Facebook's changes

I have been spending a great deal of time talking about Google+.  While Google+ is exciting and new, there are already existing networks out there that deserve some attention.  So without further ado, I present a post about something other than Google+.  (And if you're keeping count I mention Google+ four times in this paragraph).

Facebook has recently come out with new changes to their news feed feature that are noteworthy.  Search Engine Land does a great job simplifying the changes; I will do a basic rehash, but you should check out their post for more information (here).

Facebook now groups posts by relevance, grouping posts that are connected to the same topic or share the same link together in the news feed.  The rumor around the blogosphere is that they are doing this to appease businesses (it's the corporations brah!)  It makes sense that businesses would want the change so their brands could jump to the top of a person's news feed every time a comment, or a "like" were made to it.  The real question is how will this anger the everyday Facebook user.

Alot.  The Twitterverse hates the changes, as do I.

I understand that Facebook is trying to increase its revenue, but at what cost?  By now Facebook is definitely feeling the heat from Google + (five).  Can they bare to make anymore missteps?

A few posts ago I wrote about Google+ (six) angering businesses and how they can't afford to do so.  Facebook is in the opposite position, businesses have no choice but to use its service.  Facebook is so established that all it has to do is retain its users and the money will continue to flow.  That being said, Facebook has almost 700 million more users than Google + (seven), so it can afford to spare a few.

Whatever the changes, Facebook should be careful, Google is growing up fast.

Google +1 gets a -1

Why is Google messing with my search results?

I was doing a search the other day for something mundane, I think it was for movie times or fondue; whatever it was, it wasn't of importance.  The important thing is that when my search results came up there was a picture of my friend's face and a blurb that read something like "Bob likes this" or "Bob +1'ed this".  After processing this infomation for a moment I closed my laptop so fast I was scared that I may have broken it.  Is this what we have come to, incorporating social media into search?

I love my friend Bob and all (an no his name is not actually Bob), but I really do not want his opinion when it comes to anything.  He has horrible taste in movies, music, books and fondue.  We have different opinions on almost everything; just because we're friends does not mean that we must have similar interests in everything we do.  If I wanted an opinion I would have called, Facebooked or Tweeted Bob and asked him his advice, not have run a Google search.

Search should be just that, a search: aggregate the data of all Internet users and deliver me the most relevant and useful links!  Social media and search occupy two separate spheres of the Internet: one for communicating with friends, strangers and former high school friends who you have no interest in anymore, and the other for, well... search.

I fear Google becoming an "interests" page where the top search results are only those that one's friends have +1'ed.  I may be jumping the gun here, but Google is a trendsetter and if this is embraced, I fear for where search is headed.

The "War"

While I do not want to talk about Google+, as long as the chamber is echoing I might as well make sure my voice is one of them.

Let's talk about this "war" that is raging with Google+.  If you are not blind you may have noticed that I placed the word war in apostrophes; I did this because I do not believe there is really a war.

For the last few weeks, since Google+ came out, the blogosphere has been really up-playing the supposed fight between Google and its arch rival (insert name here).  Sometimes the rival is Facebook, which makes sense given the profile creation and maintenance aspect of Google's service, along with similar sharing features.  However, sometimes the Google rival is Twitter, which makes less sense.  I haven't really seen Google+ used for broadcasting or micro-blogging in my experience with it, but hell, why not?

The point is that nobody really knows who Google+'s rival is, it is still way too early to tell its purpose.

Now let's focus on the numbers.  Google+ is at what? About 20 million users.  Let's compare this to Facebook's 750 million users.  This is not a David and Goliath tale, this is Godzilla vs a labradoodle.  Google may be fast growing, but Facebook has a massive advantage that is not going away any time soon.  Not to mention that while people may be adopting Google+, I doubt they will be leaving their already established networks on Facebook.

Until you can use all the features of Google+ through text, it most likely won't really be taking a swing at Twitter either.  With the recent deletion of Google+ business pages, Google seems to be sending the message that it does not want companies broadcasting on their platform, a key feature of Twitter.

I know the people want to see blood, but it's far too early to start throwing around words such as "war" and "fight".  Can we all agree to let Google+ develop into something before we start over-analyzing  and cross-comparing it?  Everyone seems to want to see it succeed, so let's not doom it before it starts.

Enough Google+ already! (Not really)

So, if you're like me you have been reading tech blogs for awhile you have come to the conclusion that nothing else in the tech world exists aside from Google+.

Almost everyday, on almost all of my favorite blogs there is a new post about Google+.  Whether it be Google+ for business, Google deleting Plus accounts or how to market yourself using Google+, it's all the same.

While I acknowledge that since the service is new and still adding thousands people everyday, it makes for an interesting topic, but I do wish the tech-head love affair would end soon.

I can't tell if bloggers have just run out of ideas or if we're all just so excited to finally have a Facebook alternative that it's all we can talk about.

Either way, it's time to move on...

Oh and look out for my next post about Sparks on Google+.  (Irony intended)

Google+ and Business

Tonight while having my post-work beer I decided to pick up my aging mac and read some of my favorite blogs.  While reading, one post caught my eye: Search Engine Land's post about Google and Business accounts (article here).

If you read Mashable or follow any sort of tech news you would have come across an issue Google+ has been having with business accounts.  For some reason Google has decided that it doesn't want businesses creating Plus accounts.  Over time they have been deleting business's pages and according to Search Engine Land's post they have recently started deleting high profile business pages.  Mashable, one of the most popular pages on Google+ was deleted, but then reinstated under the guise of being on a "trial" basis.

Lame.

I love Mashable just as much of the next guy but c'mon Google you can't haphazardly enforce your policy!  It seems to be that Google doesn't want to alienate most of its early adopters, the tech heads that read Mashable. 

In the future Google is going to need businesses and organizations to make their social experiment successful.  Google is taking a huge hit developing and maintaining Google+, and they are going to need to monetize at some point in time; pissing the businesses off now may backfire in the future.  The point could be made that businesses will go to where ever the people are... but is that really true?  

Look at the top social networks, a key feature is that they allow people direct interaction with organizations and companies.  Imagine MTV hosting the VMAs without twitter; imagine watching any commercial on television without hearing "find us on Facebook".  Linked In is completely based around connecting people through companies.

Google should realize that an integral part of social networks is a kind of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" relationship with businesses.

I know want to be friends with Mashable, my favorite beer brand and my favorite sneaker.  If myself and others like me are not allowed to communicate with them, not only will Google lose on the business end, but also on the people end.  

South Park got marketing right

Last night while enjoying a refreshing post-work beer I decided to go on my computer and watch a little South Park.  I'm a huge fan of the show and have seen almost every episode, so I hit the random button, kicked my shoes off and started to enjoy.

 

The episode was entitled Cartmanland, for those of you who don't know who Cartman is I suggest you step into twenty first century.  Cartman, an unpleasant racist, sexist and generally every "ist" in the book inherits a large sum of money and decides he wants to open his own theme park.  He does so, kicks everyone out and for a while enjoys the park by himself.  After a brief period of time he learns that there are various costs that are associated with owning a theme park and decides to let a small number of people in to offset said costs.  Over time the cost of ownership of this park grow and as does his need to make revenue, so he must let more people in.  The populace, not being allowed to enter the park, line up outside daily in a desire to be apart of that small crowd that is let in.  Eventually Cartman, to his dissatisfaction, has an incredibly profitable theme park.

 

The whole point of that story is point out what seems to be happening with a number of businesses.  Take Google Plus for example, they started off with a limited number of invites and soon the web was abuzz with Google Plus.  Some even say that it could be the fastest growing social network to date.

 

Spotify is doing this right now with their American beta.  Recruiting Klout users to send out exclusive invites.

 

Is this really how it works?  Has South Park correctly parodied human behavior?

 

Apparently all it takes is making something of unknown value seem exclusive and people will be all over it like hot cakes (or Google Plus for an example relevant in our days).

 

Oh ya... and to be fair I was an early adopter and continuing advocate of Google Plus.

 

I guess we're all sheep.

 

Bahhh.

Google+

So I have embraced Google+, and so far so good.  The only problem I can find is in the circles feature.

I like the ability to control who sees what but setting up circles takes a bit of time and can be tricky.  When I first started using Google+ it was easy.  I only had about 5 or 10 other friends who had it, so sorting them into circles was easy: Close friends, HR friends (high response) and Everyone.  Now that the stragglers are finally managing to get a Google+ account it is becoming more difficult.  Everyday I add about 2 or more people to various circles on Plus, and keeping track of where they are placed and correctly categorizing them has become much harder.  Not to mention I like creating entertaining categories like: I bet these people don't know I hate them, and UberNerds!

I have seen the number of circles that I have balloon from the original 3 to about 10 and growing.  I would say for every ten friends I add, I have to create a new circle or two, to properly categorize our relationship.  This is a far amount of work; moving people around, placing people in multiple circles and deleting them from their previous circles takes some serious time.

I know Facebook uses an algorithm that displays friends in your feed based on an affinity score, I wish Google would create something similar for circles.  It would simple enough to add a circle suggestion tab and have it be based off of some Google+ affinity score.

I know Google+ is only a baby but this small change would make using it a lot easier.

...And has the Internet reached a consensus yet?  Is it Google+ or Google Plus?  Decide soon interwebs.

Not worth it

I was talking to one of my friends about this blog, and how I write for non-existent ears.  He suggested that I get at least some readers or "what else is the point?"

First, the point is that it's out there.  It's online.  The world can access it, and it's contributing to some greater collection of knowledge or noise, depending on what you want to call it.

Also there is the problem of getting people to read what you have to say.  The best way to get traffic is to mercilessly pimp yourself out.  Whether it be to your friends or to the Twitter masses, what ever you do, it's still pimping yourself.  I could annoy all of my friend by continually linking my blog posts to my Facebook, Linked in or Google+ pages, but then anything decent I want to say gets drowned out by the noise I've created by linking my blog posts.

Another option is to use Twitter.  I could finish all my tweets with tiny url that links back here, but then I become all that I hate: a bot, a twitter troll, an e-pimp, whatever you want to call it.

As I sit here in front of my computer, typing away, I can sit happily knowing that though nobody is listening at least I stuck to my guns and didn't bot my friends or the world.

Social media why?

Why do people use social media websites?  Twitter, Facebook, Linked in, MySpace, Google+, Foursquare, the list goes on.

I am not only guilty using all of the sites above, but do so regularly.  WHY!? I have no idea.  Is is some latent desire to have more communication?  Do I want to be noticed and become famous somehow?  Do I think that people out there actually care what I have do say?

The answers are: no, no and no.  So then why?

Aside from Twitter I generally know all of the people that I communicate with on the other social platforms, so I can scratch out famous.  My friends already don't care what I have to say anyhow, and I have no desire to be famous.

The only other possible explanation I can think of is content.  To share videos and websites, but even that still it makes no sense, if that was the case why not just use one social media website; surely facebook would suffice.

Maybe social media is a niche hobby.  Some people collect stamps, some people are into cars or beer, others are into social media.  Discovering it, using it, finding the latest and greatest.

I don't know I can't really think of any other reasons, but why not?

Here is a picture of a cat: