

Chief Architect of Google+ requests clarification on Google Reader - Shooti
https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/Br8hk1KjY1U

======
nicksergeant
Yeah, I really don't understand what he's looking for here. He wants
constructive criticism about _what parts_ of Google Reader were useful, but if
you complain at all, your comment will be deleted.

Google Reader _itself_ was the useful piece. It aggregates RSS feeds. I don't
really know how else you can explain that "yes, it aggregated RSS feeds, and I
like to read all of my RSS feeds in one place".

~~~
scott_s
I thought it was straight-forward: he wants to understand what it was about
Reader that users liked, so he can work on incorporating them into Google+.
Since he does not have the power to save Reader, he's telling people this is
not the venue to complain about its shutdown.

~~~
roc
That's funny, I assumed it was a PR move to make Google appear _responsive_
when they inevitably add an RSS-ish feature to syndicate news subscriptions
into google+ feeds, as opposed to appearing like a malevolent plan to kill a
beloved service to _push_ more people into google+.

Hence it's counter-productive to mention the shutdown in negative terms, as
that associates the two efforts in a way that underscores the latter
interpretation.

~~~
scott_s
If it came from an executive or a press release, perhaps I would have assumed
that. But it came from an engineer.

~~~
roc
"an engineer", Chief Architect, same difference, right?

~~~
scott_s
Where I work, Chief Architects do not make decisions about killing products.
That happens higher than them. Their responsibility is engineering the
_architecture_ of their product. So, yes, I think it's accurate to refer to a
Chief Architect as "an engineer."

~~~
roc
> _"Chief Architects do not make decisions about killing products."_

No, but if you were trying to convince people you weren't _forcing_ them into
Google+, but Google+ was presenting alternatives out of their sincere love for
the people, you wouldn't use the person who made the decision now would you?

And who better to stand up and ask "how can we help" than one of the people
who will later take to the Google Blog to say "look what we added to Google+
_because you asked for it_?"

~~~
scott_s
An event's possibility is not evidence for its occurrence.

------
reader5000
G+ can't be google reader for two reasons:

1\. Information density. Magazine style / tiles / graphics etc aren't the same
as single line expandable headline with maybe 40 headlines visible per screen
height.

2\. Just the content. Reader didn't try to guess what you wanted to read or
notify you what your friends were up to.

~~~
shrikant
..and you know what? I like text.

I 'circled' a bunch of people from the numerous Hacker News communities on G+,
and I see far too many pictures and videos in the feed. And mostly personal
life stuff, like their pets, or lunch, or some trees or whatever. (This is
also my current complaint with App.net, but that's a different story).

I _really_ wish there were a way to filter by post type (text and links only)
in Google+, to bring it even one small step closer to replacing Reader.

~~~
SkyMarshal
This was my biggest problem with G+ and why I haven't used it since last year
sometime.

Facebook by comparison is a network of people you know irl, so you kinda care
what random stuff they're up to.

G+ on the other hand is more like long-form Twitter where you subscribe to
people, whether you know them irl or not. Its network based more on shared
interest than real life connection.

But when people you've subscribed to because you're interested in what they
have to say about programming start sharing their vacation pictures and other
personal stuff, it can quickly fill up your news feed with noise.

It would be really nice if G+ could implement tagging and filtering by tag, or
some ML that learns what to suppress in your feed from whom, or something
along those lines. Anything to enable people to continue posting whatever they
want, but to allow their followers to selectively receive only the portion
they're interested in.

------
erehweb
Interesting, but doesn't speak too well of Google. Shouldn't Google know how
people were using Google Reader before deciding to axe it? And even if that
information's in a different part of the company, shouldn't the chief
architect of Google+ have access to it?

~~~
ajross
Surely you "have access" to wikipedia, so therefore nothing there will
surprise you, right?

This doesn't sound so weird to me. No one was working on Google Reader. The
traffic to the web app was negligible. It generated little to no revenue. And
even the API traffic probably didn't amount to much. It just wasn't on the
radar.

The fact that got missed wasn't that Reader was a popular app, it simply
wasn't, period. What they missed is the demographics: the _specific people_
who relied on Reader, though few in number, are disproportionately loud and
influential tech leaders and journalists. So they were shocked at the outrage.

~~~
Karunamon
>The traffic to the web app was negligible.

This is completely and demonstrably false. It drives more traffic at this
point than G+ itself.

<http://www.quora.com/How-many-users-does-Google-Reader-have>

~~~
joshma
This is not demonstrably false, as the Quora post you linked to is 3 almost 2
years old. (For comparison, the latest answer is right around when G+
launched.) The large majority of the population doesn't even know what RSS is,
let alone use it for their day-to-day reading.

~~~
Karunamon
You have reason to believe that Reader's usage went _down_ in two years?

~~~
ajross
Relative to Google+? Yes.

------
MatthewPhillips
Do the benefits of an RSS reader really need explanation? Or is he simply
hoping to hear some unexpected input from this?

~~~
jcomis
He's asking for specific elements of the reader that people found useful,
enjoyable, easy to use. I'd say that's valuable. How is it not?

~~~
nicksergeant
So like, the "Subscribe" button, and the list view?

That's what was useful. I really don't get what he's aiming for here...
obscure features that may have existed that only some people thought were
useful?

~~~
Semaphor
Weirdly enough, none of the readers I tested can replicate that. Qbix (list-
view takes too much space, not available in "show all") and The Old Reader (no
equal indent blog name -> post title in all view, shows no text snippets in
list view) come closest.

Especially TOR looks like a great replacement but it's still pretty
overloaded.

> There are 25746 users in the import queue ahead of you.

And it has no "Export" as of right now.

edit: Formatting

~~~
Semaphor
Okay, why did I write Qbix? What I meant was bazqux [1] and I just got a mail
that list view in all is now available and they are thinking about offering a
more condensed view :)

[1] <http://bazqux.com/>

------
bdz
The cache. Opening up any feed and going back in years. And it works with
broken sites too! Even if the content of the original site is gone, you can
easily read it. Nothing can replace this feature...

Does Newsblur or any other RSS reader have this?

~~~
TillE
Yes. This is _the_ irreplaceable, unique value of Google Reader. Even if other
services start archiving feed history now, only Google has the data from years
ago.

And I'm not terribly optimistic about them releasing all the historical
information they have in one huge download, which would be the appropriate way
to preserve it.

------
epenn
It's been quite a while since I've used Google Reader since my reliance on RSS
in general has decreased over the last couple years. However, for anyone who
still uses Reader on a regular basis who might be able to comment on this, I
think Yonatan might be missing the point. It seems he's looking to incorporate
individual features/aspects of Reader into G+ in order to woo newly
disenfranchised users back into the Google ecosystem. The problem is that I
think this is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Even if he incorporated a large subset of Reader features into G+, I think at
best that would likely only capture the wants of a small fraction of the
Reader user base given that both products have inherently different goals. G+
is, depending on how you look at it, either a full-fledged social network or a
central identity service connecting various components of the Google
ecosystem. Reader is a dedicated, decentralized (in the sense that the feeds
themselves come from outside Google) RSS consumer. Both products seemingly
have different philosophical approaches to the web (walled-garden vs.
generally open) and I'm not sure that can be reconciled so easily.

These musings are off the top of my head though, so I'd love to hear thoughts
from any avid Reader users and/or G+ engineers/users who agree/disagree.

------
polskibus
How can anyone expect serious and fair treatment when half of their post is
threatening what he'll do with posts that don't conform to his specification?
Trolling everyone in advance is not a good strategy for gathering feedback
from community. If he can't face the regrets of the community, he should just
keep his mouth shut, have a bit more respect towards others.

~~~
unconed
Because people on the internet are dumb, especially when talking to someone
from a big company like Google. Who decided to stop providing a particular
service for free.

------
jcampbell1
Google can be damn stupid sometimes. They shutdown Google Reader which is used
daily by every journalist on the planet. This resulted in a ton of bad press
which was completely foreseeable. Now they have some chieftain try to change
the conversation into "Tell me what you loved about Reader", under the guise
that they will use your comment to help make better products. As if Google has
no data on how people use Google Reader.

What is funny is how many lemmings are falling into his trap.

~~~
VikingCoder
"under the guise"?

Pretend for one yoctosecond that you work at Google, disagree with the
decision to shut down Reader, and are in a position to try to make the product
you're working on help fill the void.

That people like you assume it's malice, or some conspiracy or evil plot, just
saddens me.

Full disclosure: I have empathy, and own GOOG stock.

~~~
jcampbell1
It is possible that Mr Zunger woke up this morning and thought , "This is a
great oppourtunity to get a bunch of vague and unsubstantiated feedback on a
product that is being shutdown. I'd like to spend half my day moderating
comments".

It could also be that he wanted to redirect some of the passion for google
reader in a positive direction. Make Google a bit more empathetic and
friendly.

It could be some combination of the two.

I don't see malice here. I think Mr. Zunger made a smart move.

Now if he actually thought he was going to learn something he didn't already
know from those comments, that would sadden me.

He is smart enough to realize that comments like those have a huge power-user
sample bias and are mostly useless.

My lemmings comment was way out of bounds.

~~~
VikingCoder
Why would that sadden you?

If you worked there, wouldn't you do something similar?

~~~
jcampbell1
Yes, I would do the same thing. The only mistake I see is the way they handled
the Google Reader announcement, which Mr Zunger wasn't involved in.

Then again, if I were so smart, I wouldn't have made the lemmings comment. I
meant it as a mild joke, though you and other people interpreted it as an
serious insult to 500 people and Mr Zunger's character.

------
gingerlime
I know reader was a free product that probably didn't make Google any money,
but I find this plea for feedback on the back of the reader kill a little odd.
Especially with the accompanying tone.

Feels something like:

 _"We're sorry that we took away your child support benefits, but can you give
us some feedback on how we can improve our social services to the community?
(any feedback about the withdrawal of child support will be ignored). Child
Support Services. We listen."_

------
julien
What a joke. I was specucalting that Google killed reader to promote G+.
That's now obvious.

On other words, they shut down an open product to promote the closest of all
social web platforms.

------
tbatchelli
What I find most interesting from this post is his belated admission of the
brokenness of G+ when he writes "(NB: If you're seeing this via a reshare,
please remember to comment on the original post if you want me to see what
you're saying!)"...

------
jbigelow76
From the Google guy's post...

" I'd like to integrate those ideas into future versions of many Google
products, and try to capture that value."

... ugh. No! I don't want all that crap pieced out across many different apps.
Just give me a damn reader. Charge me for it or use my reading habits to
inform ad targeting, I don't care, just find a business justification to keep
it around. Don't try and put some half-assed version in G+ or Youtube or gmail
or wherever.

~~~
tmzt
I think the real reason user numbers haven't grown as rapidly as expected
could be the difficulty introducing it to a new user.

I've tried to explain how powerful it is, how it centrally gathers so many
diverse publications, how it gives a new perspective on global events or
political sensitive topics.

But it's a blank screen, the welcome wizard is helpful (I started with Apple
and Google collections and quickly added Planet Gnome and Mozilla), but it's
not the same.

Google+ is a product that tries to do everything, but makes the simplest
things difficult. After Buzz, Google made discovery impossible, so G+ users
accumulate very slowly. I'd like to "subscribe" to a circle, say Linux kernel
or Node.js developers, but instead I have to get linked to someones G+ from
somewhere like here and then follow just that user. I should be able to
subscribe to that entire circle with one click, and have it appear as a
subgroup on the left sidebar, and the, Presto, we have 50% of Google Reader.

I would suggest Reader be replaced (if it must) with G+ Curator, a reader for
feeds including RSS and Atom, but also G+ Circles, third party feeds like
Twitter or Tumbler (if possible), mayabe Google Groups or even a gmail filter.

I would use the Reader API for this, it's basically an atom feed aggregator,
and could convert all those other inputs into Atom feeds the same as it does
Atom and RSS today. I would translate the current feed IDs into G+ ids.

The problem with Google dropping RSS is it basically kills the prospect of
sites bothering with RSS, they look to Tumblr and the like and think there's
something there, but they find they can't easily browse other feeds, and it
becomes like Facebook (now), a mess of pithy sayings and 'viral' photographs
that people probably don't bother to read. Then, at some point Tumblr (or some
other site) shuts down and the community goes with it, the orgranization is
lost and the users find something else to waste their time on.

But really, unless Google looks at fixing problems with G+ and makes it
something that people want to use, we'll be not talking about it's shutdown a
year or two from now

------
loxs
Yeah, go write a wall of text, just in order to receive "you are not allowed
to comment on this post" after you hit the "comment" button. Bravo G+, you
bring us real value.

------
milkbikis
Anyone know what happened to G+'s Sparks? I think it was touted as a reader
replacement.

------
lubujackson
So the chief architect of Google+ wants to know why people used Google Reader?
Can't he ask Google employees who should know this because they built the damn
thing and documented their challenges and findings?

Or read the most upvoted complaints on open forums like HN or Reddit?
Especially since he's architecting an _ahem_ social product, shouldn't he
already be comfortable doing that? And shouldn't he value the diversity of
those responses more than those from Google+ buddies? I guess "dogfooding" has
become more valuable than understanding.

Finally, my favorite "Zune" moment: "NB: The comments have filled up!"

I am sure there are technical reasons why more than 500 comments is not
allowed, but none of them are user-centric.

------
bumbledraven
Great comment from AJ Kohn on that thread (I don't know how to link directly
to his post, unfortunately):

The Reader interface was pragmatic and efficient so it appealed to those, like
me, who are information consumers.

At the heart of it all are two main points:

 _Time-Shifted Consumption and Deliverability_

It's never been about having real-time access to information. It's about time-
shifting the consumption and knowing that I will see that content at some
point in time if I desire.

 _Feeds are to Reader as Season Passes are to TiVo._ (As an aside, the latter
is the model that should have been marketed to users.)

Using other methods such as G+ or Twitter or Facebook or any other mechanism
that tries to find, shape and filter the information based on interest etc.
are usually not comprehensive and rarely allow me the comfort of knowing I can
rely on reviewing whether or not I value that content.

In short, I might not see it fly by in my stream and curation services might
remove content that I may enjoy.

=====

In the same thread, Rob Ferguson writes:

Not specific to Reader, but regarding RSS (even Twitter to some extent), the
multi-feed publish/subscribe model allows people to create separate feeds that
each represent a facet of their personality, something they want to say. While
the single-output model of G+ or Facebook has some advantages, e.g. seeing the
'whole person', the trade off is that you can't really specialise or segment
content.

=====

Nelson Minar writes:

So I'd say the main value of Google Reader in the last year has been the very
fast centralized feed crawler, along with its API that made it easy to put
more modern UIs on top of Google's RSS reader infrastructure

------
gdso
This is one of the most tone deaf requests for feedback I've ever seen.
Astonishing.

------
jcampbell1
If you don't like what is being said, change the conversation. Nice try buddy,
I'm not falling into that trap.

~~~
Symmetry
You know, there's more than one person who works at Google. There are even
multiple departments! So while it might seem that when "Google" says that it's
removing Google Reader and then "Google" asks what we thought was good about
Google Reader it's someone changing the subject, it isn't really.

------
joonix
It worked. It was minimal. I could click RSS on a site and subscribe. It was
part of Google which I'm always working in. I stopped using the site, but I'd
scroll through the widget on my Android phone every day.

I don't need "features," I just need to consume my feed without thought.

------
pointernil
Are there any exploitation available reg. WHY they are closing it down? Either
the users being loud about it are a minority (it that case ok close it, deal
with it etc.) OR they are not, and in that case I'm wondering:

When did Google lose its sense for the needs of users on the internet?

and

What is the _problem_ google as an enterprise is having with the service
staying alive... as at the same time g+ currently simply can not replace
g-reader for its users.

Strange.

~~~
wmf
Google is shutting down everything that has fewer than ~50M users.

------
neves
Excuse me you all, but the real motive of Google Reader cancellation is that
you don't see add when you are reading RSS feeds.

That's why Ad Blocker isn't in Google Play anymore.

------
dccoolgai
What a great idea!! Getting feedback to incorporate into the next Google
product! Whatever it is, I can't wait to start incorporating it into my daily
workflow...I know they would never yank it or take it down, right? They are
totally dependable!!

</sarcasm>

Seriously, I was getting close to using G+ once in a while for things...now I
will _never_ , and I'll think twice before using any Google product on a
regular basis. Dependability matters.

------
blart
Reader costs too much money, charge a farking subscription. I will pay $5 /
month to have access. Not everything needs to be free

------
cpher
Here's my simple use case: I use GReader to timeshift info, just like my DVR.
I'm not sure i can even tell you when my favorite TV shows air live--they just
show up on the DVR. Same with RSS and GR. I might go a couple of weeks without
reading X blog, etc but it's there when I'm ready.

------
peapicker
I liked Reader because it was a great tool, and wasn't a platform like
Facebook... but since Google wants to be a platform now instead of a
toolmaker, I'm not surprised they are killing the two tools I use daily:
Reader and the iGoogle portal as my custom homepage.

------
xradionut
Wow! Google appears to be out of touch if they haven't actively been doing
user research and surveys. Makes me wonder if it's not arrogance...

~~~
rtwtlkj
>>Makes me wonder if it's not arrogance...

Trying to parse this sentence, you are implying that you thought their actions
could be explained by arrogance and now you think it is something else.
Correct?

~~~
xradionut
I'm not sure if it's arrogance or ignorance. Consider that Google has access
to an extreme amount of user data and usage data. Did they analyzed that, then
draw conclusions? Did they "assume" they knew best, since they are some of the
smartest folks around? Actually asking users for opinions after the deciding
to shut Reader down and getting a backlash seems to be a misstep on their
part...

------
eric_cc
To answer his ?: Sort By Magic! Sort By Magic is the one Reader feature that I
don't see any replacement taking care of.

------
joedevon
Google Reader was a great RSS reader without being hobbled by social. How is
he gonna add that to Google+?

------
bane
What we liked is that it was Reader and not Google+

------
EGreg
Hey guys. We at Qbix are thinking about building something like Google Reader,
that's universal, works on your phone, etc. We've been building a next-gen
framework that can handle all that stuff, including subscriptions,
notifications, etc. and this seems like the perfect project to apply it to.

Let's take all this enthusiasm about Google Reader and not just save it, but
make it into a community project that we can host online.

If you are developer who is proficient with PHP and Node.js, reach out to me
if you might be interested in joining the project -- you can find my email at
<http://qbix.com/about>

------
martinced
_"Comments which disregard the previous paragraph will simply be deleted.
Comments complaining about my deleting those comments will result in me
blocking and/or mercilessly mocking you for failing to read instructions.
Comments complaining about that will lead to some interesting replies in a
combination of languages, probably starting with Yiddish and moving on from
there._ "

I just _love_ this offensive/defensive writing style: Nicholas Nassim Taleb
does the same, all the time, throughout his books (and I'm a big Taleb fan).

I've noticed that people with strong ego typically hate that kind of writing
that said.

~~~
nodata
It sounds like Google customer service. Oh wait, it is.

