[hcs-d] Google+

Jim Danz danz at fas.harvard.edu
Thu Jun 30 00:54:31 EDT 2011


On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Ted Pak <tpak at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Re: Jim's complaint on terminology 19 messages ago.  Does Facebook own the
> word "friend"?  Why can't a friend on Google+ be called a friend?  You know,
> like a circle of friends, not circle-members...
>
I wasn't trying to say that Facebook owns the word "friend."  Just that it's
not clear that friend is the word to use for Google+ connections.  By
default, "Friends" is just one of the selected circles.  So if a subset of
my connections is "Friends," then I wouldn't refer to all circle members as
friends (I guess?).  In any case, bottom line is that Google hasn't picked a
noun.  It's just "In your circles".




>
> Sometimes I think a major downer of social network evolution is the
> necessary redefinition of words that once had such a simple human meaning,
> like the word "like."  Or "poke."  New verbs like "tweet" and "google"
> aren't as discomforting, since no prior meaning is being lost with an
> invented word, but Facebook actually trying to sue people using variations
> of "face", "book", etc. in their product name--a little disheartening.
>
> Should social networks be trying to enhance meatspace interactions, or
> supplant them as much as possible?  Won't the ones that try to be more
> graceful about *responding* to people's needs instead of *redefining* them
> inevitably lose the battle for users and disappear into the mist like
> MySpace and other ghosts?
>
>  Ted
>
> On Jun 29, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Charles Herrmann wrote:
>
> Btw, ads for Google+ are popping up all over the place. They're beautifully
> done.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwnJ5Bl4kLI&feature=player_embedded.
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:02 PM, EJ Bensing <ebensing at college.harvard.edu>wrote:
>
>> 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-network-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&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 ****
>>
>> . ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110630/44de592e/attachment.htm 


More information about the hcs-discuss mailing list