
Losing My Patience with Google+ - dredmorbius
https://plus.google.com/+GideonRosenblatt/posts/Wrig2znc3r2
======
dkarapetyan
I think G+ was dead on arrival. Don't really know why that was the case but it
just never made any sense. They had Orkut and killed it which kinda makes me
wonder how management at Google thinks.

~~~
baldfat
It was a better twitter, but the people were already on twitter It is a better
subreddit community feature then reddit, but people were already at reddit.

Single sign on made people mad, but YouTube and Google passwords being
different needed to become the same. They made it look like it was a
conspiracy for everyone to be on Google+. Then this tied people's real names
with their YouTube content and outed some people. Just a bunch of mistakes.

Heck I think if they stayed with Waves they would have been Slack but then
again ....

~~~
gman83
Actually I think the fact that reddit enables pseudonyms makes it quite
different. I don't particularly want to share the fact that I'm super into
weird animes with my colleagues, and reddit enables this, google+ not so much.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Forget weird animes; your coworkers might rib you about it a little, but
that's not a career-ending revelation.

What if you're a recovering or current addict, and your support group is on a
subreddit? What if you're advising people considering opiates to not follow
your path, based on your own life experiences? That's not likely something you
want to sign your name to.

What about domestic abuse victims who want to support each other? Victims of
sexual abuse as children? Parents of children who have been abused?

What if you're into something that's would _really_ set people off, even if
it's something consensual? Consider what's happening over in Drupal-land -
regardless of your opinion of Goreans, BDSM practitioners, etc., what if
you're just into something that your local community or coworkers find
anathema?

~~~
Danihan
LOL this made me wonder if there is a The_Donald for google+

------
Adaptive
Google had a chance to be the open standards communications platform. Just as
Gmail succeeds in the world of federated email, Google was poised to do the
same with standards based chat, RSS, etc.

Vic Gundotra, with apparently passive approval from above, killed all that and
Google lost its only real differentiator in this competition: not being the
centralized bad guys.

~~~
Touche
I think that's a bit unfair as Google tried to federate social networking many
times but failed (ActivityStreams is one that comes to mind but there were
several others).

The big change, imo, came when Larry Page returned as CEO. He shifted the
company's strategy away from "technology" and towards "products". In same
cases this was a major success, it's when Android started to actually improve
its UX, but it also meant no longer focusing on things like standards as much.

------
kin
I was under the impression that the plus movement died a while ago internally
at Google. They had an initiative to switch all of the user ids to plus ids
and have everything revolve around your plus account.

~~~
dredmorbius
My impression is that the YouTube integration was A Bridge Too Far.

The YouTuber's (Google's biggest social platform, and displacing FB recently
in Alexa's rankings) didn't like it. The G+'ers didn't like it. And the
privacy nuts (self included) _really_ didn't like it.

It took about six months for that to play out, but in the end, Vic Gundotra
was pushed out of Google, and G+'s Product Manager left to join YouTube
directly.

It's been fits and starts since then. A major site redesign, which despite the
standard Google UI/UX fuckups, is vastly less resource-intensive _under_ the
hood, this past December. But ... little else, and very long-wearing problems
still unaddressed.

The lack of meaningful search is particularly embarrassing.

I suspect what may have done more to kill this than anything though is the
political cycle. I'd joked to the former G+ chief architect that "the
political cycle was hard on the social graph", and got back the cryptic
response that "it was more complicated than that". This all a couple of years
ago.

Then 2016-17 happened.

Given the general unpleasantness of political discussion, harassment, bots,
etc., and what I suspect is soul-searching on multiple fronts as to what is
really worth doing and engaging in, Google are themselves increasingly
tarnished.

------
kirykl
The worst part was they removed the + operator from searches to accommodate it

~~~
nhebb
Google search got a lot worse for me after that. I relied on the + operator
quite a bit.

~~~
npongratz
Here too. Going from a single keystroke to a minimum of three per term still
_really_ grinds my gears, every time.

------
ghostly_s
I don't know who this guy is, but I find his claim to provide "Analysis and
News About Google" highly dubious if he's _just now_ noticing that google has
pulled resources from Plus. Has there been a single significant update to this
platform since it launched?

~~~
radiorental
> Has there been a single significant update to this platform since it
> launched?

There was a makeover in the last six months. The article even refers to the
relaunch supported by the awesome Luke Wroblewski. Luke is a smart guy and
it's telling that he's active on Twitter.

One thing I will say, as a designer I'm saddened to see designers think they
can re-UX a site to success. When the fundamental are against you, you might
as well piss into the wind. Or visa versa as is the case with sites like
Craigslist.

Agreed on the underlying tone of the article. None of this is news. The guy
must be living in a cave, under the basement of the Googleplex.

------
blobbers
How did someone even find this post in order to re-post it?

"Hey, let's go check on what's happening on google+?" or "What I'll just
google google+ to see what's happening there..." said no one ever.

~~~
programbreeding
I don't understand what you mean. The article was posted 20h ago by a guy who
has over 50,000[0] followers, in to a collection that has almost 100,000[1]
followers. Of course a lot of people saw it.

[0]
[https://plus.google.com/+GideonRosenblatt](https://plus.google.com/+GideonRosenblatt)
[1]
[https://plus.google.com/collection/UgYzY](https://plus.google.com/collection/UgYzY)

------
matt4077
Lots of gloating about the failure of Google+, even though Facebook could
really use a competitor (although, yes, something smaller than Google would be
better).

The one feature G+ had, that I was sad to see failing, were their "Circles".
The idea that you have different personas within different social groups, i.
e. work/high school friends/family/...

It's theoretically possible with Facebook I guess, but I just don't trust them
not to change my settings, nor do I actually feel like I know the ins and outs
of what's private and what's not.

Twitter is a bit better because the clients are made with account-switching in
mind. But one account with maybe different "channels" would still feel better.

~~~
dredmorbius
Part of my own frustration is that Google failed to be that competition.

Or better yet: failed to create a federated, open-standards, open-protocols,
multi-client alternative.

So much potential, squandered.

------
dep_b
Google+ was quite good in the beginning, invite-only to get a circle of
incrowd users on it first. Much like Facebook only allowing students from
certain universities, but for nerds where people would write interesting
stuff.

It would've grown to Twitter like proportions easily if they would just let it
grow organically. Imagine getting an invite, signing up and then seeing great
content by great people. Of course you want to partake.

Then came the YouTube mistake. Millions and millions and millions of user
accounts that do absolute nothing. Google somebody's name and a good chance
you'll find a completely void Google+ profile.

------
Stryder
People still use Google+?!

~~~
Chaebixi
I had the impression the Googlers were disproportionally active on Google+,
and it seems this guy is complaining that even they are bailing.

It's hilarious that this guy seems like the last person in the world who
hasn't figured out Google+ was a dud and has no future.

He's also a good illustration that technologies that were widely panned and
rejected can still have users that love them.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
There was a point in time where Google heavily encouraged employees to use
Google+. Around the same time they were integrating everything that was
anything with Google+. That time has ended.

------
disease
With cloud services being as cheap and available as they are, what's to stop a
federated social network from really taking off? Is there a chicken and egg
problem here? Why can't a decentralized social network displace Facebook the
same way Facebook displaced MySpace? Is it simply a question of marketing? Or
is it the lack of profits in creating such a network? Does technologies
inherently go from "open" to "closed" with no chance of ever turning back?

~~~
soylentcola
Because Facebook managed to be the first massive service that convinced just
about everyone to sign up. A good chunk of those people would much rather deal
with the minor annoyances or nebulous complaints about Facebook than set up
and learn how to use a new service. Just being "a bit better in some ways" is
not enough to drive the mass adoption needed to create a shift away from the
incumbent Facebook.

And since Facebook would never allow some theoretical decentralized network to
interface with their service, it would end up like all the other attempts:
people who like to try new things/dislike the status quo will check it out,
realize they still need to cross-post to Facebook, and give up.

The only way to pull it off would be to offer something sufficiently novel and
in-demand that people would scramble to use it. From what I've seen in the
past, those sorts of things don't come from loose federations of decentralized
network nodes. They come from commercial development and heavy promotion....or
they are bought up by a company that does those things.

------
thekevan
I'm actually a little confused because I didn't think G+ had enough engagement
for anyone to be patient or impatient about anything about it.

~~~
georgemcbay
Hate to pile on, but this was my reaction as well. If this were an article
written today about someone losing their patience with MySpace it would only
be very slightly more confusing.

FWIW, I really liked Google+ at release and had hoped it would become popular,
but the platform's inability to achieve anything close to a critical mass with
mainstream users doomed me to continue using Facebook as my "stay in touch
with friends/relatives who live far away" platform and I haven't given google
plus a fully formed conscious thought in years.

------
27182818284
I use Google+ everyday. In my private circle, there are multiple posts from
members each day. These are private posts shared among these people everyday.

It makes me curious how many other small private circles exist like that.
Obviously it isn't as big as Facebook, but people don't use it like they do
Facebook, Snapchat, or Twitter. For my private circle, most people have
Facebook, Twitter, etc _in addition_ to Google+ and the content posted on
Twitter and Facebook is usually not what is in the private Google+ circle. I
think a big mistake people made was that Google+ should _replace_ Facebook,
etc, rather than work in parallel with those services.

That said, there is writing on the wall that it is either going to be
eliminated or drastically changed. For example, there are sometimes now little
feedback windows that pop up and ask you questions about why you use Google+.

------
webwanderings
Google Reader could have been the better Google+. But nobody saw the
potential. 99% of the "public" discusses matters (hello social networks!) over
the news and informational items. And what is/was better than RSS? Nothing
else really.

Now you have walled gardens and people behind cages.

------
cmurf
Never made sense to me, but that's fine. What's not fine is how it injected
itself into my life: must have G+ profile to do things like comment on
Youtube. That's a big FU. OK enable it and now I get a bunch of crap
notifications from people I do not want to be in contact with. It behaves like
social malware.

Even disabled, this asinine concept still exists in Gmail. On the left side
UI, top part has Compose, Inbox, Sent Mail; and on the bottom are chats. About
in the middle is my name, to the right is a + icon. Click that then search.
Why in the fucking fuck fuck fuck does it show me people who are not in my
contacts? It shows me people all over the fucking world, but won't show people
in my fucking contacts. WHAT THE FUCK?

Google+ makes me irrationally angry. Still.

------
JohnJamesRambo
Google+ would have been great if Facebook didn't already exist. I tried to use
it but it is pointless if no one else you know is there. I think less than
five of my facebook friends tried it.

In the end I just deleted both my facebook and google plus and have never
looked back. :)

------
spcelzrd
I'm reluctant to use new Google services because I'm afraid they will be
abandoned (Buzz, Wave, Reader) or pivot into a new direction different than
what I originally signed on for (Picasa).

But I think social networks have a life cycle. I still use Twitter, though
it's changed a lot. I still use Instagram and Facebook, but new users just
coming online in their teens or earlier, will likely choose something else.
Existing social networks could support these new groups, but they want a new
identity.

That said G+ was trash from the start. Shoving it down our throats didn't
help.

------
spatulon
This matches a common complaint about Twitter - that most of their senior
executives don't use the service, and as a result couldn't possibly understand
how to improve it.

------
mgiannopoulos
Interestingly, there is a comment in the original post from Carter Gibson of
the Google+ team that "Google+ team joined GSuite" and are working on "helping
people connect to awesome people who post about their interests and help
enterprise teams be more productive / find the knowledge they want". So there
is still some interest to make this work somehow.

------
nikki-9696
I never had any desire to use G+. No one I knew was on it, so it certainly
wasn't a FB competitor, and they then tried to FORCE me on it for some google
services, which is guaranteed to just piss me off about it. Nothing there I
can't get better elsewhere, as far as I know, and I never cared enough to find
out.

------
vkorsunov
Here we talk about social networks and I need advice. We combine search engine
and social network, on Bubblehunt you can create own search system for
bookmarks and other resources, but we using Twitter and Facebook for
authentification. How you feel - it's right way? Or we need think about Reddit
model?

~~~
dredmorbius
What do you mean by "reddit model"?

I don't want centralised authentication (a/k/a "centralised user tracking
across the Internet").

That was a major strike against G+, frankly. And any FB auth is dead to me.

Twitter also, since I have no profile there either.

~~~
vkorsunov
I mean just this Ok, you will not be authorized through social networks. And
if you use mail, then you can create an unlimited number of bots ... a dilemma
...

~~~
dredmorbius
So, one of my soundbites is: "Who are you?" is the most expensive question on
the Internet. No matter how you get it wrong, you're fucked.

Thing is, I think we're missing the point on "identity". It really devolves
into a set of related, though nonidentical, considerations:

* _Authority:_ Should you be allowed to do the thing you're trying to do?

* _Reputation:_ What is your credibility or history? Closely related to _trust_.

* _Integrity:_ Is this thing with your name/identifier on it actually yours, and the same as when you created it?

The point is that _identifiers_ are cheap and easy. _Reputation_ should be
exceedingly expensive. Integrity is very nearly a simple technical problem.
Authentication, similarly, and it carries the additional challenge that People
Lose Their Damned Keys.

I'd like to see a signet ring or similar mechanical, worn, replaceable,
contact-based device replace or complement password and other mechanisms.
Which means establishing some kind of standard (you need a detector / sensor
on a wide range of devices).

And _that_ happens to be a Hard Problem.

------
jboggan
Duh. Management decided to strip off everything of value and push it into
standalone apps (see: Photos).

~~~
notlisted
The Google Photos app spin-off is one of the best things ever to come out of
Google (IMHO).

------
notlisted
G+ communities were great for quite a while. In many ways reminiscent of HN
(quality/serious reactions) but more topical, until it started to be used as
just another social advertising outlet with cross-posts.

------
EGreg
Can someone get into detail *what made Google+ good"?

~~~
dredmorbius
So, as someone more used to _criticising_ it:

* A good founder cohort if you're into intelligent, quirky, and techie discussions. Basically "Googlers and Friends". (Though this also included a bunch of marketing types, a net negative.)

* Really solid technical fundamentals. I'll scream until I'm hoarse about what Google _doesn 't_ get, but one thing that they absolutely nail is solid, robust, scalable, updateable infrastructure. The server-end side of G+ was amazingly robust and had exceedingly few outages. Only a small handful of site updates that I'm aware of ever broke the service. That's an exceedingly good record on any score.

* Scale. Basically, Gmail and Android registrations fed into the G+ userbase, and whilst that is something can, quite rightly, be criticised, it makes for a _potentially_ large engagement pool.

* Search. Took a while, but when Google bolted Search onto G+, it was fast and comprehensive. Not necessarily _useful_ , but _every comment_ was indexed. (HN's Algolia is comparable, though more useful.) Reddit still struggles with search (timeouts, no comments), though the _syntax_ is powerful. Ello's search is useless. (Yes, I poke around the oddball corners of the Internet.)

* Long posts. It was possible to, pretty much, write a book within a post if you wanted to. For those of us who live by words, this was useful.

* Integrated images and video. Photos were definitely well-presented (if overused), and being able to preview / play YouTube on-site not bade.

Later features made small-group interactions fairly viable (though large was
always a nightmare), and more.

I've addressed criticisms elsewhere, most particularly in my "Plussology and
Plexology" collection on G+ itself.

[https://plus.google.com/collection/MY_CX](https://plus.google.com/collection/MY_CX)

------
TheArcane
>what it was that once made this service so good in its early days.

Google+ was never good.

------
drinchev
G+ for me is: That strange social network that Linus Torvalds likes to use.

------
edoceo
He posts, on Google+

------
empath75
Google+ is still around?

------
moonbug
What's Google+ ?

------
antidaily
3 years ago called...

------
dragthor
What's Google+?

------
whalesalad
Only on HN... I can't think of a single person outside of maybe Android Kernel
developers who use G+. How is this on the homepage?!

