

Anyone working at Facebook: what happening at Facebook on Google+? - evolution


======
reso
Facebook's response to Google+ actually took place last summer and last fall.
I was an intern there at the time, so I got to see it.

Google Me, as it was known at the time, was clearly Google's first serious
attempt at moving into social, and everyone was a little bit nervous. So, Zuck
declared "Lockdown" for sixty days. "Lockdown" was a term from Facebook's
early days, which meant when they had a serious competitor emerge at a
particular school, they would stop everything and redouble their efforts until
the new threat was gone.

This time, Lockdown meant removing all the obvious shortcomings from Facebook
that Google could possibly beat us on. Since most of these were already in the
pipeline, this meant shipping everything, now. For sixty days there was a
constant fervor in the office, with fewer meetings, late(r) nights, and many
people coming in on weekends. They even extended cafeteria hours.

The results of Lockdown were visible last fall, with the almost-monthly new
product launches. New Messages (Titan), High-res photos, the new photo viewer,
New Groups, Profile, and several other non-obvious additions were accelerated
by Lockdown.

I think it is very indicative of the company's culture that their "response"
was so pro-active. As to what they will do now that G+ is out there, I have no
idea. Zuck did say to expect an "awesome" announcement next week, so I
wouldn't expect them to be quiet.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/faster-
forward/post/face...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/faster-
forward/post/facebook-promises-awesome-
announcement/2011/06/30/AGstHasH_blog.html)

~~~
blhack
Was the new photo viewer really looked at as a "feature" by facebook staff?

It seemed to me like it was facebook's way of saying "we're sick of being a
free image host".

~~~
nametoremember
It certainly is a feature. I often browse Facebook on a netbook which has a
smaller screen. Before, photos didn't fit on my screen. Now they do.

You'll notice that Google+ has the same type of viewer.

------
theblueadept111
My opinions are my own and I can't speak for Facebook as a whole (or in any
capacity, really, which is why this will forever remain an anonymous post).

I think Google will gain some traction initially, but what we're working on in
my group is light years ahead of the Facebook you see and use today, and
probably not the same direction that Google is (or can be) heading.

Yes, we've had our stumbles with privacy, but will Google be any better? Any
legitimate complaints that I've heard are either something we're resolving or
is an inherent problem that any social networking site will face.

Am I worried about attrition of users as Google ramps up? Not really. It's too
much work to maintain multiple social networking accounts and at the end of
the day, all your profile are belong to us.

~~~
ctide
"Yes, we've had our stumbles with privacy, but will Google be any better? Any
legitimate complaints that I've heard are either something we're resolving or
is an inherent problem that any social networking site will face."

I would argue that Google will be better because it's clear they've made
privacy the most important part of their offering. By making circles one of
the topmost items, they take something that most people don't even know
Facebook can do (post statuses to specific groups of people) and make it the
standard method of sharing. While it certainly can be overcome with UI, it
would require some massive changes to Facebook to make it anywhere near as
prominent as it is with G+.

~~~
saulrh

      it certainly can be overcome with UI, it would require
      some massive changes to Facebook

Agreed here. I've known for a long time that Facebook had near-identical
groups functionality, but the interface is simply so painful to use that I
barely even notice it. G+, on the other hand, has created a simple and
intuitive privacy interface, and everything clearly shows who can see it. They
haven't just made privacy an important part of their offering, they've also
made privacy _easy_ and _obvious_. As password-reuse statistics show, it
doesn't matter how good your security is if people refuse to lift a finger to
use it.

~~~
qaexl
There's a persistent myth that Facebook Group is the same as Google+ Circles.
They are nowhere near each other. In fact, Google+ does not have the
equivalent of Facebook Groups, unless you count in the older Google Groups.

Facebook Group is closer to Google Groups or Yahoo Groups or any one of the
dozens of forum-type sites. You create a space in which people join. It
creates a venue. Google+ Circles is much closer to Livejournal friend filters.
You have overlapping contexts but no single, formal venue that you join.
Psychologically and sociologically, it works differently. It takes a lot more
engineering work to get circles implemented than it does Facebook Groups (as
it is implemented today).

I've been revisiting sending messages to specific groups of people in
Facebook, outside the Groups context:

\- To send to specific people on Facebook, you specify them directly. There
are no pre-defined lists of people. Further, you have to jump extra hoops to
do this, by clicking on the tiny lock icon, and then clicking on custom, and
then typing in the names of the people you want to send this to. You have to
do this for every single post you want to send out on a limited scope.
Clearly, the Facebook UX designers want you to send it out to everyone.

\- You can do the equivalent of private message to a group of people for an
ad-hoc group. The last time I tried that, I hit its biggest limitation. I
wanted to add more people into the running thread and it would not allow me to
do that. Fortunately, everyone involved are current Livejournal contacts and
we moved the conversation over there. Google+ does not allow you to add more
people or circles to a running thread, but it does allow you to add more
people into the circles which are dynamically computed into existing threads.
As it should work.

\- Google+ Profiles lets you specify exactly which part of the profile is
viewable by which circle + people. You may not want your business phone number
available to your drinking buddies, and you may not want your home phone
number available to your business contacts.

\- Google+ has a tool that lets you view what your stream looks like to other
people. Admittedly, this is somewhat buried in the site.

\- saurih brings up a very good point, "it doesn't matter how good your
security is if people refuse to lift a finger to use it." A large % of the
people in my circles are using it as public posts -- either thinking it in
terms of Twitter-public, or they don't really care to. One of the people on
there twigged on an insight: public posts on Google+ are meant for things that
are relavent to _everyone_. People tend to post publicly and ignore much of
the circle functionality; and as such, the interface will feel clunkier
because you're not making full use of it.

On the other hand, all my friends who are expats from Livejournal and had been
itching to ditch Facebook for something that provides this granularity of
social contexts have set up the different streams.

In any case. Google+ scratches an itch I had. I'm glad it is here. It is the
right tool for _me_ , whether or not it is the right tool for the vast
majority of Facebook users.

~~~
nl
I think you misinterpreted the parent post. It's saying not saying that
Facebook Groups is the same as Google Circles, it is saying that both Facebook
and Google+ have the _group functionality_ (in the sense of Unix groups - ie,
grouping users for access restriction purposes).

In Facebook it is called user lists.

~~~
qaexl
@nl: I thought he was talking about user lists at first too, but he kept
talking about groups, so I tried addressing both. You can see it in my reply.

But just to be sure, I had attempted to use user lists in the same way to
restrict posting out and I was not able to.

Further, I reiterate: Google+ does _not_ work like Unix groups. It works like
Livejournal friend filters. The groups are relative to whatever you define and
it is not global across the entire domain, unlike with Unix groups.

To implement circles/friends list as Unix groups, you would have to introduce
the concept of namespaces in which the set of groups is scoped within a
namespace. Then you attach individual namespaces for each person. In other
words, named sets of named sets. The named sets themselves are not global,
even though the members are.

So I just checked again. I see that after I click on -> lock button -> drop-
down customize -> Specific People and then type in the list, I can restrict
the update there.

I am testing this now: Once I select it, it says "Custom Setting saved" ??
Wait, does that mean I can only have ONE custom setting?

I just posted a test post. The resulting post has no indications that it is a
special-restricted post. Along with the customized setting, does that mean
that I can set a single default friend's list that I then blurt out to? What
if I want to switch around?

If you know of an easier way, I will gladly say, I was wrong about Facebook
lacking in the functionality I want.

I've mentioned in other comments here, Google+ defaults to "warren" and
Facebook defaults to "plaza". Each can simulate the other with some
contortions. That makes this more like a set of Evil Twins
([http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/09/17/your-evil-twins-and-
how...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/09/17/your-evil-twins-and-how-to-find-
them/)).

Meaning, if you don't get why Google+ is a killer app for me, then you don't
really need the functionality it provides like I do. And that's reasonable by
me. Whether or not this means that Google+ will "kill" Facebook (I doubt it)
or not, I don't really care much about it.

~~~
nl
I was replying to this:

 _There's a persistent myth that Facebook Group is the same as Google+
Circles._

I don't think that myth exists at all - I've never seen anyone say it until
you brought it up. The parent post used the word "groups", but didn't specify
they meant "grouping people" as opposed to the Facebook group functionality.

 _Further, I reiterate: Google+ does not work like Unix groups_

Again - no one is claiming that. I used Unix groups as an analogy (because
they let you group people together).

~~~
qaexl
"I don't think that myth exists at all - I've never seen anyone say it until
you brought it up."

Fair enough.

------
blhack
I'm going to venture a guess that you're only going to get politically correct
answers on a public forum like HN.

Something along the lines of:

"We're happy to have some competition! By the way, did you know that facebook
has had something like circles since 2009? Go to preferences and blah blah
blah to enable it!"

or

"G+ and facebook fall into different categories and, in some ways, compliment
one another! We're happy for google in this, but don't think it will effect
facebook."

maybe if they get bold

"We'll be happy to see what google comes up with! Of course facebook employees
are encouraged to sign up for the service, if they can get invites! We've
heard it's quite the contest to get them right now! The couple of people that
have tried it around my office said it was a bit buggy, but it is a good
start!"

etc.

~~~
ralfd
On a public forum like HN or Reddit many people are anonymous. I find the
provided answers so far honest and insightful.

Did you expect an "official" replay by PR?

------
pessimist
<https://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123/buzz?tab=mX>

looks legit based on the people he's following. Mark doesnt look very happy
:-).

~~~
dorian-graph
I know 1 or 2 of the people in his circle's who work at Facebook which adds to
the legitimacy.

------
kmavm
Well, here's one thing that happened the other night:

<http://circlehack.com>

 _Edit_ : This is the circles UI implemented for Facebook friend lists. Three
FB engineers put it together the night Google+ launched.

~~~
num1
Since I'm wary of clicking random FB buttons, would you mind explaining what
this is?

~~~
kmavm
Sorry, I forgot I'd already authorized it. It's the circles UI for Facebook
friend lists. Three FB engineers put it together the night Google+ launched.

~~~
num1
Thanks, it looks cool.

------
winsbe01
I don't know, I think this is a good thing for everyone. With all the hiring
wars going on between Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc., we're bound to
see some really cool advancements from these companies in the near future.
Plus, to have something pose as a direct competition to Facebook's core
mission is exciting; Zuck won't back down, and neither will Page, and
hopefully out of that comes innovation.

------
Caballera
So far Google+ is rather boring. Probably cause I only have 9 people on there
and no one is posting anything other then their new profile picture and a test
post. Other then that it's been quiet. Meanwhile on Facebook where I have many
more "Friends" it's business as usually, same number of post etc.

I'm sure it'll take a long time for Google to catch up, I just don't see most
people moving to Google+.

~~~
mekoka
I don't know about that. I've been extremely reluctant to connect with my
parents or anyone in my family on facebook, just because of all the possible
social clashes that may occur once they have access to my profile. I don't
think I'm alone in this situation and I feel that many people, like me, would
really welcome an environment where they can truly and safely connect with the
different people that color their lives.

Facebook has taught us a lot of lessons about having an online social life,
but it appears to me that it hasn't learned much from us in return, other than
what it wanted to learn. G+ feels to me like a second chance to get it right
with better tools. To be honest, I would have no problem letting my facebook
profile go stale, while I rebuild a better profile with G+. Something that
prevented me from leaving facebook behind in the past was that there was no
alternative. Now, I can gladly tell people "I'm outta here, if you wanna find
me, I'm at G+", exactly like I did when I abandoned my hotmail account for
gmail.

------
borism
Zuckerberg is running around killing animals, just as usual

[http://theseattlesalmon.com/business-vs-cultural-
news/busine...](http://theseattlesalmon.com/business-vs-cultural-
news/business-news/mark-zuckerberg-killing-what-he-eats%E2%80%A6the-facebook-
way)

~~~
blhack
I never understood the outrage over this. He's advocating ethical farming
practice, not going on a killing rampage. The "only eat things I kill" is his
way of highlighting the ways that the meat industry is doing the world wrong.

~~~
27182818284
I wasn't even aware there was outrage. I mentioned it to my vegan friends and
they thought it was great.

