And bottom line is that I'll be on the networking site where the majority of my friends are. I don't have the time nor the patience to update 2 sites so as long as FB is being used by my friends I'll stay there. I have no loyalty for the company.

Ultimatelly I think that's going to be the downfall of Google+ or any other site that is not a huge improvement over FB. People just don't like to change from things that they know and are comfortable and while a few early adopters will try out Google+, if their friends/family don't join fast look for them to go back to FB (that is if they decide to keep up a profile on a social network site).

https://plus.google.com/117027602143270720756/posts/BJWvisSdmDx

As a little taste check out the post above. Basically all these people were adding anyone that Zuckerberg added in a really lame social networking attempt. So he didn't set his friend's circle to private and got all his buddies and Facebook employees spammed.

abfalter: It will be hard for people to migrate

Well the said they're already up to ten million users, so people are migrating. I know most of my Fark friends who I have on facebook are already there. It'll be like other stuff, the geeks go first, then get everyone else to tag along.

I started using it, I like it so far, but the main reason it's not loaded with the usual crap that permiates facebook is no mafia wars, farmville, or whatever games infest that site.

ordinarysteve: i havent tried google + yet but deleted my facebook anyways because it turned out to be a retarded social networking tool. it over time encouraged you to add more and more personal information while gradually adding "friends." since i am not an international spy i wasnt too concerned about info gathering by the site, a little maybe, but i had so many ex-classmates, acquaintances and family that i worried about what got posted on my wall and so on. anyways thats just me, ill see if google + is better

invite sent so you can try it

vinnydoz007: Facebook is also downright glitchy.

Yeah it is. Part of the glitch problems is all the crap they have and the way they do stuff. Google+ is doing things differently so might not get the glitches.

ddam: And bottom line is that I'll be on the networking site where the majority of my friends are. I don't have the time nor the patience to update 2 sites so as long as FB is being used by my friends I'll stay there. I have no loyalty for the company.

Ultimatelly I think that's going to be the downfall of Google+ or any other site that is not a huge improvement over FB. People just don't like to change from things that they know and are comfortable and while a few early adopters will try out Google+, if their friends/family don't join fast look for them to go back to FB (that is if they decide to keep up a profile on a social network site).

I really doubt that'll be the case. Or maybe it'll be the case with the 30+ crowd. I really see the younger generation obsessed with google to the extent that looking to remove the hassle of multiple sign ins may opt in for this. Me I'm looking for higher control over the content that I post - who can see it and whether or not it can be indexed. I'm sure there's many others looking for this. A 10 million user base is nothing to sneeze at, even if FB has 75 times that. I'm sure it can hit 100 million by the end of the year. And hey, if it stays at that amount it would actually be a plus in my book ;)

That ass Zuckerberg, why didn't he send me an invite?!

G+ needs to do everything that FB does that people like as well or better. Plus they need to not do all of the things FB does that people hate.

/Obvious

Tentacle: ordinarysteve: i havent tried google + yet but deleted my facebook anyways because it turned out to be a retarded social networking tool. it over time encouraged you to add more and more personal information while gradually adding "friends." since i am not an international spy i wasnt too concerned about info gathering by the site, a little maybe, but i had so many ex-classmates, acquaintances and family that i worried about what got posted on my wall and so on. anyways thats just me, ill see if google + is better

invite sent so you can try it

thanks dude, i will check it out

Sticky Hands: senior.bedpan.washer: Sticky Hands: Ok...
Why did that dumbass even sign up for it?
I sure don't remember Sam Walton going into K-Mart and biatching about the products not being Bloomingdales caliber.

Probably wanted to see how much of a threat it is to Facebook with his own eyes, and to see if there are any cool features to steal.

While I can understand wanting to check out the competition, I would assume that someone with a shred of sense would do that under a fake like Mike Roch or Haywood Jablowme. Not under their real name as the CEO of the major competition.

I simply don't see any senerio where doing this could work out well for him.

Good point, yeah I can't see any reason not to do it incognito either. Maybe just an ego-stroke to see how many people will suck up to him.

arenaninja: I stopped using FB because I couldn't segregate people

vodka: That ass Zuckerberg, why didn't he send me an invite?!

I'll send you one - but beware, I am a far bigger douchebag than Zuck is.

WhyteRaven74: Ikahoshi: It's identical to Facebook. I

No it's not. As for killer features, the killer feature of Google+ is that it's not loaded with crap. It's a Google thing, like Gmail, clean, simple and no clutter.

FB started off lean. Remember when it was restricted to campuses? No apps, no wall, etc

orezona: Unless I can make my profile background fully animated with sparkles and an embedded music file you can't turn off when you view it, I want NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS shiat.

[i26.photobucket.com image 640x106]

I have a little list, and they never will be missed.....

arenaninja: ddam: And bottom line is that I'll be on the networking site where the majority of my friends are. I don't have the time nor the patience to update 2 sites so as long as FB is being used by my friends I'll stay there. I have no loyalty for the company.

Ultimatelly I think that's going to be the downfall of Google+ or any other site that is not a huge improvement over FB. People just don't like to change from things that they know and are comfortable and while a few early adopters will try out Google+, if their friends/family don't join fast look for them to go back to FB (that is if they decide to keep up a profile on a social network site).

I really doubt that'll be the case. Or maybe it'll be the case with the 30+ crowd. I really see the younger generation obsessed with google to the extent that looking to remove the hassle of multiple sign ins may opt in for this. Me I'm looking for higher control over the content that I post - who can see it and whether or not it can be indexed. I'm sure there's many others looking for this. A 10 million user base is nothing to sneeze at, even if FB has 75 times that. I'm sure it can hit 100 million by the end of the year. And hey, if it stays at that amount it would actually be a plus in my book ;)

That could be true but the technology smart under 30 year old do not wanna pay for anything. They want everything now, cheap (or free) and the way they want it no matter if the company goes bankrupt - for example of this look at the thread on Netflix on the business tab. If Google+ fails to pull in those over 30 that spend money on games like Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc where are they going to get the revenue stream? I already block google-analytics (and I'd imagine that most "geeks" do too) so revenue based on non-intrusive advertising is out the door.

Given the fact that Google already has a deep relation with a lot of companies that sell stuff, I would trust them a lot less than FB at sharing presonal info but that's just my take on it.

However, if the majority of my friends go to Google+ I'll go there since the reason I'm on a social network site is to communicate with my friends (friend list under 55 members)

personally, i really like google+. i'm not sure about its message sharing features, it won't be intuitive enough for the majority of people (i don't think). it's group chat beats the holy living hell out of anything facebook has. also, i'm not bombarded with ads (yet). no games to irritate me. to those complaining about sharing your name online, your name isn't private property. i can get your name from the phonebook amongst a billion other methods so stop whining about that.

The main draw for me switching to google+ is watching facebook turn into the desolate post-apocalyptic wasteland that myspace is now. The thought of being a part of bringing a major internet entity like facebook that relies on its users to its knees makes me weak at the knees and gives me a tingling sensation slightly above my knees :) i hate mark zuckerberg with the intensity of 1,000 supernovae and i desperately want facebook to die a quick, painful death

And this, friends, is how you spell p-u-b-l-i-c-i-t-y s-t-u-n-t.

And Zuckerberg is a douche.

BTW, here is a nice plugin (Chrome extension) that lets you update some content without browsing to the actual page.

ddam: If Google+ fails to pull in those over 30 that spend money on games like Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc where are they going to get the revenue stream? I

That's kind of the thing, Google has the infrastructure in place already, the people in place and they're making more money than God already. Plus the way they make money already extends easily to Google+. They don't need the game people and such.

I think it's a big improvement on Facebook just because of the better privacy UI. It's immediately obvious who you're sharing anything with, and that's a big improvement. The problem with Facebook's privacy UI is that it's complex enough that a lot of people just ignore it. Also, although Google has had some "issues" with respect for privacy as a company, those issues are nowhere near the level of those at Facebook. Facebook seems to have contempt for the very idea of user privacy.

SomethingWitty84: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 264x191]

This.

Thank you

WhyteRaven74: ddam: If Google+ fails to pull in those over 30 that spend money on games like Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc where are they going to get the revenue stream? I

That's kind of the thing, Google has the infrastructure in place already, the people in place and they're making more money than God already. Plus the way they make money already extends easily to Google+. They don't need the game people and such.

How so? Using FF with ABP and Noscript (as almost everyone uses) gets rid of advertisement. If I can't get rid of scripts and ads I won't use a site for very long (sure, I'll disable my protection temporarily if I really need to see something). Plus, the more people and more features are added to Google+ more servers will need to be dedicated to it with more broadband, etc etc. All that costs money, money that Google is not going to invest if they don't see a return in the near future.

Zuckerberg is old and busted. Take Rupert Mudoch -- now there's a guy who really knows all about privacy -- and how to break it and then exploit it.

WhyteRaven74: ddam: If Google+ fails to pull in those over 30 that spend money on games like Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc where are they going to get the revenue stream? I

That's kind of the thing, Google has the infrastructure in place already, the people in place and they're making more money than God already. Plus the way they make money already extends easily to Google+. They don't need the game people and such.

I want the FB games, and I want them on Google+. But what I also want is the ability to send all 'game' (and cutsey site and other similar stuff) to its own circle so that it won't bug non-gamers and I can see when something actually new comes in instead of that crap.

And it sounds to me like G+ will be able to do that.

Speaking of Facebook and annoyances. I just had my Facebook go to a full screen add, without me clicking anything, for the FB version of Who Wants To be a Millionaire. Since it was from the games FB page ad block wouldn't block it.

Splinshints: Ixly: That guy is a first-rate dickweed.

Maybe.

But if the reported reason he hid his info is true, it means he's a first-rate dickweed with a lot more common sense than most of the users of his site.

He's long has a way to do it on Facebook. There's completely different options for facebook employees, himself and his GF that totally cut them off from the community and I wouldn't be surprised if it's hard coded into the system to never pull / data mine their info like the rest of us users.

He talks a mean game about tearing down the walls of privacy / marketable data; but when it's his or his close friends data, he's behind the firewall.

IOW he thinks we're all chumps here to make him rich.

ddam: All that costs money, money that Google is not going to invest if they don't see a return in the near future.

Google bought YouTube, which was a major money pit for a while, without really caring it might take a few years to make money from it. The extra costs of Google+ in terms of Google's overall expenditures is trivial. They already have the programmers, the admins, the datacenters etc .And given what their data needs are already, a few extra racks of drives is a trivial concern for Google. And keep in mind, they're making billions even with tons of people running adblock, so that's not an issue.

myrrh: And this, friends, is how you spell p-u-b-l-i-c-i-t-y s-t-u-n-t.

And Zuckerberg is adorable.


Misquoted.

The privacy settings of G+ are better then facebook, but the EULA gives google way more access to your stuff then Facebook's. Both have their downsides.

Does that mean there's an opening? Cause I have an invite, but it's still closed off. Let me in with the cool kids, dammit!!

WhyteRaven74: ddam: All that costs money, money that Google is not going to invest if they don't see a return in the near future.

Google bought YouTube, which was a major money pit for a while, without really caring it might take a few years to make money from it. The extra costs of Google+ in terms of Google's overall expenditures is trivial. They already have the programmers, the admins, the datacenters etc .And given what their data needs are already, a few extra racks of drives is a trivial concern for Google. And keep in mind, they're making billions even with tons of people running adblock, so that's not an issue.

So you mean it had nothing to do with Google video sucking and nobody using it thus they wanted the already established name for that product?

Look, you might be right and Google+ will keep it simple. If that's the case a lot of people will move over. However, we've been down this path before: I used Xanga before Myspace then Facebook (back when you had to have a college email to register). I got no particular reason to stay with FB except that my friends are on that site.

Based on Google's history, Google+ has a very little chance of actually staying simple.

The Jami Turman Fan Club: WhyteRaven74: ddam: If Google+ fails to pull in those over 30 that spend money on games like Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc where are they going to get the revenue stream? I

That's kind of the thing, Google has the infrastructure in place already, the people in place and they're making more money than God already. Plus the way they make money already extends easily to Google+. They don't need the game people and such.

I want the FB games, and I want them on Google+. But what I also want is the ability to send all 'game' (and cutsey site and other similar stuff) to its own circle so that it won't bug non-gamers and I can see when something actually new comes in instead of that crap.
And it sounds to me like G+ will be able to do that.

I just turn the game stuff off. Who cares if you got a cow that needs milking?

Sticky Hands: Why did that dumbass even sign up for it?

So he could voice concerns, and then leave it in a very public way.

ddam: So you mean it had nothing to do with Google video sucking and nobody using it thus they wanted the already established name for that product?

I actually preferred Google video due to the larger player window size and such. And really, there was no reason for Google to want to have YouTube. A lot of people at the time were wondering what was up with it and then some were wondering if Google was losing it's mind admitting YouTube wouldn't a profitable operation for quite some time. As for staying simple, gmail is as simple as it ever was. Blogger is too.

MorePeasPlease:

Zuckerberg is adorable.

Misquoted.

Hey man, I'm not gonna judge you. Whatever does it for you.

WhyteRaven74: ddam: So you mean it had nothing to do with Google video sucking and nobody using it thus they wanted the already established name for that product?

I actually preferred Google video due to the larger player window size and such. And really, there was no reason for Google to want to have YouTube. A lot of people at the time were wondering what was up with it and then some were wondering if Google was losing it's mind admitting YouTube wouldn't a profitable operation for quite some time. As for staying simple, gmail is as simple as it ever was. Blogger is too.

You might have preferred it but Youtube had the name recognition. That's what Google bought. Back then people were saying "i'm gonna youtube that video" and nobody was saying "i'm gonna Google video that video". Google did what it has always done and got their name in the lexicon used by people.

I remember the days when everyone was using Yahoo to search... or Ask.com. Then google came into the picture and now everyone is saying "I'm gonna google that". That's the basic Google MO.

arenaninja: I really see the younger generation obsessed with google

wat

...I'm pretty sure I don't know a soul that's "obsessed" with Google.

Maybe it's because I have a very common name and understand how to use the privacy controls on Facebook and Google+, or maybe because I grew up in the age of the internet.... but I've never felt worried about my privacy on these sites.

Even if I turned off privacy and you managed to somehow find me behind the other hundreds of people with my name, you would know who my facebook friends are, see a couple of pictures of me doing normal things, see that I occasionally have a strong opinion about Fox News, and see that I have "Liked" a bunch of nerdy things.

Perhaps I'm missing why I should be worried about all that information being out there?

On another note. After dropping his account at Google +, author Neil Gaiman still receives messages about people adding him.

It's Orkut! No wait, it's Buzz! No, wait, it's Google+! No, wait...

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MOTHERfarkING OIL AD REVENUE

/This too, will fizzle. Whatever Google was going to become...it has.

My (very important, obviously) 2 cents:

Google+ is better for project collaboration. They should emphasize that. The circles thing makes it easier to share relevant things with certain people. This is actually pretty similar to the concept of Wave, only re-jiggered as a social network. Maybe this is why they ultimately killed wave - + makes it redundant.

For just broadcasting random thoughts or pictures, twitter and facebook are much better because it's way less work without all the figuring out "what group does this person go?" and then "who do I post this to?" Simplicity is the key there.

Personally I'd love to see LinkedIn disappear. Every time I get on there I think what a clusterfark of bad design it is. I think + could easily usurp LinkedIn as a business networking tool if they'd promote it that way.

sure haven't: arenaninja: I really see the younger generation obsessed with google

wat

...I'm pretty sure I don't know a soul that's "obsessed" with Google.

IMO, anyone who does 90% (that is to say, the large majority) of their online searches via google, use gmail, google maps, and pretty much exclusively use google services, those are what I would call google obsessed. So with a google account (and assuming a person has an Android powered phone), you could centralize the majority of your online experience with that one login. Regardless of how bad an idea it may be, many people simply don't really bother to doubt google (not to say they necessarily should, just that a low dose of paranoia may just be healthy).

P.S.: Just sent out 7 invites, including one to a hotmail e-mail (not sure how that works, but w/e). If anyone needs invites, I posted the e-mail above.

HotSalsaZoot: Zuckerjoo, oh really? What about the LSO cookies from facebook that aren't deleted when you delete cookies from ye ol' browser?

/hate mark zuckerburg.
//hate facebook more.

There's a plugin for that. I use it in addition to the FB blocking tools.

Also, that Zuckerberg cat is a total douchebag.

I'd already been boycotting FB for months, + looks like a good tool so far.

KvanCetre: Maybe it's because I have a very common name and understand how to use the privacy controls on Facebook and Google+, or maybe because I grew up in the age of the internet.... but I've never felt worried about my privacy on these sites.

Even if I turned off privacy and you managed to somehow find me behind the other hundreds of people with my name, you would know who my facebook friends are, see a couple of pictures of me doing normal things, see that I occasionally have a strong opinion about Fox News, and see that I have "Liked" a bunch of nerdy things.

Perhaps I'm missing why I should be worried about all that information being out there?

It does not have to be just the things you do...

Here's an example:

Someone from work has kids.

One day, a weirdo approached one of the kids at school and almost convinced the kid to get in his car, saying something like "your dad *real name* asked me to come pick you up, he was in an accident at *real workplace* blah blah" plus other real info that made him sound legit.

It was just because another kid told him to talk to the teacher in charge of recess first that prevented this abduction.

To make a long story short, what happened was the kid went to another kid's bday party, whose mom is a FB nut. Her profile was opened to everyone. She took photos of everyone and catalogued every little personal detail she could get her hands on.

Including the kids at her kid's bday party, names of their parents, where they worked, etc etc.

Sticky Hands: Haywood Jablome

Gene Masseth!

Tentacle: KvanCetre: Maybe it's because I have a very common name and understand how to use the privacy controls on Facebook and Google+, or maybe because I grew up in the age of the internet.... but I've never felt worried about my privacy on these sites.

Even if I turned off privacy and you managed to somehow find me behind the other hundreds of people with my name, you would know who my facebook friends are, see a couple of pictures of me doing normal things, see that I occasionally have a strong opinion about Fox News, and see that I have "Liked" a bunch of nerdy things.

Perhaps I'm missing why I should be worried about all that information being out there?

It does not have to be just the things you do...

Here's an example:

Someone from work has kids.

One day, a weirdo approached one of the kids at school and almost convinced the kid to get in his car, saying something like "your dad *real name* asked me to come pick you up, he was in an accident at *real workplace* blah blah" plus other real info that made him sound legit.

It was just because another kid told him to talk to the teacher in charge of recess first that prevented this abduction.

To make a long story short, what happened was the kid went to another kid's bday party, whose mom is a FB nut. Her profile was opened to everyone. She took photos of everyone and catalogued every little personal detail she could get her hands on.

Including the kids at her kid's bday party, names of their parents, where they worked, etc etc.

You realize how outlandish that whole example is, of course?
She could tag the kid, yes, but she could only put a name. Even if her profile was open, all they would see is a name. Facebook tags dont have "THIS IS LITTLE JIMMY, HIS FATHER TED RUNS TEDS ANTIQUE EMPORIUM"

You may as well have just included an example where the CIA is secretly in leagues with Mark Zuckerberg.