
Computer Scientists and Google+: Something Interesting is Happening  - yarapavan
https://plus.google.com/u/0/110908828231461227679/posts/Jq2ktZUPw2v
======
pork
I would _really_ be interested to know how many of those computer scientists
are also google employees.

~~~
randomwalker
Somebody asked me this question earlier. So I went and counted; it was under
10% (sample of around 100).

I find it interesting that whenever there's a post on HN that's supportive of
Google+, the community collectively reacts with extreme skepticism. Just...
interesting, that's all.

~~~
callahad
I'm not sure I read pork's comment as skepticism, necessarily. Rather, I'm
more curious as to why, if such a forum is an unmet need, an alternative
hasn't managed to gain traction while Google+, at least in the author's
opinion, has.

I wonder if Google, having a fair number of CS researchers, might be able to
get past critical mass / escape velocity / choice analogy by simply starting
with its internal users and growing organically from there. You have to have
something for the community to nucleate around.

~~~
aiscott
I suspect it has to do with farmville. I can't say for sure, but I hazard to
guess that CS researchers don't play farmville and probably prefer not to
mingle with those who do.

~~~
Kaizyn
It isn't as satisfying as arguing about vi vs. emacs or K&R vs the One True
bracing style.

------
antninja
I don't like reading articles on Google+. The typography is unpleasant.

And it's not the pseudonyms that lead to incivilities, it's the lack of a good
moderator system. Google seems to hope to not have to develop such a system if
they enforce real names, but bad people don't care about their reputation.

~~~
robrenaud
Here are CS researchers blogging partially anonymously.
[http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2011/12/what-is-
brea...](http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2011/12/what-is-
breakthrough.html#comment-form) . Similar nastiness can be found on Scott
Aaronson's blog.

Is it strange that almost all of the nasty comments are anonymous?

As an honest researcher, you can't just delete the criticism, even if it's
unproductive, hostile, and borderline trolling.

To be fair, there is some nastiness from people who post their real names. But
I don't think that moderation is the solution.

~~~
mikeash
Why can't an honest researcher delete unproductive and hostile criticism? If
their criticism really needs to be read, they can go and post it on their own
blog. Comments are a way to _allow_ participation, but nothing requires them
to be a free for all.

------
systemizer
Building an online community is _difficult_. If anyone has good research
papers that have analyzed online communities and has successfully predicted
the culture of an online community at its inception, please let me know..

Online communities are the future, but no truly knows how to build one... or
build a culture. Sure, you can have privacy settings, a good brand, and video
chat, but those are all indirect contributors to what the community will
become. None of them dictate (1) who will use it (2) how people will use it
(3) and which audience will be attracted to the community.

~~~
jdp23
As well as danah boyd, Clay Shirky's classic A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy is
another good starting place: <http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html>

------
larsberg
I've also noticed that very few of my CS academic colleagues are on anything
social other than Google+.

The biggest feature it needs is LaTeX escape formatting. I'm sick of seeing
"$\mapsto$" in posts instead of a nice arrow.

~~~
nitrogen
Is it too much to ask LaTeX aficionados to use ASCII symbols where LaTeX isn't
supported, or does using "$\mapsto$" instead of "-->" give the writer more
academic street cred?

~~~
philh
Extensions exist that convert LaTeX to images on-the-fly.

And in a lot of cases (∄ comes to mind) there's just no good ASCIIfication, so
inline LaTeX is almost as good as anything else even for people without those
extensions.

~~~
nitrogen
I can definitely see the case for ∄. You could use !E, but at that point you
might as well just type out \not\exists or use Unicode.

------
pigs
The irony (from his own follow-up comment): "Guys, no more offtopic comments,
even if you're only replying to existing offtopic comments. Thanks for
understanding."

------
atomi
Isn't the whole point of publishing visibility? I can understand some
intermediate discussions will benefit from team exclusivity but this is not
anything IRC channels, private mailing lists or forums can't already provide.

To me, OP's post comes across as fluffing G+. Take it with a grain of salt.

------
badclient
So to keep perspective...

Myspace = the gehto social network

Facebook = the normal people social network

Google+ = elitist social network

I'm pretty sure facebook's pretty happy if this direction holds.

~~~
Kaizyn
The only problem with your classification is that nerd and academic social
groups do not have a high enough social standing with normal people to count
as elite. Just try bragging about being a Linux kernel hacker at your next
party and see how well that impresses people.

~~~
nitrogen
_Just try bragging about being a Linux kernel hacker at your next party and
see how well that impresses people._

Hypothetical method: "I write code that powers cell phones, TVs, and web sites
across the planet. Chances are good you have something I made in your pocket."

~~~
badclient
Tested to work, sir. When women ask me what I do, I simply tell 'em: _I'm a
hacker_. Or when I did online marketing: _I convince old people to buy
viagra_.

------
jmboling
So now you just have to endow the majority of the population with the same
level of curiosity and desire for open critical discourse as a computer
scientist. Have fun with that.

------
djtriptych
tl;dr - Google+ is uniquely suited as a discussion forum for small groups
doing original computer science research because it is private, and we should
expect Google+ to gain popularity among CS researchers.

I disagree. I'm not sure Google+ is uniquely suited for anything, but I am
sure I could make an equally convincing argument for mailing lists or fuller-
featured discussion boards as better platforms for discussion. The article is
simplistic.

~~~
randomwalker
This is bizarre. My post listed four factors. Your tl;dr lists one of them,
and then claims that my post is simplistic.

~~~
djtriptych
One factor was "good timing", but there is no evidence for that - I'm not sure
it's even an arguable point. One factor was "the inability to be anonymous",
which is also true of mailing lists, many discussion forums, and even blogs
with certain posting guidelines. One was the "share" feature which, as a
feature, is pretty much intrinsic to hypertext.

Google+ trumped up the circles feature as a way to manage privacy settings. My
(admittedly critical) reading of your post makes me think that's the only
feature here worth discussing, and I don't think it alone is responsible for
greatly improved conversations, especially when compared to the many other
options for online discussion, and certainly not among computer scientists
specifically.

A better explanation is Google's already pervasive presence (especially among
computer scientists), and their monopolistic method of forcing Google+ on, for
instance, GMail users. I'm not sure there are any technical decisions they
made to support your thesis that their platform is uniquely suited for
anything really.

------
jasongullickson
I've noticed a simular thing in the open hardware area, especially 3D
printing. I don't know if it's something unique to G+, or just that there's
more early-adopter-types using it, but since I started using it a year or so
ago I've been introduced to many interesting folks in the 3D printing space
and had fantastically productive and focused conversations.

------
saddino
Hmm, something tells me L&B would be a bit peeved if all G+ ends up being is
the "default medium" for "communication for actual research collaboration."

------
akg
It's interesting to see how different social networks tend to heavily favor
certain topics of discussion. For example, I have yet to find intellectual
discussions on my Facebook friend feed...then again, that probably says more
about my friends than about Facebook ;-)

------
wslh
It reminds me of the Friendfeed phenomenon. People related to the open science
continue to be active there.

Intuitively this effect seems similar.

------
shimsham
sales pitch?

------
indubitably
Right, because Google needs to have its claws around another academic
bottleneck.

