• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Google+ is A Ghost Town

I tried google+ for all of 5 minutes. When I discovered there is no PM option I pitched it immediately. How stupid can you possibly be to leave out a PM function in a system designed to interact with your friends?

The whole "circles" thing has a little traction, but thats really only useful with businesses and people who need to segregate their online personas. Google overestimated peoples desire to do this, when all anyone really wants to do on the internet is just give shout out's to all their friends, without caring who ultimately sees it.
 
Facebook is much better than google+ What does google+ provide that facebook does not? FB has an established user base. Myspace had obnoxious ads and many fake users. Not to mention social networking market is already saturated. Yuo also got dating sites with social networking features like okcupid. A new social networking site is the last thing we need.
 
noobman said:
I believe you can do the same thing with Dropbox.
Click to expand...

Sure, you can. Dropbox also has a limit (as does iCloud). I use all three at times, but the G+ app works great and hasn't given me any problems. Oddly enough, I've never actually visited a G+ webpage... haha!
 
The catch here from the "study" is that they were looking at ONLY Public posts. If you send to a Circle that won't come up in this study because that isn't Public.

My G+ circles are constantly in use with new postings and not just a repost of a Tweet or Facebook post.

As for G+ I use post about the same amount as I use Facebook. Which is once a week...maybe. I totally prefer G+ though and if I could get my Friends/Family to switch I'd ditch FB in a heartbeat.
 
I live near Mountain View, the the vast, vast, VAST majority of G+ "nearby" posts are Google employees. Most checkins are at the Google campus or food places nearby.
 
SuperSubZero said:
I live near Mountain View, the the vast, vast, VAST majority of G+ "nearby" posts are Google employees. Most checkins are at the Google campus or food places nearby.
Click to expand...

Kinda reminds of of how all the Windows Phone users are...Microsoft Employees.
 
Eagle923 said:
I use Google+ almost everyday but only because my phone allows me to auto-upload my photos as a backup. Quite handy since I wipe/load custom roms a lot. All my pictures are always available.
Click to expand...

This man is single handedly keeping G+ alive.
 
I recently started using Google+ to play D&D. Their "Hangouts" offer a new suite of software that suits RPGs well. Other than that I do not use the service.
 
McFry said:
I tried google+ for all of 5 minutes. When I discovered there is no PM option I pitched it immediately. How stupid can you possibly be to leave out a PM function in a system designed to interact with your friends?

The whole "circles" thing has a little traction, but thats really only useful with businesses and people who need to segregate their online personas. Google overestimated peoples desire to do this, when all anyone really wants to do on the internet is just give shout out's to all their friends, without caring who ultimately sees it.
Click to expand...

email = PMing
 
I don't use Google+ like Facebook. G+, for me, has been a great news feed of mature adults without the crap that Facebook has (games, invites, "I just jacked off to your mom porn" posts). I have a different audience there, and it really shows.

It's not a fun place where you go to place games and see who likes who. It may not be targeted for it, but its more business like and mature. I rarely see any emo posts or personal organ status reports. More like an enhanced news feed.

That said, they need an iPad client. The one they have is shit.
 
Modder said:
Facebook beat Google to the punch. Had Google+ been first, I'm sure this would be a very different conversation.

"Facebook is a ghost town."

It's all in the timing.
Click to expand...

There is currently no reason to switch, but the advantage google has is in their vertical integration. This is the reason people may switch. Google, has search, gmail, youtube, and google has android. Google has already made in annoyingly clear that google+ is important to them. They have made it the first link in gmail, and newer android phones are going to start shipping with very tight google+ integration. More or less google will be trying to push google plus through its other services and hope that eventually that will be enough to turn more and more people. This is no different then how apple used the iPod to build everything it has now, you think anyone would have used itunes if it where not for the way apple forced you to use itunes with all their devices? MS has done the same thing with various products. People just have to realize that coming from the bottom and trying to work your way up takes time, xbox, office and internet explorer say hello.
 
Jonao said:
I recently started using Google+ to play D&D. Their "Hangouts" offer a new suite of software that suits RPGs well. Other than that I do not use the service.
Click to expand...

A core member of our D&D group just moved to Korea. Our normal game time is late morning for her, so she joins via G+ as well. We have two laptops locally set up in the hangout - one at the end of the table pointing up at the players/GM, one next to the map angled down at it. (It took three weeks before she could join, though, as her internet took forever to be activated.)
 
McFry said:
I tried google+ for all of 5 minutes. When I discovered there is no PM option I pitched it immediately. How stupid can you possibly be to leave out a PM function in a system designed to interact with your friends?
Click to expand...

You don't know how to use it then. You can send a direct message to anyone in your circles, just make a post and instead of including a circle, include your friends name. Only they and you can read it.
 
makes you sign up for google+ to look at peoples review, no thanks.
 
Parmenides said:
Now it's "get your data and sell it to advertisers or the government".

(slight hyperbole, but not far from the truth)
Click to expand...

That's actually very far from the truth. Google has never sold your info to advertisers. If you think they do, you fail to understand the core of how Google makes money.

Ur_Mom said:
I don't use Google+ like Facebook. G+, for me, has been a great news feed of mature adults without the crap that Facebook has (games, invites, "I just jacked off to your mom porn" posts). I have a different audience there, and it really shows.

It's not a fun place where you go to place games and see who likes who. It may not be targeted for it, but its more business like and mature. I rarely see any emo posts or personal organ status reports. More like an enhanced news feed.
Click to expand...

This is how I use it - as more of a "super twitter"
 
I made 3 posts I think...then back to facebook. i also don't care for goggle+ adding it's self all over.

I actually deleted my goggle+ account, because of ad spam.
 
Last time I actually logged into Google+, tumbleweeds blew across my screen and that old western movie whistling tune started playing. No shit. :p
 
The only good thing that came out of Google+, and I am not even sure it is really a part of it, is Google Hangouts, aka, the Skype Killer.
Google+ can disappear into the sands of time and no one would really care.
 
metalsmart said:
Can something literally be a metaphor?
Click to expand...

It depends. Are you asking if a metaphor can be literal, or if a phrase, structured in the form of a metaphor, can literally be a metaphor. I would say no to the former because if a metaphor is literal then it is by definition no longer a metaphor. right?
 
Stanfiem said:
It depends. Are you asking if a metaphor can be literal, or if a phrase, structured in the form of a metaphor, can literally be a metaphor. I would say no to the former because if a metaphor is literal then it is by definition no longer a metaphor. right?
Click to expand...
You are right in a sense. I spoke to soon. Once quoted as being the literal interpretation of the phrase, the metaphor remains a metaphor but the literal usage is clarified.

Such as "Google+ is literally a ghost town." I was a bit vexed when I visualized how Google+ is a literal ghost town. I mean, we can't suggest that anything is relative since we're talking literally here, so it becomes puzzling. I start asking if ghosts represent the user, but then realize they do not represent, because we're talking literally, so I'm thinking Google+ is a town, and everyone that joined Google+ moved to this town called Google+ and were either ghosts before or subsequently are now ghosts. The confusion was obviously on my part. I was contextualizing incorrectly when people talked about Google+.
 
450 said:
email = PMing
Click to expand...

Fail. Because clearly there is no use for having an immediate message function built into the interface of the very app you are using. It is obviously much wiser to have to switch applications and derail your workflow to send someone a message. A message to an address which you might not have on file (I dont go around exchanging email addresses with everyone). A message to an address which might be out of date. A message to an address which someone might not have as quick a response to because their messages are pushed to them in any reliable manner (they have to manually check their email). A message which gets catalogued with other messages providing you a history of everyone whom you are also in a shared group with. A message which you dont have to worry about losing or getting filtered into a bunch of other junk messages such as spam email and business related information. etc etc ETC ETC.

If you're going to have a social app expressely marketed for communicating with people, then you include a goddamn messaging function so you can communicate PRIVATELY when you want to.
 
instant messaging is not what face book or social networking is suppose to be. But that is exactly why google has a chance. Now days people think that instant messaging is suppose to be a part of a social networking site, and they like how easy it is, so you have social networks setting up email, and a host of other features that google already has. Google can use this to seamlessly slowly pull people into G+. And the facebook IPO is all about getting enough money to start trying to build up competitive products to google for facebook.
 
rudy said:
instant messaging is not what face book or social networking is suppose to be. But that is exactly why google has a chance. Now days people think that instant messaging is suppose to be a part of a social networking site, and they like how easy it is, so you have social networks setting up email, and a host of other features that google already has. Google can use this to seamlessly slowly pull people into G+. And the facebook IPO is all about getting enough money to start trying to build up competitive products to google for facebook.
Click to expand...

Nobody said instant messaging, just PRIVATE messaging. You should never have to stray from the host application to use a feature. The more clicks required, the less interest people have in using it. Social networking will always include communication between 2 individuals. In G+ you should be able to click someone's name, and send them a direct message. It doesnt have to be AIM style chat, just some message you expect them to receive. I cant believe we're even debating this here.
 
McFry said:
Fail. Because clearly there is no use for having an immediate message function built into the interface of the very app you are using. It is obviously much wiser to have to switch applications and derail your workflow to send someone a message. A message to an address which you might not have on file (I dont go around exchanging email addresses with everyone). A message to an address which might be out of date. A message to an address which someone might not have as quick a response to because their messages are pushed to them in any reliable manner (they have to manually check their email). A message which gets catalogued with other messages providing you a history of everyone whom you are also in a shared group with. A message which you dont have to worry about losing or getting filtered into a bunch of other junk messages such as spam email and business related information. etc etc ETC ETC.

If you're going to have a social app expressely marketed for communicating with people, then you include a goddamn messaging function so you can communicate PRIVATELY when you want to.
Click to expand...

Uh, do you still not realize that G+ *does* have PMing? Seriously, it's been there from day 1. Hell, you can even "PM" yourself to leave notes to yourself. In the place where you pick what circles to send your message to, you can instead specify individual people or email addresses. What else do you want?
 
As far as a photo sharing utility, G+ beat Facebook easily in that department. They allowed larger files, their compression wasn't as harsh as FB. But since then, suprise suprise, FB copied exactly what Google+ did, no I think they are pretty even. But if you notice, everytime G+ makes a change like they recently did with the UI and especially the mobile UI, know facebook changed theirs too. It's really hard to say that FB innovates anymore....if they really ever did??

I only use G+ for photsharing with family, it's easier from the compartmentalization standpoint, and I still think its better quality.
 
Wasn't it also the case that one of the founders of Google doesn't even use it and uses Facebook?
 
The only friends I see on Google+ are the ones that constantly complain about the changes to FB... most recent the timeline... Honestly I dont see what the big deal is about timeline its not that hard.

Google+ sounded promising at the beginning but after playing around with it there is really no point to change over from facebook.
 
Rdzona said:
As far as a photo sharing utility, G+ beat Facebook easily in that department. They allowed larger files, their compression wasn't as harsh as FB. But since then, suprise suprise, FB copied exactly what Google+ did, no I think they are pretty even. But if you notice, everytime G+ makes a change like they recently did with the UI and especially the mobile UI, know facebook changed theirs too. It's really hard to say that FB innovates anymore....if they really ever did??

I only use G+ for photsharing with family, it's easier from the compartmentalization standpoint, and I still think its better quality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, G+ really seems to be drawing in the photographers. Lots of them are on G+ now. Picasa integration is helping that I'm sure (pictures uploaded to G+ are capped at 2048 x 2048, but Picasa will let you upload larger pictures but that counts against a storage limit).
 
Azhar said:
So much for those Facebooks-days-are-numbered replies, lol.
Click to expand...

it still is, especially once it goes public as now the question will be what is FB next big money maker to make investors happy...........
 
Google+ sucks because its not original. Its a Google themed entity that is tied in with Google. To be successful it would be smart for Google to name it something else and have its own location on the web NOT tied in with Google and your Gmail account.
 
The thing with social networking is you have to have social backing for it to work. Google has no such thing. Facebook started by being a college only network...students only. This made it appealing to college kids who wanted to meet those in their age group and possibly maturity levels.

Once Facebook got big enough they said "open the gates" and boom, people flooded in...so much that it killed off Myspace (which was too bloated and customizable to be an enjoyable experience..people are too annoying in general to be trusted with that much page customization).

that said, Google had a really bad idea: start a group that has no "in", has less of a userbase than the ghost town called Myspace, and just go by name recognition and fanboyism to get it going. This is never a good idea. It ended as expected: a dead community. It takes work to make an online community work, massive amounts of effort. None of that effort was spent here, or it was spent incorrectly.

Either way, "The bad idea is dead, long live the bad idea!"
 
Doesn't surprise me. I've never used Google+, and don't know anyone that has. Hard to try and go toe to toe with the most popular social site in the world when you're not basically making a carbon copy of them.
 
One of the issues with G+ is that it errs on the side of privacy. A lot of my friends encountered this issue:

1) Join G+, add a few people.
2) Make a couple of posts, shared with circles.
3) Add a whole lot of other people.
4) Look for posts.

Only the people added in step 1 can see posts made in step 2, because they were only shared with people in circles at that point in time. FB will expand permissions for the posts in step 2 to be shown to the people added in step 3.
 
Azhar said:
...and finally there's the "wtf? no words for friends and farmville? fuck that" dilemma.
Click to expand...

That's why Google+ hasn't taken off. Countless people I know use facebook "apps" and games on a daily basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top