1. Google+'s image display page looks really classy.... [Example.]And David Pogue (of the NYT) explains Google+ improves on Facebook.
2. The traffic has been immense...
3. One reason for the increased traffic: Unlike Facebook, it's the norm on Google+ to follow people who are complete strangers....
4. Twitter, like Google+, is good for interacting with strangers. But Twitter's not a great way to display art...
१५ जुलै, २०११
"4 Reasons Artists Are Loving Google+."
A list by Rebecca J. Rosen (of The Atlantic):
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
Google+'s been getting lots-o journo-love lately, but does anybody actually use it?
Wait a minute, it's in beta testing with a limited handpicked group of bloggers. The traffic is immense? Artists love it? What a crock. How much is google paying her?
Sorry, not planning on G-plussing.
Tweeting, done right, is an art form unto itself.
Except that Google is evil and helps China track down protestors and imprison them.
I would never do business with Google and if you do, you're just as evil as they are and I hope you go to hell.
Anyone here a member? Not a fan of Google, but I want to see it first hand.
How much did Google pay you for this post, Ann?
Heh, Nevadabob, guess where you're doing business right now? Yup, a Google site.
And how much did they pay Rebecca Rosen?
Have you even ASKED her if she was PAID by Google to post this?
And you'll notice how quickly they're removing my comments critical of them.
It's EVIL.
Free speech here?
Not if you're critical of Google.
Watch how fast my next comment gets deleted by Google.
"guess where you're doing business right now? Yup, a Google site."
Yes, unfortunately, but only because Google has Ann's blog TRAPPED and she is FORCED to do business here when she doesn't want to and is trying to ESCAPE THEIR CLUTCHES.
And you will note that I do not use a Google account to post comments from, deliberately.
The moment I can join Ann elsewhere is the moment I will CEASE all posting comments to ANY Google blog and completely severing my relationship with Google.
Because Google is evil and I do not want to participate in making the world WORSE.
Do you want your art hostage to Google?
I think you've proved my point, Ann, by deleting all comments critical of Google holding your data.
Ann is forced to delete my comments critical of Google so that she can get her data.
And that's why you don't want to use Google+
(This was an experiment, Ann.)
Why would you want Google holding your data? Forcing you to abandon all your free speech principles?
The question I have is: does Google+ let you filter comments, so I don't have to ever read ones from people like Jeremy, Ritmo, Mick, and nevadabob?
(who may all be the same guy, come to think of it)
And there is no evidence that comments have been deleted.
So, what other speech are you being denied access to? What other inconvenient or unpopular opinions are being disappeared without your knowledge?
This isn't Ann Althouse's blog.
It's Winston Smith's blog.
Ann has become everything she hates - just to free her data.
I always wondered what a psychotic break looked like.
lincolntf, I just sent you an invite.
My impression is that it's a bit more like an interactive linkedin. A stripped down facebook without the fluff that allows for interaction between various social groups.
In a way it's like to Facebook what Facebook was to Myspace. More focused, less riffraff.
The 'recommended' friends list seems about the same mix of people I want to know and people I don't. Also, it does pick out recommendations from your gmail saved email addresses, so that's a bit unnerving.
I still find myself using Facebook, but that's probably because Google+ doesn't have the momentum yet. I could see using it more in future.
@nevadabob: Your comments have been deleted, but Google's clever software keeps them appearing in your browser so that you're not aware of it.
I see this and I ask, does anyone else read, "it's the norm on Google+ to follow people who are complete strangers", and think recipe for disaster?
And I love this from the Gray Lady's review - it's most important feature, "On Google+, you put the people of your life’s different social circles into — well, into Circles. That is, groups. Categories."
Yes, let's segregate all those little people.
Yes, let's segregate all those little people.
The segregation example I saw was: family, friends, and boss. I like that.
Thanks Paddy O! I got it and I'm on it now. I kind of hate to ruin the perfect blank slate that it is.
Anyone play World of Warcraft? Well, it's THE multi-player online game and they are always saying "this game" and "that game" are going to bring it down. None ever do. I see Google+ as one of those. It ain't gonna bring Facebook down.
All we have to do is circle in the right circles and we'll be popular!
lincolntf, you're welcome! Happy circling!
Funny, how I can misread something.
I keep avoiding anything "new" from Google. Liking "old" so much better.
But I just learned, because I asked my son "how he got his avatar." And, in the exchange I got back, I discovered when I send gmail ... my face travels, too.
Who knew?
A long time ago (now), the one feature I loved from AOL was "you've got mail."
Now there's a PLUS? It doesn't add anything, here.
But I do LOVE your photography! It adds a visual element. This is probably my favorite site. (And, Drudge.)
Google treats the little guy like garbage.
Ann got a dose of this herself recently, and once it was established she was important, she got helped. It's like when Glenn Reynolds asks if someone can help his wife with a problem on her blog... that's just a huge argument for the little guy to stay away.
Facebook has abused the data they've gained. Google has decided to emulate them. I am wedded to some of google's products. Adapting to a new search engine was a bit of a hassle. Leaving Gmail will be a challenge. I'm not going to get hooked again.
Sorry, but I have no interest in Google's products. I don't think it's fair to assert Althouse has been paid to advertise (she would probably disclose that, right?) but I don't find Google + appealing, given the nitecruzr and China examples.
It would be funny if Google+ did to Facebook what Facebook did to MySpace.
I'm not an early adopter.
Still using /bin/ed too.
Having heard about the kind of gauntlet that Google makes you run during the interview process to get hired there, I haven't been terribly surprised that so far they have a tremendously awesome, superfast, pretty much never goes down, genius search engine and a long line of totally failed social media endeavors.
G+ may be the exception since there already is more to it than, say, Buzz or Wave ever had ... but so far, it's been a whole lot of nothing and folks just copying and pasting what they posted on FB.
One reason for the increased traffic: Unlike Facebook, it's the norm on Google+ to follow people who are complete strangers....
Too late for the Weiner man.
Tough titties, Anthony.
Ann got a dose of this herself recently, and once it was established she was important, she got helped.
It takes a special kind of person to complain that the guy serving them free ice cream isn't serving it fast enough.
rhhardin: I guess all those pesky kids and their vi can get off your lawn, eh?
If any of the Western Wisconsin crowd is here tonight...Shot in the Dark blog has a comparison of Unionist Shelley Moore and Dwight Schrute:
http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/
Second story down as of right now. Worth checking out.
Anyone play World of Warcraft? Well, it's THE multi-player online game and they are always saying "this game" and "that game" are going to bring it down.
For years people said the same thing about EverQuest. Eventually they were right; World of Warcraft killed it.
Another reason Google+ won't do well - the name is fricken' Google+!
It's lame.
"It takes a special kind of person to complain that the guy serving them free ice cream isn't serving it fast enough.
7/15/11 8:31 PM"
This is very unfair. It wasn't about his speed, though. He went out of his way to be a jerk. Sure, Althouse doesn't pay for blogger. Google wants people to give them their blogging content, since they use it to advertise to the blogger and blog reader (as far as I know... I don't see the ads here).
But anyway, you're making my point for me. Anyone expecting to be able to rely on Google for anything important is cast aside as a whiner. Google presents itself as a serious company for serious tasks, but it is fundamentally unserious.
And I don't even think revenant's point is really wrong. I don't pay Google for all but a few things, and most people don't pay then for anything, so that point where we have a contract never really happens. It might in some manner I don't see, but on a gut level, most people will take this crap because they didn't pay for it.
And then one day they realize they are dependent on an unreliable company.
So I'll stay away from such deals.
"1 Reason An Artist Isn't Loving Google+."
Just now, after I clicked through, I hit the back button to return to Althouse, but, instead, was taken to a Google+ page already set-up for me, just waiting for me to fill in the details. Even worse, it wasn't for The Crack Emcee but for my actual identity, like I need or want them to decide how I want to present myself online (Facebook also did something like that: demanding I identify myself to set up a page, and then making two - one for me and one for "Crack" - without my permission or, apparently, the ability for me to destroy the unwanted one.)
These assholes presume too much.
I want more Cunt postings NOW Helen.
Thanks for giving a heads up that it was a NYT page being linked to.
vi rocked! Sure was better than punching cards and JCL.
WV: plorl - vis is plorl vi.
rhhardin: I guess all those pesky kids and their vi can get off your lawn, eh?
The trouble with vi is that it sucks on a slow connection.
If dissident Chinese artists use Google+ to create a social group, will it explode like the computer Landru?
So they dont have to steal your information anymore.
it's the norm on Google+ to follow people who are complete strangers, perfect for stalkers.
path dependance anyone?
Shit, Patty O, at 7:24 PM ... I thought you were going to put up a Venn Diagram.
Drudge ran a headline today that Google shares went up 10% on a blowout earnings report.
"Google presents itself as a serious company for serious tasks, but it is fundamentally unserious."
"but on a gut level, most people will take this crap because they didn't pay for it."
A good take I think.
We are coming to a point, or perhaps we have always been there, where we can only choose the lesser of evils.
Well fuck. That says so much more than I intended. But as a generic metaphor, it sums up well.
Google stars in data mining. A field of math that didn't even exist until algorithms got figured out.
Google didn't' invent statistical analysis, either. But the sure did perfect it!
One of the math classes my son love the most at Mudd, was one taught by a "borrowed" professor ... who spent a semester away from USC. It really is a geek's world.
I just started using it today. It will take a while to get used to, especially because not too many people are on it yet. That being said, I REALLY appreciate the ability to hand-select different privacy options for every single thing I post/share. It already feels like a much better environment, with all the different social "circles" you can create.
Better than FB, better than twitter.
I've never understood the appeal of Facebook and Twitter. This doesn't change that. Isn't this just the same thing as Blogger?
What if we are all the same person commenting here? Occupying one body, but many personalities talking to each other completely oblivious to each others presence so close.
We are wasting a lot of money with all these computers and keyboards. We could just look in the mirror.
I like it more and more. It seems to take the best of Twitter (following all sorts of people) and the best of Facebook (can write longer posts and can share media and links without hassle) with better sharing management (circles) and a more attractive interface.
Freeman Hunt said...
I like it more and more. It seems to take the best of Twitter (following all sorts of people) and the best of Facebook (can write longer posts and can share media and links without hassle) with better sharing management (circles) and a more attractive interface.
This.
Freeman Hunt,
I like it more and more. It seems to take the best of Twitter (following all sorts of people) and the best of Facebook (can write longer posts and can share media and links without hassle) with better sharing management (circles) and a more attractive interface.
Did you read my post? Why should we care that they're "attractively" co-opting us?
It's like saying the Nazis were O.K. because they had nice uniforms,...
G+ is hardly a stripped down Facebook...it actually has more capabilities.
The biggest difference has been mentioned, being able to control on a post by post basis, who see's what. That's critical and the main Achilles heal of FB for those that use it for more than just actual friends or families.
You can even control being "tagged" in photos posted by others. That embarrassing photo taken by a friend can be posted, but it can't be "tagged" and therefore announced to everyone you know, or people you don't. If you get tagged on FB, and the person has no privacy, the whole fucking world can see it.
It also has editing features that facebook lacks.
I'm on it and will be converting from FB over to it gradually.
Oh, lot's of apps to bring all your photos over automatically. There is also an extension for Chrome that allows you to get your FB feeds...I'm sure this is for people doing migration or wanting to do both.
I'm not sure how successful Google will be getting youngsters to convert, but adults should be a no brainer.
You can even control being "tagged" in photos posted by others. That embarrassing photo taken by a friend can be posted, but it can't be "tagged" and therefore announced to everyone you know, or people you don't. If you get tagged on FB, and the person has no privacy, the whole fucking world can see it.
You can control that on FB too. Photos people tag of me do not show up on my profile.
Crack,
Google is full of Nazis? Or has Nazi aims? What do you mean?
Freeman Hunt said...
You can control that on FB too. Photos people tag of me do not show up on my profile.
Not my point Freeman, the tags show up on others Facebook pages. If a FB friend of yours posts and tags you in a photo, and they don't have privacy, the whole world can see it. It's even searchable by google.
First, being online as NewAge hippie dream - look for the catchphrases (like "empowerment") as they talk about what's gone wrong:
This cyber-boosterism was not without a serious side. Figures such as Nicholas Negroponte, co-founder of the MIT Media Laboratory and the spiritual leader of the “One Laptop per Child” movement, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and Esther Dyson, the commentator and entrepreneur, helped to assure the public that the internet was not just a hangout for Bay Area hippies— it was also a serious place for doing business. And as the cyber-pundits kept promising, it was also a place for “getting empowered,” an attitude that made it a good fit for the broader neoliberal agenda of the 1990s.
This empowerment was supposed to come through the removal of intermediaries. Mainstream media outlets were to be replaced by bulletin boards, e-zines and later by forums and blogs. Elected representatives were to be replaced by “electronic townhalls” and direct online voting. This political aspiration even had its own founding document. Back in 1996, John Perry Barlow, a former Grateful Dead lyricist and one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, penned the famous A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Barlow hoped that the nation state would leave cyberspace alone. (French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s recent pledge to “civilise the internet” suggests that some nation states didn’t get Barlow’s memo.)
Overall, this vision of a world without intermediaries satisfied the communitarian former hippies and the libertarian anti-system cyber-pundits. They both wanted the internet to “flatten” the world, by which they meant level things out—make things fairer. (This was a decade before the author Thomas Friedman stumbled on the same metaphor and wrote his book The World is Flat, on the consequences of globalisation). That former hippies found themselves dining with venture capitalists only seemed to confirm the great bridging potential of the internet. The ex-hippies genuinely believed that all their utopian blueprints could be executed with the help of private capital.
Fuck these people.
Freeman Hunt,
Crack,
Google is full of Nazis? Or has Nazi aims? What do you mean?
No, what I meant was they're exploiting our information and pressuring us to do things (as I showed in my post) without our permission - meanwhile, all anyone can talk about is new features, or a new look, without considering the darker implications at all.
It's creepy what "joiners" everyone is now.
It is humorous to see the pictures that people are willing to tag of other people.
People have tagged pictures of me before that made me think, "Maybe this person hates me."
Oh - I'm sorry - here's the link to the article I quoted.
Try this method of eliminating tagging.
The menus look a little different now, but the setting is there. I have not personally confirmed that this works.
"Freeman Hunt said...
Try this method of eliminating tagging.
The menus look a little different now, but the setting is there. I have not personally confirmed that this works."
Sure, but like all FB settings, It's universal. With G+ you can be selective.
Freeman Hunt said...
It is humorous to see the pictures that people are willing to tag of other people.
People have tagged pictures of me before that made me think, "Maybe this person hates me."
In G+ you can remove tags on the photos others have posted of you selectively.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा