Google+ Is Slowly Being Killed

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Google+ is slowly being killed? Wait, how do you "slowly" kill something that is already dead?

Not only did it fail to win over the millions of fans Google wanted it to, it became the laughing stock of social; a barren wasteland making even MySpace and Bebo look active. Part of the issue with Google+ was the company’s own overbearing attitude, forcing users to submit.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
Isn't that Google+ thing-y like joined to Youtube comments as a requirement for interacting with videos by doing the thumbs up/down and posting stuff in response to one? It's surprising that even making that stuff require a Google+ account hasn't helped the social network part of of their data mining platform get off the ground.
 

Time2Kill

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
1,220
I hate how google tries to force Google+ down our throats by requiring it for so many other services and leaving reviews and such.
 

oROEchimaru

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
4,662
the danger of companies that try to be everything is they end up sucking at it and then abandoning it leaving others disappointed. This is true with companies like vmware that buy products then abandon them (ifire > vsm > sold off helpdesk). I would like to see google help us find great stuff on the net, not be everything on the net. Their new "buy stuff directly from google" feature coming out soon is lame to me as well. If they dont want to be sued for antitrust why are they trying to take over everything?
 

the-one1

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
2,982
Catch 22. No one will use the service because no one is using the service.
People moved away from MySpace to FB because FB was much better at connecting people. Google+ does nothing new that FB isn't already doing.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,985
G+ is/was something decent that they tried to overextend. It's really just a robust Google account, but they tried to add too many Facebook-like social functions to it.
It seems like they're just stripping that stuff out and going back to what it should have been all along.
 

EODetroit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,485
Actually Google's mistake happened at the very start, when they made Google+ invites hard to get, trying to make having a Google+ account "exclusive" to drive up hype (or something). This backfired when people said, "if I can't get in now, I don't want to get in at all".

As a result, a huge chunk of the social media userbase decided they would never switch over, and Google+ was sunk in the first few weeks it was live. The three years since have been them denying the truth or hoping for a miracle.
 

bigstusexy

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
3,194
Something can be dying when it's already dead when people over exaggerate it in the first place.


G+ is okay now, it use to be great when they had the Nearby section and it was populated with just people who tagged their location with public posts. Events at first was a little rocket but it's a super idea if people use it. having a collection of pictures which could be done automatically from everyone invited that went is great! I won't pretend like it does have it's short falls or become too pushed but it's not dead and can be great.
 

bigstusexy

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
3,194
The problem with all the articles is that Google doesn't give you the stats that other sites do in the way that they do. The actually somewhat refuse to compete in that way. Because of this they take whatever faulting hearsay they can get and make assumptions from it and spread doom and gloom. Perhaps they think that if they weren't right that it would force Google to give them the numbers.
 

CanonicalAbstract

Special Attention Whore
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
7,732
I do not like the whole thing where G+ is seeming to be very open and forces google users to be extremely connected. The latest updates I have seen to my nexus 6 makes me feel that I have no privacy on my smartphone. Perhaps its time for me to revisit getting a blackberry, in which I have some control over...
 

ir0nw0lf

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
6,404
f6c.jpg
 

Bigbacon

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
20,106
I do not like the whole thing where G+ is seeming to be very open and forces google users to be extremely connected. The latest updates I have seen to my nexus 6 makes me feel that I have no privacy on my smartphone. Perhaps its time for me to revisit getting a blackberry, in which I have some control over...

my wife noticed this also on her phone. she would start getting all these google+ thing and she had no clue who the people were, how they got the information, or that stuff was even being posted to google+
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,598
I tried to like it. It was fine, but it was lacking a lot of things. I moved on a while back and haven't been back. It tried to be too much and it didn't work.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Actually Google's mistake happened at the very start, when they made Google+ invites hard to get, trying to make having a Google+ account "exclusive" to drive up hype (or something). This backfired when people said, "if I can't get in now, I don't want to get in at all".

I think this is a great point. I was actually interested to try it out when I first heard about it but not enough to worry about an invite. Which then made me consider just how much I wanted another social media account. I use FB and Linked In here and there but am a pretty big Twitter user and as time has passed I really don't want yet another social media footprint to deal with unless there a compelling reason. I'm into Twitter because I can get so much late breaking info on things I care about by simply following certain accounts and don't inundated too much crap.
 

MaddBomber83

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
109
We use Google+ because it is a great platform for family sharing.

The reason is, because no one uses it. It still has all the tools needed, nice integration with our google services, so on and so forth.

Anyway, we have the important people... on there to chat with the kids, share pictures and such.
Facebook... not ready to have my kids on that.
 

CanonicalAbstract

Special Attention Whore
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
7,732
my wife noticed this also on her phone. she would start getting all these google+ thing and she had no clue who the people were, how they got the information, or that stuff was even being posted to google+

And I have not found the deactivate G+ page feature yet either...
 

dgingeri

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
2,830
In the words of those who follow the drowned god:

"What is dead may never die, but rises again, harder and stronger."
 

Saist

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
305
Google+ is slowly being killed? Wait, how do you "slowly" kill something that is already dead?

The continued reports of G+'s demise are greatly exaggerated. Let's face it... G+ is a social network that dusted Twitter off like a bad habit a couple years back, and is only second in size to Facebook in terms of both active user population and generated content.

So... if G+ is dying or dead.. what does that make Twitter?

The points to be made here are numerous. G+ launched into Social Media with active controls for ignoring users, blocking users, and setting up long-term private social network feeds. G+ further augmented the social controls with Community Functions for centralizing post discussions; in effect offering Forum Like behavior in a social network'd platform. G+ also integrated email functions out-of-the-box; allowing for private email notification and delivery of messages. Such features are pretty much anathema to Facebook's and Twitter's "Share EVERYTHING!" approach.

A significant amount of the G+ generated content... simply does not show up in Public Feeds. Users have to explicitly select a public share setting.

In turn this means that any given number of G+ accounts, if set to defaults, likely have 1 or 2 public posts. The person in question could have literal hundreds of thousands of actual posts, emails, shares, or other functions within the service, but a user limited to only public posts would never see those.

I think this is why people keep passing around the idea that G+ is a quote/unquote "Barren Wasteland." With no concept of how the service actually works, or why users select that service, it is incredibly easy to make such a statement that in most other cases requires the use of the journalistic word: Retraction

In turn the robust social controls have another side effect on G+ behavior. Twitter and Facebook are entirely supported by advertiser links. G+, on the other hand, is not supported in such a fashion. While G+ can be leveraged by Google to derive advertising information about users interests, there is no direct correlation for an upstream vendor to "Spend X Amount of Money and get X amount of User Views. As such vendors who rely on Facebook and Twitter for advertising quickly find G+ to be an openly hostile environment. That being said most vendors have slowly found that ads on Facebook and Twitter... aren't that effective to begin with.

G+ is best at advertising when vendors actually get involved with their users; but few vendors do. A highlight here would be the BBC; which routinely posts video links and stories; but then turns off comments. The lack of any downstream interaction from the users on G+ make the BBC feeds little more than promoted Facebook or Twitter posts... so... what's the point of even being on the network?

Vendors like T-Mobile, LG, and Sony that occasionally talk back to users in their own threads, +1 posts, share posts users made, and actually interact, tend to have a much greater return in consumer interest. It's still advertising and marketing... but not the model that Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, and almost every other social network leverages.

As to the repeats on stories that G+ is dead, Google is killing it, and so on and so forth. Remember: DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN!

Just because it made the headlines... doesn't make it accurate... true... or even realistic.
 

st4rk

Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
1,013
I absolutely HATE G+. It took me many tries to completely lock it down and keep it from wanting to beacon every single little activity I did on my account. There were so many annoying, confusing, and seemingly hidden settings that I had to turn off to make it about as private as possible.

And not to mention freaking hangouts. It's incredibly annoying seeing ex-girlfriends appear and G+ suggesting I add them to my hangouts. There's no way to completely purge them either, you can only add them to a "blocked" list.
 

roma

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
448
Nobody on my nets uses Google+. Everyone I know that has a page hasn't updated it in years. Google treats users like bacteria in a Petri dish that they can just cultivate any old way (like it or not). I'm tired of Montessori-schooled billionaires in t-shirts at offcies with Playskool decor who run around chiring "do no evil" while their sucking up all your data (and your contacts data) and grabbing their ankles for China
 

ShamisOMally

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
1,480
I hated Google+ because anything I did on Youtube it posted there, even if I told Google+ to never post it. I want to keep youtube shit on youtube, google+ stuff on google+

When they took away that option from me, I stopped posting youtube comments etc and only uploaded 3 videos in 10 months.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
G+ integration with youtube, calendar, hangouts, it all pissed me off to now end. Ithink a lot of people want to keep their social media separate and linking them together was the real disaster for people like me.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
G+ is a social network that dusted Twitter off like a bad habit a couple years back, and is only second in size to Facebook in terms of both active user population and generated content.

So... if G+ is dying or dead.. what does that make Twitter?

You really think G+ is bigger than Twitter? Sure, Google is the ad machine like no other that Twitter can't come close to matching but Twitter is a FAR more truly active social media network. But Twitter is certainly having a problem monetizing itself.
 

MrCrispy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
3,950
The average level of discussion and intelligence on G+ is about 100x higher than the inane drivel and incessant self worship that defines FB and Twitter.

People actually post real thoughts and content and there are many useful G+ communities. Of course the sad reality is for anything to become popular means being infested with idiots because that's what most people are.

Much in the same way [H] is a rather niche forum but has much higher quality.
 

Spire3660

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
1,032
My wife called google+ dead from day one. It required you to get a new email address if you weren't on gmail. Even MICROSOFT lets you create a MS account with another providers email system.
 

Ramses

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 30, 2000
Messages
5,396
I really liked G+, and it's integration even. If one isn't "into" using Google's tools and crap (and letting them try to monetize your data which they don't seem real good at) I could see how it wouldn't be interesting or peasant. But as far as the ability to give and recieve content, the page, the app, etc, etc, I think it's pretty cool. I was really hopeful that at least a few of my core friends/family would get off FB and on there so I could bail on FB, didn't happen though. G+ is a much more mature feeling social setting to me. Businesses and commercial entities seem to be making good use of it.

Is Orkut or whatever it was still around? They had some success in non-english countries with it I read a few years ago, it was a perfectly well put together social site too from what I remember, never seemed to advertise it in the US.
 

Ramses

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 30, 2000
Messages
5,396
My wife called google+ dead from day one. It required you to get a new email address if you weren't on gmail. Even MICROSOFT lets you create a MS account with another providers email system.

I think it was an engineer's solution, not a user based one. Having everyone tie their G+ to their Google Account/Email worked great, all signed in, share where you want, same profile everywhere, pics from phone automatically online to share at will, etc, etc. I've had gmail from the start, love it, android, etc, etc, it all worked pretty well. That was the problem getting friends into it though, if they weren't using gmail/android it was a really tuff sell.
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,780
I live two towns from the Googleplex HQ and even around here G+ is pretty desolate. It's common to check for nearby posts and the latest one is from two days ago. Not to mention the -vast- majority of posts are just people visiting Google.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,651
I tried to like it at first as an alt to fbook, which I don't use, to keep in touch with family. Then they integrated into my phone and youtube and gmail etc and I'm not a fan. I haven't logged into it in years. Let it die.

There has to be something better than fbook but right now I couldn't tell you what it is or even what it would look like.
 

AK0tA

Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
813
I have enjoyed G+ communities. Yes it took a bit to filter out the hangouts and other cr@p but I am in several very good communities, the economics/finance community dealing with stocks is fantastic and I have a lot of blacksmithing friends that communicate there. FB to me is way to much, in G+ I can find and join communities I like with out a ton of other garbage.
 

BryanSTG

Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
778
Having everyone tie their G+ to their Google Account/Email worked great, all signed in, share where you want, same profile everywhere, pics from phone automatically online to share at will, etc, etc./QUOTE]

This is one of the main reason why everyone hates and avoids G+. Users do not want all of their accounts, information, and datamining to be unified and associated with their real name.
 

travbrad

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,253
You really think G+ is bigger than Twitter? Sure, Google is the ad machine like no other that Twitter can't come close to matching but Twitter is a FAR more truly active social media network. But Twitter is certainly having a problem monetizing itself.

I guess if you count youtube comments as "Google+" it might be close. Other than that I can't see how that would be true.
 
Top