Forgot your password?

Google+?

Displaying poll results.
Yes -- and it's great
  6617 votes / 18%
Yes -- and it's OK
  9882 votes / 26%
Yes -- and it's lame
  1835 votes / 5%
No -- but I'd like an invite
  7348 votes / 20%
No -- and you can keep it.
  10991 votes / 29%
36673 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google+?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @04:16AM (#36730854)

    I don't get the technology community. It seems like google do what they want with you data they get away with it. Google+ doesn't do much more for your privacy than facebook or myspace. The other day people were up in arms about yahoo scanning emails but we all know google has been doing it for years, whats the difference?

    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @04:37AM (#36730944) Homepage

      Facebook, Myspace and Google+ are all for exhibitionists, and they aren't really creative. Of course - the real exhibitionists ends up at 4chan.

      • by Toe, The (545098)

        Facebook, Myspace and Google+ (and so on) are for people who don't have a good concept of what is being done with their information.

    • by DangerFace (1315417) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @04:38AM (#36730952) Journal

      One major difference between Google and facebook is that Google sells your eyeballs to advertisers, facebook sells your information.

      Whether you think that makes a large ethical difference is up to you, but the practical implications are significant -- essentially, Google acts as a black box in between advertisers and users, which is a system I massively prefer. Facebook will literally sell your name and address. I think that this is a significant improvement.

      Of course, the other point is the question of trust. Can people trust Google? Maybe. I do, but I'm very careful about it, and I believe a lot of other people are too. The moment they start locking down services or locking in users, or the moment I actually find them doing something 'evil' (and no, accidentally leaving Kismet on a default setting does not count) I'm leaving them completely. Facebook, however, I don't trust at all with anything. That's trickier, since I live in a different city from where I grew up and a lot of my friends still live, and frankly facebook is in common usage, but then it's a trade off. I definitely don't put anything on facebook that I wouldn't say on national TV.

      Another reason Google is in my good books, at least, is because they look at the long term. They want more people browsing the web as a general business goal, so they develop an awesome browser -- not necessarily to win the browser wars, but to make all browsers better. Then they also make it open source. Then they build driverless cars. Then they provide the best free mapping system in the world. Then they add satellite / overhead imagery to it.

      Google might not be perfect, but they're by far the best multinational corporation I've ever come across.

      • by Anrego (830717) * on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @08:33AM (#36731954)

        Of course, the other point is the question of trust. Can people trust Google?

        This is kind of my issue. A few years ago google+ would have been just enough to push me into the whole social networking thing. As others have joked, it's a facebook that's not facebook. At present though, I no longer have that kind of semi-blind trust of google that I once did.

        Don't get me wrong, I still think that stacked against all the other big players, google comes out looking pretty good. They are however no longer spotless. They are big and established and making a metric ass-tonne of money, and now have the requisite amount of bad press, pseudo-evilness, and people that just plain don't like them because they are big that comes with it.

        If I had to choose between google+ and facebook there would be no contest... but I don't really know if I want either yet.

        • by cayenne8 (626475)

          ..it's a facebook that's not facebook.

          I"m trying to figure this statement out. I know Facebook is a social network website. So, what does it mean to say a 'facebook' that is not a Facebook? Are you saying facebook is a thing...that means something other than the socializing website?

          • by Anrego (830717) *

            It provides much of the same feature set as Facebook the social network website while not being run by Facebook(, Inc) the corporation.

            Not the best way to put it grammatically I guess. Randall of xkcd does a better job expressing this sentiment [xkcd.com].

            Also worth noting, a facebook actually is a thing [wikipedia.org]

            • I thought Rosscott explained it better [notquitewrong.com] in his webcomic.
              • by Anrego (830717) *

                Nice, and yeah, like many others I had that exact thought.

                On Google's side though, the big difference between Google and Facebook is that Facebook directly sells your information for profit, whereas Google keeps it internal (if you believe them, and call me silly, but I do). I don't have much problem with automated processes skimming my info for the ultimate purpose of showing me (supposedly) more relevant ads. I have much more of a problem with my info being sold to whoever is willing to pay, without my kn

        • by Xyrus (755017)

          Can people trust Google? An amoral, profit seeking business? That is the wrong question. The correct question is, can you trust anyone or any entity looking to make a profit off you either directly or indirectly?

          The answer to this question is a resounding NO, and it keeps getting louder every day. In situations where money is involved, even indirectly, you are far better off assuming "they" are assholes looking to screw you over for every penny they can get. Unless you're one of the rich, assume you are an

      • by pavon (30274) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:04AM (#36734260)

        One major difference between Google and facebook is that Google sells your eyeballs to advertisers, facebook sells your information.

        Whether you think that makes a large ethical difference is up to you, but the practical implications are significant -- essentially, Google acts as a black box in between advertisers and users, which is a system I massively prefer. Facebook will literally sell your name and address.

        But the reason that Google doesn't sell your info to advertising companies, because it is an advertizing company. Doing so would just be feeding their competition. If Facebook had purchased DoubleClick or some other large advertiser, they would be doing the same.

        • by microbox (704317)
          Facebook could set up a black-box system just like the Banks in the US are proposing. Facebook has chosen not to.
        • by hedwards (940851) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @05:15PM (#36740684)

          The difference is that it's easier for Google to promise a certain level of privacy and professionalism in terms of how that information is handled. They know exactly what's being done with it. So, if they screw up they screw up, and you know who screwed up. But with FB, who knows who it was that abused the information, could be anybody, you'd probably never know.

          That doesn't necessarily make Google any better, but there is a certain amount of accountability that comes from being the only party that's handling the information.

      • by mcvos (645701) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @11:09AM (#36734366)

        I agree with this. Google might have a somewhat questionable business model, but as a company, I trust them a thousand times more than Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any other giant. Also, Google gives us more in exchange for this privacy invasion than any other giant.

    • by wintercolby (1117427) <winter DOT colby AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @03:03PM (#36738512)
      The difference between Yahoo scanning emails and Google scanning them is that Google was pretty clear about the fact that it was ad revenue that provides the massive amount of space on Gmail, and that the scanning was supposed to bring product advertisements for things that you were actually interested in. Remember a day when you had to sit through feminine product commercials just to get back to the plot? Sure half the the audience of those ads might have had some reason to be interested in seeing them, but with targeted advertisement that number starts to approach 100%. I signed up for Gmail knowing that they were going to make their money by trying to find products to advertise based on automated evaluation of my email. I'm alright with that as long as I'm not emailing anything through Gmail that I'd be embarrassed about.

      If you don't want your interests online, don't post them, don't email them and it may help to not even search for them. To reiterate, Google gets away with scanning email in Gmail, because they were pretty up front about it in their terms of service. Oh by the way, Gmail is SSL by default, all of it. G+ is also always SSL, by default. Facebook still doesn't have the login page SSL by default.
    • by anyGould (1295481) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @04:04PM (#36739456)

      I don't get the technology community. It seems like google do what they want with you data they get away with it. Google+ doesn't do much more for your privacy than facebook or myspace. The other day people were up in arms about yahoo scanning emails but we all know google has been doing it for years, whats the difference?

      This is where I see the difference between Facebook and Google (and folks are welcome to correct any misconceptions I have)

      When I sign up for something on Facebook, it asks for permission to give all my information to whatever advertiser is sponsoring the widget (even if it's completely unnecessary for the game). In effect, they're selling my information (or inducing me to sell my information) to third-party advertisers.

      When I sign up for something on Google, Google doesn't sell my details to the advertisers. Instead, it goes to the advertisers and says "you tell me who should see this ad, and we'll make sure those people are seeing it? 25-year old males who have an interest in technology and like the color orange? You got it".

      I have far less objection to companies making money by giving me smart ads than I do to them selling my information wholesale.

  • Keep it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    And Facebook too.

    I guess I'm just not vain enough to believe that people give a crap what i'm thinking 15 times a day.

    • I have provided the same answer; but on different grounds.
      My online life is full enough already. I don't need yet another online tool which does something I'm not looking for right now. Not actively looking anyway.
      So... Google+ is not something I need. If it comes my way, then fine, I'll take a look. If I'm invited to participate, fine, I'll take a look. I took a look at Wave when it popped out and I was NOT impressed. I foresee I'm not going to be impressed by Google+. Truth be told, I didn't bother find
    • by Machtyn (759119)
      I've got an fb account and I believe people don't give a crap about what I am thinking 15 times a day. I had a Twitter account, made a single post to declare I have made my last post. But I've heard they nuke accounts after inactivity... so I don't know if it still exists. In any case, just don't post.
  • Yes - took a glimpse, not interested in that thing much. Maybe when they open it to everyone.

  • Lame (Score:5, Funny)

    by WillKemp (1338605) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @06:52AM (#36731448) Homepage

    As far as i can see, it's like a cross between Twitter and MySpace. Twitter because you get a stream of people's dribble. MySpace because it doesn't work properly.

    • I don't agree with the categories - "great", "OK" and "lame". Facebook doesn't suck because social networking is lame, nor because Facebook does it particularly bad, but because of the way it is implemented. The privacy issues, the lack of data export, the lack of data federation, etc. So yes, Facebook sucks because it is a good thing. Google+ is better at half of those things, and in comparison, it is definitely "OK", but it's still not there. It's not OK, but not because it's lame, quite the contrary - be

      • by Pharmboy (216950)

        What?!?

      • by ShakaUVM (157947)

        >>Facebook doesn't suck because social networking is lame, nor because Facebook does it particularly bad, but because of the way it is implemented. The privacy issues, the lack of data export, the lack of data federation, etc

        Mainly, for me, Facebook is lame because of the model they use with 3rd party apps. For some reason, even something innocuous like the History Channel Quiz app requires granting it the right to all of your personal data, all of your contacts, and the hand of your firstborn daughte

    • MySpace because it doesn't work properly.

      Care to elaborate on that one, Sport? I've been using it for a few days now (with two profiles even!), and I have yet to run across anything on the G+ site that doesn't work.

    • by mcmonkey (96054)

      I thought you were talking about the poll.

      Can we go back to /. polls that aren't market research?

  • by tbird81 (946205) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @07:05AM (#36731488)

    I haven't really looked at G+, but my problem with this and Google Wave, is that it is too closely associated with my email.

    I don't want people knowing I'm online whenever I'm checking my email. I don't want IM conversations recorded for all eternity. I don't want everyone I've ever emailed to now be my "GooglePlus" friend.

    I treat email as a completely separate entity to IM. It's where there's no immense pressure for a timely reply, no acknowledgement to the other party that you got the email and ignored it, and I have the ability to think twice about what is written! It is my sanctuary to the pressure of work and home - in my job (and at home) I have to communicate with people all day! I like getting email, reading it, perhaps replying, all in my own time. I quite like the limitations that email has in terms of communication - it's a sweet spot for the way I think/write - not too formal, but not always in the mood!

    I'll ignore Google+, and I'll be pissed off if Google decides to automatically add it to Gmail.

    • by Kamiza Ikioi (893310) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @09:01AM (#36732160) Homepage

      #1 - You can set yourself to invisible, and read email in peace. I do it all the time. Google Talk is already integrated into Gmail, so not sure what you're complaining about might change? It's already there, lol! And it has been for quite a while.
      #2 - You're probably going to be disappointed, because it is already integrated, just like the login is already uniform across all services.

      "I quite like the limitations that email has in terms of communication" - You're a minority. I sympathize, but I learned a long time ago... as much as I hated MySpace, if I wanted to be visible in tech at all, I'd better learn to think as a perpetual 21 year old who always is into the latest thing and not go grumbling about IRC being the best protocol ever created and poo-pooing the demise of Usenet as a happening place to be.

    • by antdude (79039)

      How about making new Google accounts?

  • ...for the bugs to get squashed, and for any bad privacy issues to get resolved. Maybe I'll join in 6 months. Also, I don't know how I feel about giving Google even more access to my private information... though who am I kidding, they probably know it all anyway.
  • I believe that the greatest benefits of computer technology relate to social networking...

    However...

    I think that centralised services like - erm - all the social networks - are, on balance, a terrible idea - both for participants and for society as a whole.

    In an information age, one's knowledge (and an important part of this is the social connections one makes) is the ultimate asset. It needs to be maintained carefully in order for it to present mutually beneficial outcomes. If this information is shared

    • by rwv (1636355)

      distributed, mobile, system - where people actually make stronger connections with other people

      I believe occupational interactions, hobbyist pursuits, academic endeavors, and the neighborhood bar all meet your "stronger connections" requirement. Unfortunately, online space is severely limited by the short list of things that are possible to do within online space (video games and post videos/pictures/words). The one thing social networks excel at is inviting people to events that you want to organize in the real world.

  • Just because one is not on Facebook does not mean one wants to be on Google+.

    Who cares where the Social Media stuff is from, if you're a privacy junkie, you likely don't want to be on any social media site and you're probably not on /. either.

  • I think it shows that we're getting old. I voted for the first option, btw. Got it, love it. I follow all the big tech names in one place, can post publicly like twitter, and share photos privately to family (which was my ONLY use of Facebook).

    And... that's pretty much exactly what I wanted out of social networks. Hangouts are cool, and I think its a quantum leap forward. But honestly, I'm dumping everything else and just using this. I'm using the Google+ app, and avoiding any 3rd party apps (sorry Se

    • Goodbye annoying "Suzy needs more pigs!" Farmville notices! Goodbye random astrology updates from people I barely know but was too polite to reject cause I couldn't put you off in your own little "don't care about you" circle!

      You could put them in a an "I don't care about you" list. It wasn't a circle, but it still accomplishes a lot of the "friends who share nothing".

      • I think that's why they put in the Incoming category, for people we just don't need to follow daily, like ignoring people on Twitter and not following back. I also put those "special" people who I feel obligated to follow, but who I don't really want to talk to into a circle, just so they get a bit more than public, but not enough to comment in their annoying ways to every post I make. ;)

  • by Ptolom (2191478) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @09:20AM (#36732456)
    Fuck them all, I still like IRC, mailing lists and letters with wax seals.
  • So it can't be all bad :)

    [John]

  • Please send me an invite at sshscp {at} gmail {.} com thanks!!

  • Could a kind soul please send an invite to slashdotparent {at} hotmail {.} com?

    Thanks!

  • by Alien1024 (1742918)
    Would anybody please send one to altfranps shuttle gmail.com (replacing vehicle with @) ?
  • It's definitely better than Facebook in terms of putting people in control of how they share their data, however there is still a huge G+ deal breaker for me, at least in its current form.

    So, you can make the lists of people who are in your circles, and the list of people who have you in their circles, not being publicly viewable from your profile. However, since other people will probably have those lists visible on their profiles anyway, and you have no control over those, anyone with a little time on the

  • If anyone has an invite I'd gladly accept it at wallin.gustav at gmaildotcom. Thanks!
  • To get the criticism out of the way, Google claims that people cannot see what Circle you put them in. As of today, that is false. So like all Google products, this one is not quite there yet.

    Where I think G+ will shine is with circles. As it stands on Facebook, anything I post gets broadcast to everyone. All of my friends might not like my politics, so I hesitate to post that. All of my friends might not care about my WoW raid loot from last weekend, so I probably won't post that. Etc.

    With Circles, I

    • For fucks sake. I dislike Facebook a lot. But even I recognize it has had this feature for over two years now with the ability to add people to lists.

  • by tpstigers (1075021) on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @10:19PM (#36743994)
    For one simple reason: When Buzz first launched, and a bunch of users had complaints and concerns about it, Google listened to them.
  • by Tom (822) on Friday July 15, 2011 @08:45AM (#36773802) Homepage Journal

    Google+ over Facebook any day. There's a reason I closed down my Facebook profile two months ago and still opened a Google+ profile earlier this week.

    If you want two main reasons, here they are:
    Data Liberation - I can take my data and go play somewhere else if I want to. I don't lose it all if I ever choose to leave Google+. That's the kind of a trusted relationship that I want to have with companies. If I trust you with my data, trust me enough to give it back to me in a convenient form. If you don't trust me, why should I trust you?

    Circles and Asymetrical Relationships - the Facebook concept of "friends" has always bugged me, long before I ever signed up there. I don't have many friends. I have a lot of people I know, family members, people I share a hobby with, people I find interesting - Circles captures that much better. And I don't have to become your friend just because you want to follow my postings, that's cool too.

    But Google+ is not perfect. It's still missing quite a few features that I want:
    Limited Profiles - I want to be able to add notes to the people in my circles. I've outlined my thoughts on that on my blog [lemuria.org].

    Incoming - this is way too open. Random people can decide that they want to send me stuff and it gets added until I block them. How is this not a new spam channel?

    in the same sense configurable stream - I don't want to block users, I want to block whole circles for broadcasts only. I have circles of people whose daily musings I don't care about. I just want to stay in contact for a specific topic. So I don't want to read their "all circles" or "extended circles" postings, but if they post to a specific circle I'm in - i.e. their equivalent to the topical circle I've put them in - then I want to see it.
    This could maybe be solved by having public circles, like groups in Facebook, where people can join based on shared interests, etc.

    No hierarchy or ordering in circles - If you want to properly sort people and have many of them, you will need too many circles for it to stay clean. I'd like a simple hierarchy, e.g. being able to define sub-circles. Say a circle "online friends" with sub-circles for the various games, forums, dev teams, etc. I'm involved with. So I can collapse that away when I'm writing about some offline activity, single them out individually by topic, but also send to the top-level "online friends" circle when I want to post a notice that I'm away without Internet for a week.

    So in sum, it's a pretty good start, definitely better than Facebook already, and if they listen a little and work on improving it, I see much potential.

Thus spake the master programmer: "When a program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

 



Forgot your password?
Working...