[hcs-d] Google+

EJ Bensing ebensing at college.harvard.edu
Wed Jun 29 18:02:18 EDT 2011


Interesting point & article.

 

As someone who does give 2 cents about privacy, it might be nice if facebook
made the friend list feature easier to use and a more central part of the
privacy management system. If it had the same effect that LiveJournal's
privacy controls had on its users, then it could even open up a whole new
'class' of information (ie. More private) to facebook. Furthermore, the data
on how people group their friends and a comparison of said groups common
interests would probably be very valuable to advertisers. Facebook even
already has the feature built in, but it is just such a minor part of things
that I doubt many people use it. (I myself only have 1 group and that is to
make send mass-messages easier)

 

In the end, I consider it unlikely that facebook would do anything to make
managing your privacy any easier, even if it would be beneficial to them.

 

Also on the entrepreneurship/competition/ect. point, I think it is great
that a company like google actually keeps trying to compete with facebook,
since they actually have the resources and position to do so. 

 

-E.J. 

 

 

From: hcs-discuss-bounces at lists.hcs.harvard.edu
[mailto:hcs-discuss-bounces at lists.hcs.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Danz
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 2:48 AM
To: Julia Hansbrough
Cc: hcs-discuss at hcs.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [hcs-d] Google+

 

 

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Julia Hansbrough
<jhansbrough at college.harvard.edu> wrote:

I wouldn't automatically discount their use of asymmetric networking as a
blunder -- if it's going to compete with Facebook, it's going to have to
offer a slightly different take on things, and that's not a bad way to
differentiate.  Plus, a similar model's been proven to work before, back in
Ye Olde Days of the web, with -- go ahead and laugh -- LiveJournal.  Though
it's all but dead now, the site was one of the first huge social network-y /
blog platforms, and it was incredibly slow to die -- people seemed to like
that friending wasn't always mutual, and you were asked to set the privacy
level on every entry before posting it.  (Interesting article with some more
about this:
http://33bits.org/2009/09/09/livejournal-done-right-the-case-for-a-social-ne
twork-with-built-in-privacy/ )

Fair analysis.  It's a real change from FB.
 


<-----Original Message----->


 

 

From: Jim Danz [danz at fas.harvard.edu]
Sent: 6/29/2011 10:14:03 AM
To: tpak at fas.harvard.edu
Cc: hcs-discuss at hcs.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [hcs-d] Google+ 



On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Ted Pak <tpak at fas.harvard.edu> wrote: 
> https://plus.google.com/up/start/?sw=1
<https://plus.google.com/up/start/?sw=1&type=st> &type=st 
> Thoughts on Google's latest attempt at social?  Anybody here try it out
yet? 
>  Current or ex-FB employees willing to say it's meh? 

Sign me up (if ex-intern counts as ex-employee). Google+ is meh 
because it's basically Facebook.* The only difference is that the way 
you connect to people is more confusing. 

> I had two "friends" on it (or whatever they're called) 

Case in point. Even if they weren't up against the challenge of a 
world whose mental model of social networks and their vocabulary comes 
from Facebook, they'd still face the fact that there isn't even a 
natural noun. Circle-members? What? And honestly, I want to go 
ahead and say that they got it wrong with the asymmetry. It's more 
complicated to understand (see: Datamatch's move from asymmetric to 
symmetric matches, Hoon et al 2010) and doesn't allow for effort 
re-use (one person makes a group and everyone in it benefits). 

Comedy over-the-top complaint: Say you heard about Google+ verbally. 
You might think it's "Google +". Well, if you Google "Google +", 
you're just Googling Google. Looks like + is either not supported or 
not interpreted as a literal character, but I give them credit that 
they at least hardcoded "Google+" to work. 

Serious complaint: Google is the way that I get things done online, 
whether that's emails that need to go out, or searches that need to 
happen. I really, really, really, don't ever want a glyph showing me 
how many "Notifications"** I have from my Circle-members. That's 
where I think that Google is coming close to being a bit evil with 
this. If us using their tools for productivity rather than 
socializing isn't profitable enough for them, they go make them social 
so we'll be more engaged? I don't want to be engaged by my search 
engine. I want it to take me to the answers that I want. 

Just saw Joe's note. Agreed on principle that FB could use some 
healthy competition. But it'd be nice for that competition to smell 
less like a clone. And, yeah, apart from the fact that Google will 
have to be more conservative with privacy because they're a bigger 
company and have blown this in the past, I see no reason to find this 
less evil than FB. 

* Well, 
* they're probably called something other than notifications to 
minimize literal FB copying 



> It seems like early press is quite positive--that's already an improvement

> over Buzz. 
> Ted 
> _______________________________________________ 
> hcs-discuss mailing list 
> hcs-discuss at lists.hcs.harvard.edu 
> https://lists.hcs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/hcs-discuss 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________ 
hcs-discuss mailing list 
hcs-discuss at lists.hcs.harvard.edu 
https://lists.hcs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/hcs-discuss 

. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hcs.harvard.edu/pipermail/hcs-discuss/attachments/20110630/5639f453/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the hcs-discuss mailing list