being on the good side of the algorithm the only way to get more followers is to be scantly clad. (that one always seems to work) and as with the animated cats, not the sort of thing I am real in favor of 🙂
+John Fanavans it depends on what numbers you are looking at. The statistics of those that have been on since inception or those that are added in the last nine months. From an analysis perspective there is a direct measurable and graphable result that does indeed show a dramatic downward trend.
The newness wore off and those that worked it hard got tired of the never ending changes
I'm not a 100% sure being scantily glad would help you +David Bowden but surprise us 😉
At the moment I'm extremely happy that I never got hit by either the SUL or the hockey-stick plug by Google.
Having only 'home-grown, truly organic' readers means I'm still getting some real engagement which I personally measure by comments and quality of discussions.
+Max Huijgen Im the same (you knew that) and no… I wont be showing off for followers 🙂
I, like you prefer the good solid engagement (like this post and thread) as opposed to the other mass appeal. I just wish that peoples work was recognized and perhaps shared a bit more broadly based on metrics other than volume and reach of the individual posting it.
Right now….
Thomas Hawk could post a picture of a paper clip and 1200 people would comment it was the single most moving photo of their life.
All while a story told by a teen whose parents committed suicide after they foreclosed on their home and lost everything when the US markets essentially collapsed is all but unheard.
Any system that endorses one aspect of content inversely over another needs some additional work.
IMHO
And I think we've all hit a problem on the head: engagement versus numbers. It's hard to tell which google favors or makes easier to happen. No, wait, it's numbers. Hangouts are all about engagement and they're hard to find. Circle shares get you people, and they're everywhere. Getting on the what's hot list is a mathematical algorithm, not based on quality of feedback since there is no measure for that.
In the beginning, it at least FELT like they were aiming for both, knowing that from authentic sharing comes bigger numbers, but that's gone by the way side as the numbers here overall have gotten bigger.
The key, in my view, is to post interesting things even if they don't get as much engagement as cat gifs would. I really like how +Max Huijgen posts about international diplomacy and gets engagement on the posts. If more people did that sort of thing, it would raise the tone of the whole network.
It is not sufficient to post interesting things. +Max Huijgen has a reputation and he has a smart system of notification. If others try the same thing they will get kicked. I would say he has already found his audience. So have you +Richard Green
Yay Number 5 especially!
That's true, +Able Lawrence. I didn't mean to suggest that posting interesting things is sufficient, just that it is important.
When I was first on G+, I thought that if I posted interesting things, people would read them, but it doesn't work like that.
+Richard Green Very true! People will come and look at your post only when you engage with others. Having said that engagement measured through +1s and comments are not everything. How many people read (time spent on a post), how many click on "read more" and how many click on the "inline" and the main "anchor" links are probably more true indicators of engagement. The more well known parameters only measure conscious, expressed engagement. Then of course we have no idea how many people have actually see and failed to engage
+Max Huijgen Yes, I’ve been following the numbers games and the hockey sticks where seemingly ‘unknown’ people get plugged To be honest at this stage when I see a profile with a vast number of followers I assume the person is just posting photoshopped rubbish and cats and motivational postcards all day. I hadn’t realised that people make a living by selling and placing ads among all the rubbish. Interesting article here on how the Facebook scammers work and I presume this is happening on G+ too. The difference is that when Facebook/Twitter spot an ‘unknown’ with a ridiculous number of followers, they investigate and often remove the account, whereas G+ seem to verify them or put them on the SUL http://petapixel.com/2013/04/24/like-farmers-profiting-by-hosting-stolen-photos-on-facebook/?utm_source=feedly
+John Fanavans +Max Huijgen +Richard Green I dont usually post or share the memes, but when I do occasionally, they get more +1s than the lengthy posts. So this has more to do with the nature of people than any particular favor by Google.
Google has a patent for ranking news items based on the length of original content. They compare it to all available content on the web and rank more original (and longer) posts higher. If they implement this on G+, it can correct the imbalance in favor of the stupid memes. +Yonatan Zunger
+Patrick Hoolahan +Max Huijgen
In the early days of Google plus, there was less quality content and one could appreciate and engage with all the good ones and consequently the good ones got rewarded. Now when I look at my stream, there is so much stuff going on, one has to pick and choose from among good ones. Since I don't follow very many "memesters", I dont have the problem of memes clogging my stream.
I think the solution is perhaps google putting some analytical tools in the hands of the users to help understand what is really happening. Also I would to have some tools for seeing who all are following me and being able to check on the good stuff from them without actually following them
+John Fanavans I miss the incoming stream. When I had less followers, I used to add every one who followed me in a separate Followers circle. But with 50K followers, that is impossible even if I wanted to. If only there was a way to analyze your followers, it would have helped
Yes, +Max Huijgen, I didn't reshare this post. +Patrick Hoolahan understands why 🙂
I didn't expect you to +Ayoub Khote
I did go through the posts of +Ayoub Khote and it was clear as daylight. 🙂
I don't see myself or anyone else on G+ as a Pleb or a member of the Senate or anything else. This isn't a government, it's entirely volunteer and we pick and choose with whom we want to communicate. From the Get-Go what Google does or does not do has had absolutely no impact on the way I participate here, just like in my outside life I have my own value system and move through life with that.
Honestly, I think that suggesting there is such a thing as Those Favored and Those Not Favored is unwise. The numbers…all of it…is irrelevant when it comes to how Users feel about themselves and how they communicate with one another. That is all that matters. That is all that has ever mattered.
Well said +Giselle Minoli!
+Giselle Minoli I think having expectations of any kind is setting you up for disappointment. Ask not what Google should do for you, ask what you can do to make interesting for yourself and others
When I joined Google plus at the very beginning, the only person on Google plus I knew was +John Blossom (from Wave), I plugged away for nearly two years before I got some thing happening on my profile. Through ups and downs, I have been doing what I liked, for my own happiness. Since I did not find the existing communities to my exact liking, I created some in my likeness and toiled away growing them. While I can do with some more tools from Google directly, I am happy with what I have got. I must say, the best thing that has happened to Google plus (for those looking for specific kind of stuff) are tools like +NOD3x
+Able Lawrence I completely agree. If you want to be a sculptor and don't have a clay or a sculpting studio or a wheel, you have to get a shovel and head for the red hills and fashion what you will. Chances are your sculpture will be much more interesting than those with traditional materials. The truth is that no matter what Google does people will find fault with it. Every needs to learn to become not just a good, but a great, scratch cook.
+Giselle Minoli the ultimate test of G+ for me is: do interesting authors get the audience they deserve.
And if positive about the past: is it still true for new members of the G+ community?
That's what the plebs question is about. Is good content sufficiently discoverable on the current G+.
I fully agree that we make our own worlds and I for one have never needed Google to support me, promote me or whatever, but I do use the mechanisms Google provides. Are they sufficient or is there talent undiscovered on G+?
+Giselle Minoli Unwise? Not inaccurate, not incorrect but unwise? It seems an odd word choice.
I would disagree that Google has had no impact; see the number of people who are complaining about the algorithm not showing them the posts or people they want. I'm glad you don't feel that way, I really am. I wish I didn't feel this way. I wish the hundreds of people who have commented and reshared didn't feel this way, but there is a feeling out there. I'm sorry it's there, but it is to me very clearly out there. Heck, there's someone who proudly called himself a patrician in comparison to my pleb (and he made a really good argument for it, by the by). This is not a government, but it is a society, is the thing. This isn't just a technological wonder sitting alone, this is a lot of people operating and interacting, and from that comes some sense of society, which is affected by the decisions google choose to make, whether to act or not on some things.
We both agree the feelings of the users here are the most important thing. And yes, people shouldn't compare experiences here since that would be like comparing houses, children or jobs. Yet we do those, too. Some people feel this very strongly; there are a few threads like this one going where lots of people are seeing the same things. There are people who feel it a whole lot stronger than I do.
And, yes, while I am here using this product, I WILL ask Google for things. I will ask the manufacturer of the product I use to make it better if I think it can be made better. If they are not open to this, they can get rid of the feedback button. They can get rid of the google+ help forums. They get rid of encouraging people to take their own time to volunteer and help people out who are having troubles here. I think even Google wants a better product here, and so I will ask for better.
Although, keeping being told to shut up and love it is making me want to leave it more. It keeps seeming there are people hellbent on making sure I know I will never get what I want from google and I should shut the hell up about it if I know what's best for me.
+Patrick Hoolahan "Unwise" was an intentional word choice. Unwise because there is so much good in spite of whatever "criticisms" there might be and they hardly if ever get discussed. We can individually and/or collectively yammer on about everything that is wrong, or we can spend our time communicating with one another. I think in many ways you are rather seriously misreading me. I have been quite critical of G+ myself about many things, but it has never stopped me from doing my thing. I have never told anyone to love it or leave it. I am simply pointing out that five years from now the conversation will be the same. Just about different things. In the meanwhile each and everyone of us can do our thing.
I think we're misreading each other. I haven't stopped so far (see my history, I post a fair amount, and not just on this), but I might and that's another part of my point. If I keep google doesn't want me around, then I won't be around. If keep feeling google is making my interacting with people harder, then I will leave. In that way, the conversation won't be the same since I won't be here.
And I'm not necessarily asking you for anything. You don't want to care? Don't have to. Don't see it the way I do? Fantastic. Want to call my problems "criticisms" with quotes around it rather than just criticisms? Feel free. You want to ignore me? Pretty easy, I'm not even tagging you in. There are other people discussing these problems and some who are hung up on word choice. There's no clear divide on it.
But there have been people who have told me if I'm not happy to leave. People who should know or be saying better.
+Max Huijgen For what it's worth No, authors do not get that attention, but let me give you another take on why I think that is. Google is essentially a tech company. All of the people who work within it are rooted in that mindset. It is not a company that was started by writers. Or poets. Or painters. Or dancers. Or fine artists. Or journalists. Or any other kind of wordsmith. The reason authors don't get that attention is because from the ground up it was never important to those at Google.
That mindset, however, has nothing to do with me and the intent and intention I bring to my own work. Every writer fights an uphill battle, whether it is on G+ or anywhere else. We now live in a technological world and most people see the world through their devices. As a woman writer it is far worse. 70% (by many accounts) of what is published is written by men. 8% of public art is made by women. Only 20 women CEOs in major US companies. You know the drill.
Though the stats are the stats, they are not static, unless we allow them to be. The type of conversation we have with one another matters. And instinctively I believe that there is untold power in writing more and better quality posts and being supportive of one another and changing the numbers in that way.
Perhaps because as a woman everything is an uphill battle to one degree or another, leaving because of the shortcomings has never occurred to me. I just sharpen my strop.
One thing this thread points out to me is that people are pretty passionate about the G+ platform. I mean – if it is so flawed , why not leave? Perhaps because no other social platform provides as much value?
; +Rubin Dhillon
+Rubin Dhillon You have hit it on the head. If I really hated all of this, I wouldn't give a damn. If I didn't see potential for the greatest social network on the internet, it would be easier to give it all up. But I like the people here, I like the interacting and I like many aspects of the platform. There some things I'd like to see be different.
+Giselle Minoli sharpen the knife, you get better results smirk
The other thing I would say is that Google DOES seem to be listening. Many of the changes they make are obviously a direct attempt to improve the platform (as apposed to that other Social Platform where changes are blatantly an attempt at boosting advertising dollars, often at the expense of security/usability). Communities for example – great addition. (Although so many people complained with that introduction)
I often question the priority of the changes Google might make – I mean how many times did they change the design of the +1 button and yet we still do not have a proper WYSIWYG editor for posts/comments?
Crack me up +Patrick Hoolahan. A strop is to a good shave what a knife sharpener is to a well-boned Branzino. I like a skinless piece of fish, but prefer an intact and smooth skin on a man's face!
I see you +Eileen O'Duffy and +Ayoub Khote. And a tip-o-my hat to both of you way over there on the other side of the Planet.
+Giselle Minoli Hello there, I was just waiting to see were people sharpening their knives 😀 I have a six pack of beer on ice and will be around in no time if I’m needed!
LOL +Eileen O'Duffy I seem to have ventured out without my chain mail on. Actually, I'm rather tired of having to wear it. Makes it difficult to feel and properly enjoy the lovely Fall breezes here. You can't imagine how beautiful the day is. I suppose in fact you can…surrounded as you are by your own beautiful landscape.
I hear many familiar voices from this oft-discussed topic on both threads but the discussion is split; therefore, I'll cross-post the comment I left on the original post here.
After two years of heavy involvement the UI discussion, I have no more to add. The last big change (was it in June 2013), so broke the system that I rarely post here anymore and only occasionally comment.
Forcing a social layer onto apps that were once useful (like Search and Maps) has broken those products as well. I'm in the market now for good standalone apps. No integration. No socialization. Just tools that do a specific concret task simply and well.
+M Sinclair Stevens – maybe you are touching on a different subject? I see the integration of Google Applications as a very good and powerful thing. The fact that G+ is the fabric that ties it all together is fantastic.
+Rubin Dhillon Not every tool needs a social layer. If I want to be social, I'll use social media. If I want to check the route between here and the pizza place, I don't need to. It's a complication and distraction.
Google Maps worked great for years without needing to access my Address Book or other personal information. (For example, via +Dieter Mueller https://plus.google.com/u/0/110168665701189567035/posts/Fm32zP6ob2f).
Google Search is really broken. It never worked well on Google Plus and now its filtered results outside Google Plus keep you in your filter bubble. (For example, via +Eileen O'Duffy https://plus.google.com/u/0/113873289443253295484/posts/haj4HCCYZ3Z).
GooglePlus rendered my personal Gmail account unusable. And because I was very exploratory in the beginning of my Google Plus experience, I circled many people to check out their content. (GooglePlus took away the Incoming Stream that let me check out content before circling someone), Google's algorithms were unable to distinguish between people I followed out of curiosity to get to know better and people I really cared about. It then used it's misunderstanding of my relationships to pervert my search results.
In response, I am much less likely to circle anyone and try to get to know them and I deleted 9/10 of the relationships I have.
If integration works for you, great. But don't assume it works for everyone. A product that serves the user would provide the choice. Then both of us could be happy. The product would adapt to us rather than forcing us to adapt to it. Just like in the golden age of the 20th century.
If the product doesn't provide the choice, then the only choice is to continue using it and be unhappy or to stop using it. To a large extent, I've stopped using Google Plus, Gmail, Google Search, and Google Maps (on my phone) and found alternatives.
As usual – to each their own. I love the fact that if I search for the location of that "pizza place", I might discover that other people in my circles actually recommend a different pizza joint nearby. Then, while using GMaps, I can see that there is a speed-trap or accident on the way to the new pizza joint (because of the Waze SOCIAL integration) and so I should just go to the regular old Pizza place after all.
I guess you make it what it is. I have circled some interesting and smart people here on G+ and the fact that I can see their comments/recommendations etc when I perform a Google Search just makes it more useful TO ME. (and if you don't find it useful – isn't there a way to opt out?)
+Rubin Dhillon You assume that the people in my contact book have the same tastes as I do. You assume, as Google's algorithm does, that everyone of my contacts is a friend. I should try out a pizza place because my plumber likes it? Or my ex's divorce lawyer?
I actually use Google Places and write reviews for it too. I prefer to use Google Plus to find people who share interests and then develop relationships with them. That's how Google Plus started out. Now Google Plus takes any relationship I have, and assume that all my contacts have the same shared interests.
The original coolness of GooglePlus was that my friends weren't here. It was the place to get out of the filter bubble and meet new people based on shared interest. It was the alternative to Facebook.
I opt out every way I can. Sometimes, that means I opt out of using the product altogether. When I got my first iPhone in 2008, Google Maps was one of my favorite apps. When I got my new iPhone a couple a weeks ago, I didn't even load it. I use Apple's version which is inferior to the 2008 version of Google Maps but preferable to the 2013 version of Google Maps.
If, like on desktop applications, I could choose an older version and not upgrade, I'd happily use the old Google Maps. These days, users have new versions thrust upon them.
I think it's unfortunate that there isn't any discussion about what we are all doing here from a more spiritual point of view. I certainly don't mean religious and I most certainly don't mean the crystal-gazing kind of spirituality. I mean what we are all doing here aside from, despite, in spite of, whatever problems haven't been solved, whatever new ones are being created, however ignored, marginalized, dismissed, disenfranchised, disrespected and disregarded any given person of any given profession may feel at any given time.
It's a shame because to me, writing purely from an artistic point of view, these issues may or may not be solved but they will surely be replaced with others anew. And yet, we are still left to build, create, contribute and forge ahead. Maybe I'm just an architect/engineer's daughter…I'm used to building something out of nothing.
But it also reminds me of a conversation I had last week with a fellow pilot (a man) who had given it up because it had become too difficult what with all the FAA regulations and whatnot going on. I asked him why he learned to fly in the first place and he said that it was because it is so awesome. I replied that it is still awesome, buried though it may be under all the rules and regulations.
On the one hand I thought it would be sad if every old timer pilot like him stopped flying and the skies were empty. On the other hand, I thought I'm glad they are not because if someone is unable to see how magical it is danger lurks there.
Here, on this platform, there are energies we can't see. There are visions and paths being cut we can't fathom. I have my issues that I would like solved. But I'm still responsible for the "way I be here." That is all I am saying.
+M Sinclair Stevens Just a quick aside on Google Maps, yes, the new version is almost useless, particularly in Ireland where so many restaurants and pubs keep closing and changing names and no way to help me with directions. A friend of mine specifically carries around an old Smartphone with the older version of Google Maps and other Apps. I too would like to roll back Google Search to 2011 or so. Yes, I have enjoyed integration, particularly the convenience of gmail and G+ between Android and desktop but this new ‘Social’ invasion is a bit haywire at the moment and I’m hoping it will sort itself out. #AntisocialMedia
+Giselle Minoli I’m really very happy here on G+ and totally chilled. I just do my own thing, choose my own followers, my own communities and ignore all the suggestions that I don’t want to look at:-) I liked Patrick's post because it has some very good constructive criticism and I particularly liked his point that Google keep fixing things that are not broken. None of us mind change but it is really frustrating when so many good things about G+ that were working very well get messed up, and I won’t mention Mr Jingles 😀
I'm just sorry I missed so many of these comments over the day.
+Giselle Minoli Definitely familiar with a strop, but I usually use it to sharpen other things 🙂 I also enjoy a really nice shave and every so often I even pay for a straight razor shave done by someone who knows what they're doing. A great feeling! To the main, I think there needs to be a discussion and decisions made about what each person wants and what each person wants from google+ and what google+ can do to not interfere with that. I'm finding it harder to interact with people authentically, find hangouts and I get shown things I don't want and have no control of my stream. Unless I want only 3 people.
Obviously, I still write things, I still share and I still interact. I still like it here for now, but I've come to dread new updates, because they bring new problems. They rarely bring new features that I love. And they're never explained. If there's a problem, google help tells me they passed it on to the team, but that feels like "your call is important to us, please stay on the line." It just feels like they care about some things over others and give more attention for anything but well written posts. The attention this post has gotten is from the users, not from algorithms or google. That's the way it should be, really. I like interacting with people and I like controlling my experience. Mostly, like Eileen said above, I want things to work well. Hangouts used to work, now they don't. I've gotten used to the notifications, so that's a neutral change. Maybe it fixed problems, maybe it didn't, I don't know. There are rumors of hangouts adding SMS and texting and google voice. . .when they're already buggy, keep dropping people and people don't see the invites. Again maybe there's a serious problems being fixed with those, but it feels more like adding a new car stereo and leather bucket seats to a car with a rough transmission and squeaky brakes.
I just want the basics to work before expanding outward. Not my call however, but I can at least try to speak to the problems that mentality causes. And I can, with this big post, at least try to ask for help.
I wonder . . . if the reason things are getting confusing is that Googlers themselves have their own Google+ (did you know that?) And so they are interested in different things than, say, a writer and a teacher might be. They also tend to be almost all very young. They are used to a whole lot of
shakingchanging going on. I get a sense of, "This is cool, let's try it!" Rather than how I feel about Google+, "What an extraordinarily marvelous invention for having conversations with extraordinary people?" That part of it (talking a lot) is probably so part of their lives that it's not "the main thing." Poor +Giselle Minoli has been asking so nicely and without sharp knives anywhere to PULLLEEEESE give us more writerly tools. But if you're not a writer, well? You don't care, nothing personal. And the great paradox is that what we are ALL doing here is writing.. . .I did not know that. Any documentation for that +Meg Tufano? The problem is, we don't know what's going on at Mountain View and we don't know how they make decisions or any of that. Honestly, I'm just looking for a sense we have input and to get a little output. That is it. I want google+ to work for the most of us, not just in few ways with one path to engagement. I also don't want to live in fear of updates like I do now.
As far as I know Google uses (or used) G+ internally like +Meg Tufano says +Patrick Hoolahan At least that's how they kickstarted G+ by getting their employees to use it as a company wide communication system.
I meant in the sense of having their own google+ separate from ours.
If it's true they don't use the same system we use, then it's a "eating your own dog food" problem.
+Patrick Hoolahan Personal communication with a Google VP at a public function (I am nobody with any connections to anything but a lot of oak trees). The man was shocked at what some of these "kids" were posting (would YOU post a picture of your wife drunk to your co-workers and BOSSES?). He himself did not have time for this nonsense (G+). ;') He had too much work to do and a real job (running Google). I have had some Googlers respond to my posts here so they are not forced to stay on their own G+ apparently. But I did have one very intelligent G+ interlocutor who emailed me about a year ago that he could no longer stay on the public G+ because speaking his mind here was getting him into G+twubble.
+Patrick Hoolahan +Meg Tufano again as far as I know the G+ internal system is just controlled by the same circle management system we have available.
It's just set to 'Google internal' and no public share.
More than tangentially related is +Peter Strempel's post over here Google doesn't love you https://plus.google.com/u/1/110695872689494369839/posts/Y6CqKDo3vdN
Ok cool, good to know about the internal google+.
I read that post earlier, and while I agree with some of it, the vitriol is a lot for even me. It is true Google doesn't love us, but we are product to them, like livestock, and even livestock get treated well based on their value. I'm not looking for altruism, I'm looking for just a couple of things.
Oh my, if anyone really ever thought that Google cares about them, and they are living in a kind of blissful levitation fantasy that there will be some sort of marriage (and a ring!), could I please have a shot of whatever they are drinking (+Peter Strempel I suspect it isn't bourbon, but you never know)…or…um…smoking?
Not to partake, of course, but to package and sell. It's tough to make a living these days.
I've never been stoned enough to think Google gives a rip about me, +Giselle Minoli . There just isn't enough catnip on Earth.
+Giselle Minoli ;') to your last comment. Love it!
+Meg Tufano I actually have always found it liberating to know that I am not cared about. It makes everything easier and less confused. That fact is exactly what gives me the freedom to do my thing.
Wow, this whole conversation (and yes i read it all) reminds me of LiveJournal after it got sold to SixApart.
I'm hoping to avoid that fate. Google still owns this, and always will. As far as I know, the same staff that built it and were here two years ago are still here. I think this place can get better without getting worse.
+Patrick Hoolahan +Max Huijgen since Max was probing my "engagement math" example somewhat further up, I today spent about the last 30 minutes looking at "People / Discover" again after a long absence.
Looks like they did open up the lists quite a bit, however for the most part the engagement levels out of these "SUL 2.0" placements are even WORSE than I thought. I said above that some were flirting with 1 action per 10,000 (0.01%) rates, but there are plenty of examples of 1 per 100,000 (0.001%) rates!
Which is just wild to me… say you have 600,000 "followers" and get 6 +1s… where do you go from there…?
I've been working on an in-depth post on the brokenness of the "Follow" metaphor in Social Media in general, prompted by the revelation last week in Twitter's IPO filing that they are still losing $69M on income of $253M in the first half of 2013, despite rapidly ramping up their ad income to about Facebook levels (ARPU of $5 = revenue per user per year).
Think of the endless computing resources and continuous engineering effort required to make the entire Follow metaphor/model work, including here on G+. Somewhere Google/G+ had to register/store 600k follows on an account, so that that account then can have a few as 6 +1 clicks on a post by it. It boggles the mind…
Unlimited Follow/Circles is NOT long-term sustainable. And for what? Most people are ultimately unhappy with their streams anyway ("too noisy", "overload", etc. etc.).
They also make a lot of money data mining. I think they can find the spare change for more storage and bandwidth. Let's not kid ourselves, Google is not a small little start up. They're a giant and can do a lot of things.
+Patrick Hoolahan sure, however 1) Twitter is overall seeing more throughput than G+, and it is in essence costing them ~ $400M/year to run in its current state.
G+ might well cost upward of that given the extra need for larger photo storage and bandwidth, asf. If it were more successful, and all of those 1B signed-up users actually used it instead of just 20% or so of them, the cost could go up much further.
2) Google doesn't show ads on G+, so there is no direct monetization, even though there is presumably some sort of follow-on effect for the Google Ad ecosystem.
But let's be clear: Google did G+ because they decided that they just had to have some sort of "Social signal" of their own. Let's talk to MSFT how they've fared with similar "Great White Whale" obsessions…
3) In the end, my argument was merely that as a straight-forward money proposition, it may well turn out that Social Media using the (unlimited) Follow metaphor and all of the exponential complexity that it brings is just not worth it…?
+Alex Schleber I think you are missing the point if you are saying that the only point of being on Google+ is to get engagement numbers. If I can find one person with similar wavelength to me to whom I can relate, that has been well worth the effort. If your only purpose for posting is to get so many +1s then the easiest way to do that is to post memes, or sexy pictures. For me, the primary end is to find people who share my interests. Therefore I share what I like, and if people like them, it is very good. If not, I dont care. Ultimately it is about finding that half a dozen to a dozen people who share your enthusiasm for something unique. The other side of the story is that, if your tastes are such that the probability of finding such people is one in 10,000 then you need a million people to find that unique relationship.
On the other hand, if you are seeking validation based on the number of people who +1 or reshare your post, and that is your primary goal to the exclusion of others, there is some lurking insecurity.
You are entirely correct +Able Lawrence however, a bit of feedback at times would be nice as well. People are not posting to see themselves talk afterall. If you belong to the bottom Plebs like I do, you're pretty much guaranteed to get no feedback, ever, regardless of what you post. So while you shouldn't be posting to seek validation, getting feedback in the form of +1's and comments does keep up the motivation to keep posting.
+Gijs van Dijk I am objecting to the tendency to use the engagement numbers as the sole criterion for measurement. Different categories of posts elicit different levels of engagement. If I write a post on Higgs boson or some new hypothesis regarding how the physical laws came about, I should not expect it large numbers of followers. Controversial posts are likely to get more comments. If some one has made a post to which nothing can be added, those reading it may not write a comment. f course it is nice to get feedback. But if you are an author and base your decisions solely on the basis of engagement figures, you will be on a race to the bottom. It has nothing to do with Google, but on the general taste of the masses I can show you several profiles that post nothing but girls pictures (that too tasteless) and get huge levels of engagement. There are also lots of comments on these posts although invariably of the crass kind
+Gijs van Dijk Look at the following profiles
+Priyanka Nath
+Aasita Khan
Then there are the mystery profiles that have never posted anything ever publicly but have 33K followers! such as this one. If you go through India list on CircleCount you can find many
+neha fransis
+Able Lawrence thanks so much for mentioning us.
+Max Huijgen +Eileen O'Duffy +Giselle Minoli +Gijs van Dijk +Alex Schleber +Patrick Hoolahan
Our opinion is, everyone uses G+ for a variety of different reasons: engagement, having a soap box, fed up of other platforms etc etc etc
For many of us, we won't reach the equivalent of celebrity status – in fact many don't even want that, although because the content that they post is so thought provoking it attracts masses of eyeballs – irony can be quite ironic at times 😉
From the data we analyse, we see profiles here on G+ with < 2k followers getting regular 200+ re-shares of their content – whilst some profiles with > 100k followers more often get less than 20 re-shares.
Trying to please everyone is never going to happen … trying to cater for the majority of a user base is more likely.
Here, however, the majority are more likely not to care a great deal about all the shiny new things that are now possible – whereas the people that chose to use G+ from the beginning have evolved through many iterations of G+ – and ponder more on what's subjectively good or bad from their perspective…
+NOD3x Oh I totally agree that G+ cater for the majority of its users and that makes good business sense. Similarly ‘what’s hut’ is a compilation of the most ‘popular’ but it is not for me. I don’t want to be hot at all, I prefer to be cool 😀 +Lee Smallwood I guess you and NOD3x have me sitting all alone in a fridge talking to myself 😛
+Eileen O'Duffy Personally I've always though you were hot 😉
And yes, you're in my chialxed circle – but definitely not alone hun (((hugs)))
+Lee Smallwood Good to hear I’m not alone. ((((Hugs)))) back from The Ice Maiden 😀
+Eileen O'Duffy better Ice Maiden than Incan Mummies
+NOD3x At one time I might have thought that Google+ tried to "cater to the majority of users". I've spent years in software development and we certainly tried to do that and to factor in user feedback and feature requests when prioritizing development work.
However, I don't believe that anymore. This is why. Google rarely offers users options, user preferences. Many, many things that the people in this discussion have complained about over the years could have been resolved with a simple option. Sometimes it would just be the option to turn something off. (So no extra feature work required on Google's part to implement). Other times it would be to let the old and preferable method remain in place as an alternative. Neither case requires coding a new feature.
When a product forces users to adapt rather than adapting to users, ask yourself why. In many cases it is because a product is immature, released quickly with the full feature set to follow. However, in Google+'s case, it has actually disabled many features that it first shipped with. It's added new ones but in doing so it almost always cripples old features, which frustrates the older user base who came because they were attracted to those features.
Google seems to have a clear idea of how it wants users to use Google+, rewarding those who do it correctly and punishing those who do not. The best tools are more flexible because it is natural for users to take a tool and use it for a variety of ways never intended. This creativity and inventiveness is a hallmark of human nature.
This is anathema to Google who wants to limit our ways of using the tool so that it can collect the data it requires for its real user base. For an example, let's look at Circles. The original Circles came with generic labels which allowed you to group your close friends, family, and colleagues. These categories are very useful to Google for mapping your relationships, triangulating them with other users to ascertain relevance. But when people make up their own circle names, this foils the scheme.
In fact in the original Google+, circles were accessible with one click on the left hand of the screen. But it did not suit Google's needs to make it easy for me to create and access scores of circles. (I think I had something like 30 at the time.) So in the next release, it made this painfully difficult. It put the top three or four (depending on screen size) circles across the top of the screen and in order to access more than that, you had to use a pulldown menu. Two clicks to do what you did with one click before. Plus the circle labels were out of sight and so out of mind.
That is a changed designed to discourage behavior. That is Google saying the way we want you to use this product (map your relationships in a way that makes sense to us) is more important than than the way you want to use this product (map your relationships in a way that makes sense to you). Notice that Gmail has now adapted this same strategy.
This kind of change has happened over and over. So, no, I no longer believe that Google caters to users. Or perhaps more correctly, I no longer believe that we are the users. We are the free lunch.
I don't care about all the numbers or celebrity status. What I care about is many of the TOOLS that helped make G+ enjoyable are gone, broken, buggy, inferior, or unstable.
+M Sinclair Stevens Well, you bring up good points, as usual, but I am not sure that it tells the whole story. Simple analogy: which tool to I turn to most, an all-in-one multi-headed screwdriver kit or the right screwdriver for the right job? Generally, it's the latter. Google engineers for massive use, so the analyze to see how to keep it simple for the most number of people. They do add options over time, but very carefully. Generally they leave options in the hands of third parties, so that releases aren't slowed down by doo-dads that they need to maintain and make sure that they won't break.
If we want software with a bajillion options, there's a company for that, and it's called Microsoft. And, increasingly, Samsung. Need I say more? There are a number of value-add options for Google+ that are quite useful. That said, I think that we are all in agreement that Google+ needs some tuning so we can speak to specific audiences more elegantly. Let's hope it happens.
+Eileen O'Duffy I think you are the Coolest Chick in Town! +NOD3x…Yes, of course, the more communicative, the more verbal, the more analytical among Users will be better at stating what works and what doesn't, and very coherently as is evidenced by +M Sinclair Stevens' clarity about what works and what doesn't. Still, it all reminds me of the big thriving organic/non organic entity known as New York City, where I live. What a mess it is. How great it is. What big cockroaches and expensive rents and noise and traffic and all the rest of it. True. But, oh what access to things not found in other cities. Whatever criticism is hurled at NYC it is probably true. Yet…I'm not sure it makes any difference.
Here on G+ last night I posted about Berna Huebner's film I Remember Better When I Paint, which is about the impact art therapy has on men and women with Alzeheimer's and dementia. 22 people have re-shared it. In +Max Huijgen's world view, this is not super star sharing. Or…from my world view, maybe it is. It is not an animated gif of someone's cat doing a jig with Fred Astaire being seen by millions of people, that is most certainly true.
But several of the 22 people who did reshare my post about this important film took the time to write introductions to it (rare) and you can tell really give a damn. And several of those people garnered quite a few comments in their own posts.
There is no other social media platform that I could have/would have shared this on…although I will tag it on FB and LinkedIn. So, with all of the problems here, I am still glad that when Berna writes me a letter and asks for my help in getting the word out about her film, that there is a place for me to do that where I have met other people who actually care about the subject matter.
And that is really my point about all of this: it isn't that there aren't issues that need to be fixed that should be pointed out to the powers that be. But last night I could have stayed on this post…or…spent that same time writing a post about something that is important to me. And I chose to do that in the midst of all the criticisms and problems. And I will get up tomorrow and do the same. Probably until they shut the whole thing down.
But if, in the meanwhile, 10 people are now using art therapy, or dance therapy or music therapy with someone they know with dementia…it will have been worth it to me.
Interestingly on the issue of top contributors I've not been able to follow this post properly because I've been busy with a post via one of my G+ pages, my post saw a high level of user interaction: 272 +1s and 110 shares, my best ever! I'll read through all these comments later.
+M Sinclair Stevens "When a product forces users to adapt rather than adapting to users, ask yourself why." That sums up a lot of my post right there.
+Able Lawrence, you raise a good point about people seeking validation through large levels of engagement. Sometimes I post photos that I took just because I think people will like them, and these can get hundreds of +1s. This is fun to do occasionally, but it's less satisfying than having an interesting conversation like this one.
Hi, +Richard Green. Yesterday I read an article about the National Geographic Photographer Nathan Benn and his long career with that magazine. He has now done a book of photographs of America most of which are outtakes from the NG sessions and he has a quote in the article that is essentially what you are saying. It's a good read and so I've included the link for you: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/once-upon-a-time-in-america-national-geographics-images-from-the-golden-age-of-kodachrome-8812092.html
+Richard Green It is good to do that occasionally but making it the end will defeat the purpose. Ideally people should find the right balance. I am basically fishing for intellectual soulmates who share my quirks and passion. Our posts are out alter egos.
I don't know how many of you are familiar with the regular Buddhist teachings of +Denis Wallez on G+, but I find there is much in this particular post to think about with regard to his post Advanced Teachings: Intentions do matter. In case you are curious, the link is below. It is just one of many, many thought-provoking posts Denis makes on communications, relationships…basically what we are all doing in the world together and the paths we chose to take to get there: https://plus.google.com/u/0/106651989741536097256/posts/C1AU6vyRKUR
+Able Lawrence *I think you are greatly misreading my intentions, nor did I say anywhere that the engagement numbers are "the only point",* so let me respond in detail. You said:
"+Alex Schleber I think you are missing the point if you are saying that the only point of being on Google+ is to get engagement numbers. If I can find one person with similar wavelength to me to whom I can relate, that has been well worth the effort. …Therefore I share what I like, and if people like them, it is very good. If not, I dont care. Ultimately it is about finding that half a dozen to a dozen people who share your enthusiasm for something unique.
…On the other hand, if you are seeking validation based on the number of people who +1 or reshare your post, and that is your primary goal to the exclusion of others, there is some lurking insecurity."
—
1) nothing I write about in terms of the engagement rates/math is personal to me, I similarly to what you state could care less. In fact, since the Spring of '12, when I and a fair many others perceived G+ to devolve significantly, I've been using it as a thinking/curation tool first and foremost, while also maintaining those deeper connections with a small group that you speak of.
[re:thinking tool, Google kind of broke that use when the sort order within a Circle stream was not going by "last activity to top" (at least by post owner) anymore, so one's private "To-Do"/etc. Circles became much less useful.
re: finding like minds, I find it actually quite distressing that G+ never once suggested your profile to me… all formal attempts by G+ in terms of Interest Graph mapping/connecting have been hodge-podge at best…]
2) So I seek no particular validation, and a numbers game has been about as far from my primary goal as you can imagine. If you'd care to quickly look backward through my last 100 posts or so, you will find that I am plenty "secure" in the topics I post about.
3) That said, what my engagement math examples are meant to show is the SYSTEMIC problems within G+ that are (if true) creating ON AVERAGE a less than reinforcing experience for the AVERAGE user. OF COURSE there are always outliers along the Bell Curve distribution, and this thread has plenty of them present.
But the question is NOT, "can some people make G+ work for them really well despite any perceived systemic roadblocks/weaknesses?", but "does it work for the AVERAGE user more than it doesn't. Because if the second situation is the case, then what you get is a slow(ish) but unavoidable devolution…
4) You said: "…The other side of the story is that, if your tastes are such that the probability of finding such people is one in 10,000 then you need a million people to find that unique relationship." – which may be a bit strained on the math (though I'm no particular expert either), but which in its tenor should be concerning to you:
If my math is even just borderline correct and there is a range from about 1 in 1,000 followers engagement actions (what +Max Huijgen tends to get or even surpass at times) to 1 in 100,000 (2 Orders of Magnitude difference!), then this means that the AVERAGE will fall probably somewhere around 1 in 10,000.
But what that means is that the AVERAGE user with less than 10,000 followers is likely to see almost no engagement on their posts at all. And far from being an issue of "insecurity", there is a simple Behaviorist Positive/Negative Reinforcer/Feedback-Loop issue that a behavior with nearly no Positive Reinforcers (or at least well more than Negative R's) is likely to "extinguish" again.
Which is precisely what we see happening: The vast majority of people give G+ a quick whirl (or even a slightly longer one), and then abandon it again (to the tune of 60 – 80% churn). This is without taking into account anything about the onboarding/"Learning Curve" (which is why the TCs or other "G+ Helpers" appeared to become necessary), or any additional Negative Reinforcers that many like +M Sinclair Stevens have experienced here in regards to usability devolving with progressive changes/redesigns.
Purely based on there being no Positive Reinforcement for the behavior. This is perfectly expressed by +Gijs van Dijk further up:
"…a bit of feedback at times would be nice as well. People are not posting to see themselves talk after all. If you belong to the bottom Plebs like I do, you're pretty much guaranteed to get no feedback, ever, regardless of what you post."
—
5) So while the rates are ABSOLUTELY NOT the end-all-be-all, they are a quick read on the overall health of the system. And by that standard, G+ has been a listing ship for a good while now.
I know it is nearly blasphemy to say this sort of thing here, and I'll post a reprint of a comment of mine over on Peter Strempel's thread in a moment below this that goes in the direction of explaining why, but suffice it to say that "you don't have to like it for it to be true".
At some point Google will run out of existing Google users to shovel into the top of the G+ funnel, and at that point the low retention rate as to active users will become even more of a problem than its already been.
Addendum / Comment reprint from:
plus.google.com/u/0/110695872689494369839/posts/Y6CqKDo3vdN
—
Alex SchleberYesterday 5:26 PM+1
+Max Huijgen +Peter Strempel you may find this useful for explaining the curious Insider (fanboy, etc.) / Outsider dynamics in play here:
ribbonfarm.com/2013/10/02/truth-in-consulting/
"…Sacred and Profane in Business
An employee who truly has achieved a head-in-the-game (think ‘heart in the game’ if that works better for you, it makes no difference to this post) state is in a condition of productive cognitive-capture.1 It is a delicate state: get people believing too little and you drive an internal unraveling via self-interested plunder. Get people believing too much, and you create blinding levels of kool-aid belief that can drive the business off a cliff.
…
Effective business people, even when they are sociopaths in every other way, often navigate by a sense of the sacred; a true north. This need have nothing to do with morality or religion. By all accounts, Steve Jobs thought smooth surfaces were sacred and excess tangled cabling profane.
…
So head-in-the-game is the most effective kind of motivation there is. Motivation is in fact not even a direct concern when you aim for head-in-the-game cognitive states; it emerges as a byproduct of positive behavioral reinforcement and increasing cornering of attention by one activity, due to the rewards of effectiveness.
This is a virtuous cycle. When you believe more than you disbelieve, you create positive results out of whatever you are doing, which reinforces the belief.
So to have your head in the game is to think in the most effective way possible in the interests of the business. It is a way of achieving full intellectual investment by burning your cognitive boats.
Having a sense of the sacred is how you get to head-in-the-game state. You burn boats by labeling certain things profane, thereby directing the full force of your intellect and creativity at things considered sacred.
The precondition for individual effectiveness is to have a sense of the sacred in your own work. The precondition for group effectiveness is a shared sense of the sacred that creates patterns of tribal affiliation. This is the kool-aid state.
A sense of the sacred makes effective action easier, by simplifying all decision-making. When there is a healthy sense of the sacred around work being done, ideas tend to be evaluated based first on whether they come from people in the tribe (those who share your sense of the sacred and can therefore be trusted completely) and next by whether or not they understand and respect operating distinctions between the sacred and profane. People who pass the “one of us” and sacred/profane tests get a free pass to argue informally with a lowered level of rigor, while those who don’t face unreasonable burdens of proof before being heard.
To use Daniel Kahnemann’s terms, insiders can get away with System 1 thinking (loose, fast and associative/narrative), while outsiders are required to prove their points with System 2 thinking (tight, slow and deliberative)."
—
Read the whole thing, pure gold…
+Alex Schleber you base your math on my engagement numbers, but I'm not sure these are representative for a broad group of G+ users.
+Giselle Minoli I appreciate your 'it's about the quality and we control that ourselves' view, but don't mistake me for someone who is after as many re-shares or plusses as possible. To the contrary!
+Max Huijgen not specifically, no. You're merely an example of someone with relatively high engagement rate, presumably because your Follower list always kept itself relatively tight (too much opinion/confrontation for someone who doesn't want to hear from you to continue following, asf.).
But the point is that it ranges from about 1 in 1,000 (or maybe a hair better for some) to as low as 1 in 100,000. If we go by Orders of Magnitude, I still think an average of 1 in 10,000 is thus a fair assumption, noting that it's not about the last decimal point precision at all, but about the trend.
And the trend seems unsustainable to me in the long run…
And yes, I collect a lot of examples of posts where the system currently appears to break down (e.g. Jeff Jarvis shared a post the other day to his Extended Circles, and got 0 engagement actions, asf. … maybe E.C. is broken?!).
People are going to have to help
Me out with real numbers, but wasn't it something like 20% of most peoples followers on FB are shown any given post? Do we have any comparative numbers on Plus? We all know we don't see anything, but do the marketing types have more info derived on initial reach? It would make the engagement numbers more useful to have an idea of how much gets shaved off the top because people don't see a post until it gets enough bootstrapping engagement or something here?
*dont see everything
I grow weary of not being to edit my own comments without going to a laptop and bringing up a full browser.
I don't mistake you for that person +Max Huijgen. I think you care a great deal about quality and I admire your continual efforts to improve this platform for everyone.
I have been on the road continually since January and my time is seriously crunched. This makes me angry, but it has also forced me to focus on what really matters to me here. I can read a recent personal essay posted by +Meg L and sent my way by +Bill Abrams and respond to another writer, another creative voice, or I can be upset about what Google is or isn't doing. There is only so much time in the day. It is from that personal reality that my own perspective comes. FWIW.
Hi +Giselle Minoli. I may not be the best person to comment here. I have been known to line up all the people in my circles and just start uncircling the ones who have the most followers until I make three exceptions.
I also rarely post publicly preferring to limit posts to extended circles – kind of a moderated public. Not a strategy intended to garner numbers. And now, I see that I have indeed commented. Dear reader, take the above with a grain of salt, it is nothing more than my peculiar practice.
+Bill Abrams I do not see the point of any one following some one who does not post publicly, unless he or she is known to you.
+Able Lawrence That's OK with me.
+Bill Abrams That is the behaviour of the average guy on Google plus. I would say 99% of 'active' people on Google plus does that and this is mistaken as inactivity by vested media megaphones. It is normal to make that choice. However any one interested in a wider audience has to post publicly and consistently to create a persona.
That's just it. I'm not offended by media megaphones and don't feel the need to correct them. I am more interested in an audience of quality – a few good friends – than more people than I can keep up with.. G+ is not my career, nor do I want to make it so.
+Bill Abrams I started off thinking exactly like you when I first joined G+ at the very beginnings in June 2011. But unfortunately there was no one whom I knew and after some months, I went mainstream (but I missed out on the first mover advantage). But I posted for my own fun but eventually started getting an audience. (I have stuck to my style through highs and lows). Now I have 53K followers which kind of affects you in one way. I need to stick to your persona that you define.
If it were known that so many people posted with the intent and integrity of +Bill Abrams …meaning that he is making personal choices about how to interact on G+ rather than trying to plug into some factory default prescription about how to do it…then the conversation would shift.
It is in this sense that I wrote that I think the constant conversation about everything that is "broken" should shift to something more powerful in fact, something more…wise. The assumption is made here that everyone needs and wants the same thing and is using the platform in the same way and it isn't true. This, to me, is the failure of social media. The prism through which it sees the human beings who use it is flawed to begin with.
In the film world, if it were all about Big Box Office, Robert Redford would not have started Sundance. Without him there would be no independent film movement. In theatre, if it were all about Broadway, a group of young actors would not have started Steppenwolf in Chicago and The Wooster Group in NYC would be non existent.
There is a whole world out there of interesting people like +Bill Abrams who pay attention. I pay attention when he pings me. And if I were to leave G+ because of all of the things that so many think are broken about it, I would miss out on so many conversations with +Bill Abrams +Able Lawrence. And that feels like throwing people away.
The conversation is what needs to shift. Shift that…and the whole thing will shift.
+Giselle Minoli Very true. One cannot expect something that is tailor made for every one. Everyone remakes Google plus (and his stream) in their own image. The only question is whether our G+ strategy is consistent with out objectives.
+Able Lawrence It is not how many "K" I have who follow me, it is how many +Giselle Minoli 's I've met that I visit with every now and then.
As to your comments: What is the first mover advantage? Why is that something to be desired? What is mainstream? How is that different from what you were doing to begin with? Were you doing something wrong? You say that you have 53K followers and that it affects you in an unspecified way. I am curious, how does it affect you?
I suspect there is a loss of intimacy and a rise in random bots and trolls. I sometimes comment on reshares rather than original posts based on that suspicion.
+Bill Abrams Bots and SPAM are not really an issue on G+. If someone happens to get through, they are very easily and quickly dispatched.
G+ needs serious work in a few areas but SPAM is not one of them.
Ah Yes +Bill Abrams. I personally think the chasing of Ks, the chasing of numbers, the chasing of massive audiences is a desire to banish intimacy altogether…because most people are frightened of it. When one has zillions of followers, one can say, "But I don't have time for more intimate/authentic/personal conversation. I have to feed the beast!" At my core, throughout my entire life, real communication, real conversation is what interests me personally. I don't expect that to be true for anyone else. Which is the reason that I don't care if someone else's reality is getting a kick out of posting cat gifs. To be honest I think it is a shame that more people do not have a background in the arts. For if they did they would know that one has to have not so great theatre to have great theatre. One has to have not so great film to have great film. One has to have not so great art to have great art. It is a balance. It is a blend. It is a mix. I don't think most people who chase the Default Setting on How to Be on Social Media have ever asked themselves, "Who do I want to be here, independent of what the Social Media Gods think I should be here?" And it is off and running into Automatic Behavior Land.
I am thrilled, overjoyed, jubilant that you do on G+ exactly what is right for you +Bill Abrams and I hope you never leave, because I would miss your superb company.
Thank you +Dirk Talamasca . Lazy of me to use the term so casually.
+Bill Abrams I am more deliberate in the sense, I check for consistency. I post differently for my private audience (through limited circle sharing) as opposed to the public. I actually share less than I might if I wasn't under 'observation'. I am not chasing numbers but certain kind of people, just like you do. The difference is that I am casting my net wide. If I knew whom all I wanted to follow, then that might not have been necessary. The top dozen people in my circles are worth all the rest but there is either all or none. It is snobbish to say the rest of the people don't matter.
I don't get the sense +Able Lawrence that +Bill Abrams is saying that "the rest of the people don't matter." I get the sense that this cannot be his entire life because of other commitments that matter a great deal to him, and, as a result, he therefore must choose carefully how he spends his time. In fact the opposite accusation could be leveled against those of us who only post Publicly (I am one)…that we don't care about smaller groups of people. In fact, for me, my professional life is segmented around smaller groups of people and my attraction to G+ was that I could meet perfect strangers. I haven't had the opportunity to do that since I was an actor. It isn't about chasing numbers or engagement. It is about writing something that is meaningful to me and getting a comment from a woman, a man, on the other side of the world with whom it resonates and knowing that there is a way to have a conversation with "the rest of the people" about universal issues.
Every day that happens to me here on G+ and I am tremendously grateful that whatever is broken her hasn't managed to break that reality. Frankly I don't think it has the power to. It's more up to me than anything else.
+Able Lawrence I think we just have different approaches to G+. I am happy with those I've already circled. I know there are more that I would be happy to circle as well, but I am not fishing for them. I will run across them or they will find me through others or not.
It feels to me that implicit in a constant search is a dissatisfaction with those I am with. I don't feel that way at all. I've found some really interesting and fun people here that I am having a great time getting to know.
+Bill Abrams I am not doing constant search. I have stopped active search while I continue to search for people to be invited to my communities. I then follow those who are active in communities. By posting publicly, you make it possible for others to find you. I value the many of the relationships I have found through G+ and I am happy for it. With a closed approach I might never have found them. If you are happy, then that is fine. I am ready to be surprised. I think +Max Huijgen can understand that sentiment. We create filters that reinforce the things we see and it is good to get some surprise now and then
+Able Lawrence +Bill Abrams I have no idea what your circling preferences or personal feelings have to do with things that are broken in G+. That is what +Patrick Hoolahan's post is about.
To me it's not so much broken as evolving slowly. I think of it a bit like a nearby bridge project. It seems like you cannot figure out how it's all going to fit together, and then one say, aha, you see a new on-ramp, and so on. That's not to say that Google has it all figured out, but they build things methodically. I suspect that in the next few weeks we'll see some significant changes.
+John Blossom your words are exactly why I wish there were more of a presence of the Arts on G+ That slow evolution is the essence of the artistic temperament. It is often lost on tech people, who think everything should be immediately clickable. I venture to say that if that were even possible, what an unimaginably boring world it would be. Thank Gawd it is therefore "broken…."
+John Blossom Fully agree.
There are so much positives, that whatever else we want are things we can wait longer (provided we can agree on what we want!)
Plus ones and notifications still buggy or failing to work at all after two years is indeed artful breakage.
+Giselle Minoli I do not see this sharp divide between Arts/Artists and Engineering/Engineers that you refer to. I think there are very few people who fall strictly into a ‘convergent/technological/scientific’ category rather than a ‘divergent/creative/artistic’ category. The vast majority are a fluid mix and this is good. My own aptitudes and interests are split almost equally between high tech/business and the arts. Or maybe it is just a constant battle between my head and my heart
You are unusual +Eileen O'Duffy. If there were more of a balance, I think the writers here would have more of the platform and attention that +Max Huijgen questioned. It doesn't exist because there is an innate imbalance…not with you because your interests are diverse. But in general, whenever I post about the arts, tech enthusiasts do not show up to comment. It's just an observation.
+Dirk Talamasca I did not intend for my comments to relate to Mr. Hoolahan's post. I apologize if that was not clear.
+John Blossom I see what you're saying about constant evolution, but that requires faith on behalf of those watching, which many of us do not have at this point. We see great features disappear randomly, we see things that were once less complicated get more complicated and we see changes made. . .if we're lucky. The only reason some of us know about changes made is that we happen to know people who are in the know. That speaks to a communication problem.
And some of us fear what direction this evolution might be taking.
Looking at it from a writer/reader perspective or even from a peer-peer view on G+ there is no evolution, but a devolution.
Tools that existed to discover new people disappeared (end of stream), you can't access your own followers once you get above 10K, even when putting a circle on 'full' you don't get to see all posts of people you like, etc.
Looking at writing, we went back: all layout and UX changes actually diminished our ability and flexibility to compose a post. We got smaller windows with multiple scrollbars, external tools to save drafts no longer function after the changes, etc.
Looking at reading: no longer do we share a post, the moment an illustration is used it's called a 'photo'. The actual text is hidden behind a more window adding an extra click on top of the multiple scrollbars to access the content.
Commenting: one of the initial features which really made G+ a special place got more difficult, not easier. Elementary tools to keep the focus on the window in which you were typing a comment got worse and not better. I lost numerous comments by misclicking or a scrolling 'error'
I could go on and I guess others like +M Sinclair Stevens could easily add more issues showing we are not in an incremental improvement cycle, but part of a deliberate process to make this place photo and video (youtube comments on G+ are on their way) friendly at the expense of text.
+Giselle Minoli +Patrick Hoolahan +John Blossom
+Patrick Hoolahan That's fair enough, but the main question is whether we're in the solution. If we give honest feedback such as you're giving, it goes in to the staff and over time things happen. No service is perfect, and I make pleasant discoveries of tweaks at times – as well as disappointments when things break. But over time, hopefully it's all to the good. If not, then we move on…
+John Blossom the problem a lot of people feel is that things don't necessarily happen. Or if they do, they're unrelated to feedback they have given but in pursuit of another goal far from what was started here on google+.
+Patrick Hoolahan Well, they're neither machines nor concierges. They're well-intended programmers working for a huge company with a unique culture. At Google, sometimes ideas that excite other Googlers get implemented before ideas that excite us. It's a little weird at times, but that seems to be the way that it goes…
Right and I'm a customer which means if I feel this product is not meeting my needs, I can take my data and leave. I get they get excited, but it's also supposed to be a business, for all that is worth. I'm not looking to be catered to, but there are a lot of people would like to feel they are at least paid attention to.
Did you notice my comment about devolution +John Blossom? And if so how does that fit into your perception of 'weird' progress?
+Max Huijgen They are focusing sometimes on getting good signal for ads more than they are some of the internal dynamics of the service, it seems. It still needs a bit of tuning, but overall it works fine for me.
+John Blossom I think overall it's working decently enough for most of us. If it didn't, we wouldn't still be here. There are just a couple of things that need to be addressed. Maybe not even changed, but definitely addressed.
+Patrick Hoolahan Yep, no doubt. They move in mysterious ways, sometimes. My guess is that the G+ team is pretty hunkered down to support the Kit Kat launch for Android and new features for ads. Once that wave is through, probably new improvements over the holidays…
I would hope that G+ had it's own team +John Blossom but from what I gather it's very small.
Waiting for a minor update of Android for simple fixes on G+ can't be the reason we're still stuck with an extremely limited text formatter, no url's for comments, incorrect +1 counts, windows which lose focus, etc.
+Max Huijgen Most of the teams are fairly small, but they can enlist support from other Google developers who support their goals at times. It's more bottom-up than you may imagine.
But allotting a decent team of developers to G+ is a fair request by users who put a lot of time in the network.
+John Blossom Then they might need a good general or two to direct things a bit. Bottom up has a lot of great advantages, but if there's no leadership at the top, or the appearance of no leadership, then things get disorganized and priority is put where the most charismatic programmers can organize the largest teams.
+Patrick Hoolahan They do more than they used to, but it's still fairly bottom-up in many instances. They've gotten more "Top Contributors" from various product user communities into their campus, lately, so the pipeline is opening up more on a regular basis to informed views.
Right, but the TCs are not Google employees. They are great Tribunes for us plebs, but that's not an internal organization fix. The TC program is great for rewarding people who put in the time and effort to helping other users in the google+ community, and I'm glad they're listening at least a little to them, but if that good input gets lost in the blackbox that is Mountain View and smushed by politics, then it's useless and frustrating for all involved.
Whatever the input (I don't value the role of the TC's as high as you do +Patrick Hoolahan ) without
boots on the groundhands on a coding laptop nothing will happen.However the main problem is the 'grand vision' which is not focused on discovery of like-minded people nor on peer to peer connections, but on a broadcasting, share once, never look back, visual 'network'
I've known a few and they're decent people. There have been a couple who will go nameless who have been very mad at me for this post, so they're not saints by any stretch. But yeah, they're not boots on the ground. And there needs to be some more boots making things happen and not just in a bottom up way. A general, a few good colonels and some directions and focus maintenance would go a long way.
+Max Huijgen TCs = Apocalypse Now: Brando as Kurtz" you're an Errand boy for grocery store clerks!
OK, so picking up, it seems the TCs are contributors to Google "help" or "support" forums. Rather than contributors in general. Has anyone shared this link (http://www.google.com/get/topcontributor/join/become-a-top-contributor.html) yet? According to that link you can apply to be a TC. I am more concerned about the unofficial TCs, the famous people who get their vanity URLs and popularity pushes.
Popularity pushes (you may want to add this page your circles etc) can be good, for a while it seemed Google was pushing one of my Pages onto new users, but the down side is it the followers gained are not 100% interested in your content thus a significant percentage may leave sometime after the push.
No vid for me +Dirk Talamasca blocked in my country…
The top down direction dominates the changes on G+ +Patrick Hoolahan +Singularity Utopia +John Blossom
youtube comments becoming G+ posts, more and more room for photos, blocking views of followers, plussers, etc are all top-down decisions.
It's one thing to watch a bridge "evolve" as you drive past, it's another thing to feel it creek under you as you drive over it.
Artists finish a project before they release it to the public, that's part of being a professional. Plus is more like performance art of Scoble in a glass-walled loo wearing Google Glass while painting a coca-cola ad. Yes, beta everything and yes technology must iterate but the technology of user experience should be to make common things easier and faster and to make undesired behavior harder and more clicks. And sure enough, #Readmore and the things that have been prioritized the past yer speak buckets, and the criticism of them is valid.
If is so bad why don't people go somewhere else? 1) Many do; "ghost town" meme. 2) For those that don't, Metcalfe's Law. People will put up with a lot of abuse for their social ties, and our brains will do many clever things to fight the cognitive dissonance of having people we like to connect to in a high-effort social tool environment.
+Max Huijgen Well, it's truly a bit of both, This isn't a democracy, after all. We'd be a bit vain to think that we're actually in charge of the insane asylum 🙂
What also happens is that with some frequency Google is known to prune away features if it looks like not many people really care about them. If enough people complain, sometimes they go back in. This is actually really important, because without it, their products would have "featureitis" akin to Microsoft Office or Facebook…
+Angyl Bender Creaking bridges gives a nice tone to what it feels like when you're crossing into a new network. Built over a lot of streams.
+Giselle Minoli a few things come to mind:
1) You are making what amounts to a humanist argument as pertains to G+, which is perfectly fine. Just know that none of us who are critical of system/service issues have EVER argued against the people assembled here, or argued for "abandoning" them. Even those like +M Sinclair Stevens that have for one reason or another decamped to some extent are still checking/chiming in as their time permits.
1b) Let's be clear that as to a humanist/artistic/self-expression stance, asf. it was Google who threw the first stone in the #nymwars . Yes, everybody is tired of dredging that back up, and it may even predate the arrival of many of the people active nowadays (including yourself?), but it was the original "fall from grace" where Google showed its true "High Modernist Authoritarian" face and hit perfectly well-behaved/contributing users with a "ban hammer"… because their names were not Westernized/homogenic enough for Google's little plan, or they were for whatever reason in need of a pseudonym.
So I don't think anyone can ever argue that Google stands with the "widows and orphans"… I assume you have by now read Peter Strempel's "Google doesn't love you" post, which I can only recommend, especially the "war in heaven" [at Google] section…
2) The stance that nothing here should be criticized because of the great people assembled rings hollow, considering that by that standard nobody should have ever had reason to leave or otherwise have a problem with Facebook!
It is precisely the double-standard of labeling all things Facebook "profane", including some rather non-humanist generalizations about the people there (one might argue they are thus being dehumanized…), while considering all things Google/G+ "sacred" despite a lot of not-so-flattering evidence that makes this so hard to swallow for those that can maintain an open mind.
3) I've long said that it became apparent in many of the discussions about the service quality here that the majority of people cannot sit with the Cognitive Dissonance of criticizing the service that they are on/using. Something about the "Commitment/Consistency" filter in people's minds that makes for this (~ "I am smart person… I decided to start using Google+… I cannot think something negative about G+ because then my decision about using it would be less smart…").
I for one have no such compunction, and can easily hold the two things in my consciousness. I made a rational decision in 2011 to start using G+ on the assumption that this would/could be the thinking wo/man's "social network" (admittedly we were all pretty excited, finally Google was going to do something useful in Social!), which initially proved true enough. Only since those heady first few months, Google made so many bumbling missteps that the early honeymoon phase most definitely ended.
4) So I disagree with +John Blossom that Google has shown anything approaching a systematic/methodical path for G+. BrandGate, NymWars, then the "Real Names" enforcement later mostly ending, multiple redesigns including the too-late arrival of Pages and even later Communities (which also conflicted with the Circle metaphor people had invested so much time/effort in; real hours of millions of people's lives BTW…), etc. etc. all make me say: Where is the evidence that Google had a clue what they were doing at any stage?
Did their old mantra of "Don't be evil" (however credible that really ever was, or even if it was just a clever #fnord ) get changed to "Google can do no evil" in the G+ tribal mind here…?! /cc +Alexander Becker
5) In fact, your statements make me think that it is downright sad that many here appear to regard G+ as just about the best we can do, software-wise, when that to me is patently untrue. It is NOT the second coming by any means, in fact, if we go by the humanist/"it's the people"-centric view, shouldn't we say "there will be something much better down the line, and these lovely people will be able to easily assemble there…"?
If you could see the designs for greatly improved writing/thinking/networking tools I've been working on for one of my projects, you wouldn't say "let's just make the best of this we can"… there are so many manual/unnecessary steps here DISEMPOWERING the user instead of empowering them, that it constantly brings to mind one of my favorite sayings from a Comp Sci professor I once knew: "If you the user is made to do a manual step that the software could have easily done, the machines win…".
6) It is a bit ironic that – on a thread that started with "plebs" in the title – you repeatedly push the idea of solving all through art appreciation… it has a certain "let them eat cake" ring, n'est-ce pas?
Here a few more points directly responding to what you said:
"…If it were known that so many people posted with the intent and integrity of +Bill Abrams …meaning that he is making personal choices about how to interact on G+ rather than trying to plug into some factory default prescription about how to do it…then the conversation would shift."
[I didn't think I was following any sort of factory default prescription myself, and that has never been the argument of any of us I think. If anything we have argued that G+ over time has proved too limiting in the favored (by the software/system itself) use cases; +M Sinclair Stevens in particular had always seen the 1st gen. G+ as more wide-open/fluid. ]
"…It is in this sense that I wrote that I think the constant conversation about everything that is "broken" should shift to something more powerful in fact, something more…wise."
[It isn't constant, in fact in recent months it's been a small trickle to the total at best, precisely because most of us with serious misgivings had given up hope for much positive change coming out of Google. So clearly, either you bow to the all-mighty Google, or you're not "wise"…?
Excuse me while I recount in my head the countless artists I know of or even know personally – yes, even though we don't always wear our art appreciation badges on our sleeves, some of us may actually know a thing or two about art – that would loudly disagree with this statement: Art can very well be critical / probing / questioning / revolutionary, and yes, even "unwise"… you seem to be more enamored with the "pleasant fiction" / "safely in the museum" variety…?]
"…The assumption is made here that everyone needs and wants the same thing and is using the platform in the same way and it isn't true. This, to me, is the failure of social media. The prism through which it sees the human beings who use it is flawed to begin with."
[Agreed, except that it is Google that has systemically pushed toward certain views of people through the medium it created, and more importantly through the "games" (indirect gamification) it set up in pushing e.g. the Follow/Circle count front and center, which needn't have been so at all. There are any number of other, "wiser" metrics that could have been so elevated (e.g. # of comments on other's threads, # of comments on own threads = active thread owner engagement, asf.).
Ironically, it has actually pushed so much photo "art" in our faces that it is difficult not to be NUMBED by the onslaught… and also ironically, it made no affordance for a distinction between ORIGINAL art posted by its creators, and me-too reposts of stuff from elsewhere; each type gets the same, over-the-top-large (vis-a-vis text affordances, or the post pics from shared off-site posts) image size. THESE are the systemic realities of which we speak… ironically, we have been drowned in an avalanche of largely second-, third-, and fourth-rate "art"…
]
"…There is a whole world out there of interesting people like +Bill Abrams who pay attention. I pay attention when he pings me. … The conversation is what needs to shift. Shift that…and the whole thing will shift."
[…That is precisely the point, that G+ is routing and rerouting attention, and that they have nearly from the beginning bungled in terms of either distorting those attention flows (SUL), or making the naturally occurring ones more difficult (thereby reducing them).
As for the conversation being the only thing that needs to shift, I would submit that there is no way that whatever any one group of us says (let's be real, the entire entourage around Max, M Sinclair, you, et al. and the rest of us has never amounted to more than a few hundred people at most) is making a meaningful dent in the gears of the medium as a whole.
It's like saying the Printing Press shouldn't have led to newspapers because a few people like us preferred haikus. Not going to happen…
No, it's things like making comments less writable/readable that have predictably led to fewer comments systemwide. Systems thinking stuff.
]
+Max Huijgen wisely Google recognises the value of obedience and conformity, thus the people-power of high-status people is used to shape the social landscape, it's the same reason why politicians have an easy platform in the media while smarter people explaining the truth will not be heard. Ahhh, F the system, Anarchy LOL 🙂 – I'm just happy that they are no longer trying to delete my profile due to my name. Phew!
+Singularity Utopia see my reply to +Giselle Minoli just now, where I also bring up the NymWars again; your example proves that Google was STILL in some ways acting in "Bi-Polar" ways on this issue…
+Alex Schleber yes I was shocked to see #nymwars alive and well only a few weeks ago, but the really shocking thing is I had already successfully appealed a username suspension at the beginning of nymwars a couple of years ago, which makes me think a successful user-name appeal gives no security for the future.
I think my only solution is to become more famous than Lady Gaga between now and the next user-name threat of deletion.
Deconstructing +Alex Schleber. Tell me something, because I have missed it somewhere, where do you get that there are those who think G+ should never be criticized? Is there a Club somewhere? With a membership? Does one buy in or is one invited? I certainly would never be asked to join that's for sure. I am the first person that I know of here to write a major post complaining about the lack of tools for wordsmiths (I could be wrong).
I still say it's irrelevant. We are 2 1/2 years in. The criticisms abound. They abounded about certain things 2 years ago, then shifted to other things 1 1/2 years ago, still to another subset of complaints 1 year ago, and it will go on and on and on. Do you not see that it will continue thus, ad infinitum, until the lights turn off? Because this is the way of it, Alex. So, given that, I still say that you, I, and everyone else can choose how we spend our time here. If you choose to interpret that to be a love it or leave it attitude I think you are letting yourself off the hook of examining perhaps (forgive me) a more…rigorous way of being on social media. As for believing that conversation has the ability to shift everything…yeah…I do…'cause….ummm, here we all are, conversing..and there isn't a single G+ representative among us.
Good night everyone. Have a lovely weekend.
+Alex Schleber I am not saying that Google's approach is systematic in your sense. They try out hypotheses, adjust, build more, rinse, repeat. Systematically experimental, I would call it.
I don't know what the point is of ranting at their methods. It prevents bloatware, which is key.
+John Blossom "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is…" ? 🙂
+Alex Schleber Well, we can talk about this endlessly, but I feel pretty certain that a month from now most people will be pretty comfortable with this one way or another…
It doesn't prevent bloatware, the way you describe it, it's a horrible majority takes all, lowest common denominator process +John Blossom
It's exactly that attitude, permanently in beta, no correct help or documentation, remove all features which require an extra brain cell which will kill Google and certainly is killing G+.
+Giselle Minoli the problem is this: lots of people who triggered these fantastic conversations are no longer on G+. When asked, they all say because they don't feel welcome as new 'features' are basically stripping people of tried and tested methods to carry on conversations.
Engagement is down. Mindless HDR photo-sharing and inspirational quotes is keeping G+ alive. Certainly not art or enjoyable conversations. You are still here, I'm still posting, but how many of us withdrew and even more important, how many interesting posters joined G+ and reached the audience they deserved?
+Max Huijgen I guess that's why Google doesn't grow…:-)
I think you mean some people who triggered some fantastic conversations have chosen to leave +Max Huijgen.That was their choice. But I question the claim that it is because of G+. I would bet wherever they had been prior there had been the same dissatisfactions.
As for deserving anything, I have always had a problem with that word. What does it mean, exactly? Someone who gets cancer deserves it and someone who doesn't, doesn't deserve it? Whatever film is a hit deserves to be, and one that doesn't find an audience didn't deserve it? Or, the opposite…that something that doesn't get recognition, whatever it may be, does deserve it?
It is difficult if not utterly impossible to correlate success or failure with a state of deserving or not deserving. There are no promises in this volunteer medium. There never were. I can't tell you how many times a writer has had a "hit" book completely as a surprise first effort – the Planets lined up, the subject matter was ripe for the times, the confluence of energies, talents and that certain je ne sais quoi-ness of it all came together like champagne. While something else didn't find the hoola hoop in the middle of the Atlantic ocean through which to jump at exactly the right moment and never took root in a bigger way.
The issue I have always had with social media is that so many people expect so much from it in such a very, very very short period of time…because they transfer the meaning of clicking on a button or a tab, or opening a new window, or any of the other immediate satisfactions – like so many electronic orgasms – to the meaning, texture, value, importance and long term effort of something meaningful to them that they are trying to accomplish.
I don't know a single serious writer, photographer, painter, playwright, songwriter, actor, director, dancer, choreographer, architect…not one single creative person who expects what social media addicts expect in 2 1/2 years.
Now, if you would like to interpret this as meaning I think everything is perfect, as it should be, that All's Swell in the World…well, there will be nothing at this point that I can say to dissuade that opinion because I've written it all too often.
That said, I do think there is some as yet undefined responsibility those of us who have engaged – whether in agreement or disagreement – with one another over this seeming fraught issue, something we owe to one another out of respect. And I, for one, simply don't think "this" is "wise." Interpret that as you see fit…I will let you mull it over… 😉
+Max Huijgen If you don't like mindless photo sharing, you can always uncircle the photographers like I purged them recently. Removed everyone who has relevance below a level or hasn't circled back.
+Able Lawrence +Giselle Minoli this is not about my experience on G+. I'm worried that the network as a system is fueled by a completely different input than it was two years ago.
And Giselle, we are talking about the foundation, the system in which art, writing can be discovered and appreciated. G+ is like a museum where the daylight is slowly stripped and the walls get painted over in primary colors.
Discovery is certainly not a right, but if we don't aim to preserve the conditions or better improve them, this network will bleed to death or become the mostly empty home stadium of Google fans.
Looking at my circles the influx of new and interesting people is so much lower than it used to be that either I'm personally missing new talent due to the lack of available discovery tools OR there is nothing to discover. In both cases the system needs to improve.
p.s. Giselle, some people actually told me that they left or at least stopped being active because of the changes for the worse.
BTW +Able Lawrence I like the asymmetric nature of G+ so I never unfollow because I'm not circled back. A one-sided relation on G+ can work well and as I like input from outside of my filter bubble I don't expect reciprocity.
I like the asymmetric nature too, +Max Huijgen. I don't even look to see if people are following me back. What annoys me is when someone never reacts to my comments; eventually that gets really annoying and I stop reading their posts. (I make a point of not ignoring interesting comments on my own posts.)
+Max Huijgen +Richard Green It is not the 'following back I am interested, but the people with fewer followers who might have something interesting. T
They might think I am a snob.
+Able Lawrence You waste far too much time on this. Please tell me that you do not remove every stitch of clothing when you go to the toilet.
Interesting people with small numbers of followers are great to follow, +Able Lawrence. They make excellent “reshare fodder”.
+Richard Green +Max Huijgen You have misunderstood me. I am not talking about the people I follow but the people I don't follow to begin with. I would like to interact more with them, mentor them you might say from among those who follow me.
+Giselle Minoli et al. here is a good example of better UI/UX ideas: ghost.org/features/
More detailed musings (from last year) here:
john.onolan.org/ghost
Related: Came across another, even more apples-to-apples example of Instagram engagement vs. G+ engagement the other day, when a friend showed me an Instagram post by musician Macklemore…
He routinely gets 100k to 200k Likes on a mere 2 Million followers. He is a relatively new, medium-level Rockstar/rapper, with ~3M fans on Facebook, and some MSM play, but not too much. He's in essence still an insider/hipster phenom:
instagram.com/macklemore
The only reason I bring it up (I'm not a regular Instagram user/consumer), is that if you compare this to levels for G+ "photog star" Trey Ratcliff, hand-picked/boosted by Google, who is now at 6.5 Million followers compared to when I wrote the comment below, you see that Google/G+ isn't even winning at the much ballyhooed "Photo Sharing" use case. Not even in the same ballpark…
So why then do those of us who are more textually oriented have to still suffer the iniquities that use case focus/obsession has brought?!
THAT is the question to ask. 1/100th the impact… is it any wonder why the majority of brands can't be bothered here? How many "but it's good for your SEO" promises will Google have to make to try and stem this "perception"/reality issue…?
—
"…Looking over the What'sHot stream just now… compare https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts/KUBL3hSHSeb Trey Ratcliffe's +1s (never really going past 3k on 5.7m followers) with Starbuck's Instagram account (50k-75k likes on a mere 1.4m followers): http://instagram.com/Starbucks (click on individual photo posts to see the likes count)
If my math is correct, that's going on two orders of magnitude of difference (4x followers x 1/20th the likes = about 1/80th). So if, despite Trey being one of the most pushed people on gplus, with SUL, specific early promo by Google and Scoble, and general and ever increasing pro-photo-use-case bias of G+ all in his favor, he cannot muster more than about 1/100th of the impact, that should tell you something.
(Yes, Starbucks is a very popular consumer brand with tons of daily "meme reinforcement" AKA coffee drinking… however brands are NOT automatic shoe-ins on new social media services/forms by any means.)
Also worrisome for Google should be the effect that What'sHot is now beginning to be completely dominated by image/caption/quote meme tripe of essentially Yahoo-level quality.
"—
+Alex Schleber what it shows is that the user's of Google plus are more discerning and don't accept things being shooed up their anywhere. People are also becoming more selective with the +1 because of +1 share. Now with social ads it will become even more so. If I +1 your page, my face may be shown to my friends as endorsing your product. I better be careful what I endorse.
+Able Lawrence OK, you keep on telling yourself that…
Really? On G+ general purpose photo posts? Discernment…? 🙂
People like liberally on Facebook but that doesn't mean people see more there.
+Able Lawrence I'd call that a charitable interpretation… 🙂 Looking at the now standard G+ What'sHot fare, do you really think they are 100 TIMES more discerning than FB/Instagram users?
+Alex Schleber On FB, most Likes are for social reasons while G+, I would +1 only if I am really appreciative and I dont mind others seeing my +1 share
+Able Lawrence the data I cite in the bottom of my comment above (as a reprint from an earlier comment) predates the change in the +1 meaning. So it used to be a mere note of approval, which is also what the user-base as a whole had been trained to use it as for nearly 2 years. There was/is plenty of use of it for "social" acknowledgment reasons.
And on FB, your Likes flow through to your feed and friends' feeds all along (subject to EdgeRank "relevance" algo of course).
That's you +Able Lawrence and I do it the same way. But I'm thinking the majority of people treat the +1 the same as they do the like on fb.
My friends will Like anything on FB. On the otherhand if you look at the activity on our FB batch group, there has not been any activity. There is more activity on Hangouts
+Able Lawrence what is your "FB batch group"?
+Alex Schleber It is private, unlisted. Same for our G+ community.
+Able Lawrence I was merely interested what it is? "FB expatriats"?
+Gijs van Dijk +Able Lawrence even if G+ users where say 10x more discerning (and judging from most of the content on What'sHot, I'd say that's a stretch…), then if G+ really had 150M+ Daily ACTIVE users as claimed (it only gets worse if they had say 300M DAUs…), they should still produce 1/10 of Instagram's current 1.2B Likes per day (> http://instagram.com/press/ ).
Do you think that there are 120 Million +1s per day happening here? I rather doubt it.
Let's assume (very optimistically) that the top 1,000 accounts here get an average of 1,000 +1s per post, and post 5 times/day. That would only get us to 5M.
If the next 10,000 accounts got an average of 100 +1s per post, and post 5 times/day. That would only get us to 5M more. = 10M total so far.
If the next 100,000 accounts got an average of 10 +1s per post, and post 5 times/day. That would only get us to 5M more. = 15M total so far.
See what I mean? It's very unlikely that you'll get there from here.
If Google's solution to drumming up enough felt engagement for some users is to pad everybody's follower count up to 30k to 100k with newly onboarded users, 80%+ of which are never to return, then that still doesn't mean that the SYSTEM overall is at healthy/sustainable levels.
+Alex Schleber The only people for whom these felt engagement really matter are markers. We are happy with getting meaningful quality responses.
I can invite you to my Culinary herbs community in Facebook and Google plus. You can judge for yourself which one has meaningful engagement. I get tips and learn from the G+ one while in Facebook I might get lot of woohaas without anything useful.
There are structural reasons why those trying to do Facebook style marketers are at a disadvantage here.
On Facebook I tried to block a marketer who was repeatedly tagging me but Facebook sent me a message that there were no rules violation. The guy even challenged me saying he will continue doing it I won't be able to do anything about it.
In Google plus he would have been blocked in an instant.
The marketing approach of most companies on Google plus is wrong. They are just copying their tactics and will backfire here. You have to get native here.
You will need to be patient and either wait for inbound interest or build communities around or relevant to your brand.
+Alex Schleber I just now reported and blocked a commercial user for notifying advertisement pages (Facebook pages to boot on G+. Obviously he/she has no idea that Google plus users have to deal with such attempts)
+Able Lawrence That's a huge benefit of Google+, spammers don't last long thanks to us…
+John Blossom Now I could not even find the profile!
Love the signal-noise ratio on g+…
+Able Lawrence re:"he only people for whom these felt engagement really matter are markers." – I disagree.
1) There has to be some minimal level of engagement for users to stay on board. A lot of data at a variety of Social startups has shown this to be true.
If Google didn't have the luxury of dumping untold 10s/100s of Millions of users into the top of the G+ funnel continuously, their churn rate (60%? 70%? 80%?) would be completely unsustainable.
2) Ironically, many of the "G+ is fine (mostly)" crowd are actually marketers of some stripe (and no matter how subtly or not they are approaching the subject…), mostly SEOs and "Social Marketing Experts", "Social Commerce" "evangelists", asf.
Most people here are marketing their persona. Those who do that well will do okay.
Every one can engage with only so many posts in a day. I get close to a thousand post in my Google plus stream every day. Compare this to may be four or five a day that I see on Facebook. So you can see that there is greater competition for attention in Google plus. Till now people were complaining about public content. You can't have it both ways +Alex Schleber
What do you mean by churn rate, +Alex Schleber?
+Richard Green people trying G+ and dropping back off (they'll likely still be Google users, but stop using G+).
Sometimes called 'Attrition Rate'.
+Able Lawrence And both scales serve a purpose, ultimately. I interact with a handful of people on Facebook in a very personal way. On Google+ I interact with many more, but in a more general/intellectual way, typically. G+ needs to support that latter mode better as a complement to our public persona. You can do either/or here OK, but to do both, not so much.
+John Blossom It is possible to do both at a technical level, but most people don't use it that way and your friends are not expecting to use it that way. The only thing in G+ that works at the real world social level is the hangout app. It is a good way to post status messages to a defined collection of people and then occassionally take off on a video chat. 88/200 from my MBBS batch are on Hangouts. There are 125 on Facebook but that includes the spouses of the batchmates as well as multiple accounts.
I myself have several facebook accounts in my own name besides totally fake and fictitious ones including some female profiles. It is so easy to create fake facebook profiles. In fact you can recycle a single gmail account to create multiple linked facebook profiles.
+Able Lawrence Point taken. Google+ makes it hard to manage the two together. You can be closed-world easy enough, open-world easy enough, but mixing the two – at least in the streams – not so much. In Hangouts, as you point out, we do get to define some vibrant personal channels, but persistence, searchability and sophistication of communications is limited, at least in the text stream.
You can do it easily by having separate circles for your personal friends. The most secure by way of privacy is to create a private community with notification. Once shared to a private community, the post can't be reshared.
+Able Lawrence Old discussion, but I'll put out the key problem: Those circles will get my public posts, and their only ability to filter is to get more of fewer of ALL of my posts, both public and circles-only.
+John Blossom Private Community with notification is a better solution.
+Able Lawrence Yes, I have experimented with that, it works OK, but should be integrated into Streams more naturally.
+John Blossom you have identified the problem. Currently they don't give us the choice of where to direct the incomings from communities. I have been frustrated with that. +Yonatan Zunger
+Able Lawrence Related key problem: you cannot initiate a Hangout with a Community as an individual in that community. So I can create a Family Community but I can't use that community as a entity to initiate chat or video interchanges.
+John Blossom Somebody has forgotten to do some homework with the community related features. +Vic Gundotra
+Able Lawrence Not necessarily, it's just part of sussing out the evolution, I suppose. Perhaps when Helpouts debut we'll see more Hangouts hooks into Communities. Would be logical extension for learning communities and customer/event communications…
An actual support staff would be the most logical extension.
+Dirk Talamasca I have a new post and new discussion thread up you may want to check out 😉
Hi +Patrick Hoolahan just post the link. We collaborate here so no problem at all.
Link is here. I meant to do it earlier, I swear. . .
https://plus.google.com/u/0/115544401695824789800/posts/fdTLW83LErV
Adding a useless comment because Macklemore <3
G+ has an interesting and vibrant niche, like LJ did in its power days.
I personally, as a nicher, wish the team would do more to codify and support that niche's usages, rather than dump inspirational macros in the top of the funnel. It seems like a lot of this discussion has been about the niche and experience of being in it versus the larger reality of low non-niche engagement and how the non-niche memes fail to work for the niche.
1) +Patrick Hoolahan wrote on his post linked to a few comments up:
"…The only real dividing line are things like the NDAs. Let's face it, if you have to sign an NDA not to talk to general users about what you know, that can set you apart from the average user."
—
Indeed. That makes you an unpaid employee of Google. Or really one paid in scrip (e.g. SUL placement, whatever)… and it DOES show that Google wants to do things to its average users that they apparently cannot be allowed to know about.
2) Since he mentioned her on it
https://plus.google.com/+AmandaBlain/posts
= proof of
http://pandodaily.com/2013/09/17/the-market-for-idiocy/
3) Jaana N. on Patrick's new thread wrote:
"…Not for a moment do I believe that Google changes things just for the fun of it: All the changes are part of a bigger picture.
And presumably will tie all the Google products and tools together.
Google+ is the social glue / spine to all of Google, like Larry page has said, so we have no idea what's coming but I'm prepared to believe it's big! :-)"
Which is PRECISELY what I was trying to get at with the "Sacred/Profane" – Insider/Outsider dynamics stuff I was referencing much further up! Since for Jaana and the G+ "TCs" Google is held "sacred", they have FAITH that everything will be just dandy…
Even when there is a ton of evidence that it's AT BEST a very mixed bag. At worst, there have been mis-steps that border on the "criminally negligent" in corporate terms (yes, that is hyperbole…).
4) http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sundays-2-the-evaporative-cooling-effect/ (/via +Edward Morbius , not sure if it was here or on another related thread in recent days)
"…Finally, I will examine what I consider to be one of the most successful technological systems ever at scaling while maintaining quality: Facebook. I joined Facebook when it was less than a million members. Since then, it’s managed to grow by a factor of 500 but the quality of my experience has dropped by only maybe 50%. The reason why is because when some random person is participating in Facebook from Brazil, it has an absolutely negligible effect on my experience. Because every user only ever see their tiny corner of Facebook, every user is in direct control of their own experience."
—
The same can sadly not be said to be true here, since the attention sucked up by garbage is then not available to everyone else (and by that I don't mean myself, but the people with say 50 – 5,000 followers who routinely get between 0 and 1 engagement actions on their posts).
In an Interest Graph Network (of sorts…) there IS a drowning out effect.
P.S. Again, please remember that I am NOT a FB fan much at all… it's about the systems thinking…