darkhorse23: DarthBrooks: GooglePlus went into the Has-Been pile faster than all the DivX, RealPlayer, CueCat, HD-DVD and MySpace half-lives combined.

I lasted a day on it. Seriously, how many times in my life will I have to relearn a 'new and improved' version of something that is a waste of time, when it comes down to it? Simplify. Just Say No to Google plus.

Hmmm... I don't know. How many times have you relearned how to use a social network?

For me, I had a profile briefly on MySpace, then had to relearn something for Facebook (in 2006ish)... So it's been almost six years. I could probably cope with having to learn how to navigate another social network site, if need be.

There are some good reasons not to be on Google+, but the learning curve just ain't one of them.

darkhorse23: hitchking: Hmmm... I don't know. How many times have you relearned how to use a social network?

Sweetheart, having to change over everything you're used to doing for the forty or fiftieth time because someone went in and copied someone else's idea and then pronounced it 'the newest thing' might sound fun and exciting when you're a kid, but it gets farking old after a while. Seriously, though, you'll get over it. There's a cure for being young and snotty, it's called 'time'. I highly recommend it instead of attempting to be a troll, because you're pretty shiatty at it right now.

Not trying to troll at all. Changing things over to another social network doesn't sound fun and exciting to me. What the hell are you talking about?

I'd imagine you, like most people, are probably on your second social network (or maybe your first). The notion that people are making you switch social networks every six months to stay hip and fresh just makes no sense. I have no idea why you are reacting with such vitriol.

There's a cure for being young and snotty, it's called 'time'. I highly recommend it instead of attempting to be a troll, because you're pretty shiatty at it right now.

So what's the cure for being old and snotty?

G+ is a wasteland for refugees from Twitter.

It's no replacement for FB.

Garm: Hmm, an author calling G+ Dead when he:
1. Hasn't publicly posted since Halloween. He is an journalist, come on.
2. Only has 232 people in his circles. See above.

I have 1295 in my circles and I am in 1342 circles of others. I am no one, not a public figure nor an author for an on line publication. I don't play games, these aren't "friends" from gaming. He is doing it wrong.

Unless doing it right is being a shill for Facebook(and getting paid for it).

G+ isn't the wasteland some would have you believe.

QFT

I actually saw a G+ commerical on television.

It seemed ... desperate, somehow.

No

This.

For what it's worth, i just got my mom on google plus yesterday because it was the easiest way to do group video chat

I prefer Google+ to FB, but with so few of my friends having made the switch it is pointless to use the former at the expense of the latter and I don't need more than one social networking site on which to post my mediocre updates and read yours.

Can Facebook timeline save Google+?

DarthBrooks: GooglePlus went into the Has-Been pile faster than all the DivX, RealPlayer, CueCat, HD-DVD and MySpace half-lives combined.

Depends on what happens in the coming year.
Google Plus started from behind and doesn't have the audience or features that Facebook perfected. Soon enough tho, Facebook is going to start using its features to make a bigger profit by spamming you from every conceivable direction with targeted adds.
If people are OK with that, Google plus dies.
If people are annoyed with being used as part of a giant advertising system, Google plus starts to eat away at the numbers.

Fark is my favourite _(anti) social network.

LarryDan43: Can Facebook timeline save Google+?

Probably, yes. Timeline makes Facebook look like MySpace. Timeline will be the death knell for Facebook.

I forgot it even existed

Yes

darkhorse23: Seriously, how many times in my life will I have to relearn a 'new and improved' version of something that is a waste of time, when it comes down to it?



themindiswatching: /Facebook has hundreds of millions of people, while Google+ has a lot fewer.

Ah, the 'market says so' argument. Ergo: Budweiser > Sam Adams.

AverageAmericanGuy: G+ is...no replacement for FB.

I certainly agree that it's nowhere near as much of a cesspool. I quit F'book (for the third and last time) when I realised that it was conditioning me to hate people I consider friends, by revealing sides of them I found contemptible. (Mostly, how vapid and stupid a lot of otherwise ordinary people can be.) G+ is extremely sleepy by comparison, but it seems to be a much more refined version of F'book, limited to my *thinking* friends with a good sense of humour. And quite frankly, I never liked the way F'book seems to be a nonstop class reunion of everyone I vaguely remember but didn't really want to know anymore, all drunk and screaming, no one actually talking or listening, and trying to one-up each other with how meaningless they can make themselves. I literally don't understand what it's for. It seems to be just a giant, stupid, really pointless party. G+ is more like a coffee klatch -- quiet, thoughtful, refined, and, shock-horror, intelligent. I can see why a lot of people don't like it.

But I'm starting to catch on that a big part of the issue is people's desire to have One True Social Network that will, as near as I can tell, form the centre of their entire lives. I find that shortsighted, limiting, and kind of sad. Those of us who remember life before the Internet already know how to forge and maintain friendships without it; how can I not feel sorry for those who apparently don't, or can't be bothered? I can't tell you the number of times someone told me, "You *have* to get on Facebook!" Why? I asked. Will something bad happen if I don't? Because I seem to be doing pretty okay without it so far. That was true then, and it's still true now. The fact that a huge number of people I know can't seem to function without it is, from my perspective, their problem -- not mine. There's even a thinly-veiled implication that some people either can't or won't be 'friends' with me otherwise. Well, those kinds of people aren't really friends, then, so I don't care.

swahnhennessy: I prefer Google+ to FB, but with so few of my friends having made the switch it is pointless to use the former at the expense of the latter and I don't need more than one social networking site on which to post my mediocre updates and read yours.

As far as I can tell based on network ... oh sorry ... stream updates - the only friends of mine who switched and are active are all google fanboys who own Android based phones.

/and who believe that an California based advertising company can do no wrong.
//or work for google

FriarReb98: I might be wrong on this, but wasn't it invite only? And even if it's not, isn't not knowing so on them too for crappy advertising?

Its been open to the 'public' (read: anyone not a non-tech geeks) for sometime.

love the commercial. won't work, but i love the commercial.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: themindiswatching: /Facebook has hundreds of millions of people, while Google+ has a lot fewer.

Ah, the 'market says so' argument. Ergo: Budweiser > Sam Adams.

No, it's the "positive network effect" argument and a social network's value more or less depends on it. The whole crux of what they do is connecting you to other people, and if "other people" is a small pool, that's a bad sign for the service.

Garm: Hmm, an author calling G+ Dead when he:

I have 1295 in my circles and I am in 1342 circles of others. I am no one, not a public figure nor an author for an on line publication. I don't play games, these aren't "friends" from gaming. He is doing it wrong.


You sound fat.

Kuoxasar: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: themindiswatching: /Facebook has hundreds of millions of people, while Google+ has a lot fewer.

Ah, the 'market says so' argument. Ergo: Budweiser > Sam Adams.

No, it's the "positive network effect" argument and a social network's value more or less depends on it. The whole crux of what they do is connecting you to other people, and if "other people" is a small pool, that's a bad sign for the service.

This is the crux of G+'s problems. It doesn't matter if they are better than Facebook in every possible aspect of what a social network should do (they probably aren't, but there's a bunch of stuff to like) - the value comes from the people in it.

In other words: millions of people switched to Gmail because it was a better email application than what was currently in the market. And switching meant you changed your email address and that was that, so the switch brought you better value. However, switching social networks means that you and all the people you care to interact with need switch to get an equivalent experience. Otherwise you will get a "degraded" experience compared to the old one, no matter if the new app is better or worse than the old one.

weave: Really?! Awesome! Please tell me how I can get an annoying song to auto-play on page visit, change my background to some gaudy image, and load the page up with animated icons. I also would like to post animated images into other people's walls. I can't figure out how to do any of these things. Thanks.

Give it time. These features will be along soon enough.

FriarReb98: I think it's more because MySpace became uber-ghetto...

Because they let people use horrific backgrounds, embedded MP3 players, and glitzy bullshiat. (Related to weave's comment)

The one thing that drew me to FB was the super clean look. It was fast-loading, not cluttered, and consistent. It's starting to move away from that now. I see a lot of "Oh, hey guys - I found/wrote another script that does _____. Let's tack that on to our existing code and see what happens!"

I'll just sit back and watch as Facebook slowly consumes itself.

/Some programmers just want to watch the web burn.

I prefer it, and I like the way the circles integrate into gmail now. However, mostpeople aren't interested yet.

More people might have used it if they hadn't done that retarded "limited beta" crap when they first started. By the time they opened it up to everyone, no one cared.

Raise your hand if you use any of these products:
GDocs
GTalk
GMail
GReader
Google Search

Congratulations, you're already on Google+. Google+ is not a social network. It's a massive datamining tool that integrates your activity across the suite of Google products.

All that said, the social networking features are pretty solid. Most everyone I know is on there.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Google+ tried to force the same success with their goofy "you must be invited to join" release, and it came off as lame as a Snakes on a Plane sequel.

I honestly don't think that was Google's goal. When the service launched, it was barely useable. Google was just doing what Google always does- it releases a product well before it should, slaps a "beta" label on it, and then watches what happens.

And the service still isn't ready for prime time, simply because they haven't figured out how to complete the integration that it so desperately needs. G+ is going to end up being more like SharePoint than it is FaceBook. Mark my words, this is not a social networking product- it's an enterprise product with social networking features.

darkhorse23: DarthBrooks: GooglePlus went into the Has-Been pile faster than all the DivX, RealPlayer, CueCat, HD-DVD and MySpace half-lives combined.

I lasted a day on it. Seriously, how many times in my life will I have to relearn a 'new and improved' version of something that is a waste of time, when it comes down to it? Simplify. Just Say No to Google plus.

If you find it difficult to learn Google+ the Internet may be too much for you to handle.