Currents: Have Meaningful Discussions at Work
gsuite.google.com
gsuite.google.com
To me, meaningful discussions is talking about philosophy, religion, political theory, introspecting the roots of one's own psychology, etc. That's not really what work is for. At work, one needs to focus one's discussions on the job – of course, you can talk about outside work stuff, but I'm always careful to try to keep it shallow and non-controversial. I'm not about to start debating the existence of God with my work colleagues, as much as I really love that particular debate. Nor am I going to drill into the impact my parent's divorce had on my own psychological development.
Regardless it also sounds like a great tool for company gossip and office politics.
I usually work as an engineer and manager/mentor and prefer being vulnerable with the people I support. That leads to them often choosing to be themselves.
This only requires some honesty and sincerity. Once we and everyone else who choose to do the same connect on that level, such meaning shows itself in not only one on ones, but also in online chat.
I also find it a boost in productivity because it allows distilling work discussions into pure work because people have to worry less about what they say/write or how they express it.
One huge and rewarding benefit is also that people begin looking behind misconstruable messages, reading the discussion in positive light and helping each other communicate better, too.
When we remove the labels and the expectations that come with those labels, we can have a conversation where both sides operate in good faith. Of course, we can still have those conversations with the labels, but, in practice, we tend to get distracted by them.
I had someone ask me what I thought about the riots (this was within the first couple days), and based on his background and other conversations I had with him, I knew his POV was very different from mine, but we are on friendly terms, so I engaged. Tone is important. My focus was on what we could do so that things don't reach that point, and I was empathetic toward the people he felt the worst for - business owners who lost things to the riots. And, in turn, he was empathetic to the people who suffer systematic abuses. In these scenarios, I just try to focus on understanding where the other person is coming from and to make my thoughts clear. I don't get frustrated when someone doesn't say, 'Gee, never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right.'
I think a lot of people - all over the map on the big issues - are tired of conversations that center around your mob vs my mob. They're ready to have real conversations about real issues. The depth will depend upon what each person brings to the table, but on a basic level, depth is almost beside the point. It's enough to listen to an on-paper enemy and have them listen to you and walk away understanding that you're not enemies at all, that you both want what's best for your community, city, state, country, and world. We can disagree on how to get there, but if we trust the motivations of others, we can work together. We can't work toward progress with people we don't trust, which is one of the underlying issues with starting with labels.
Of course, there are people to distrust for various reasons, but if I find people who are willing to honesty discuss why they believe what they do about anything (and what they know and don't, etc.), I want to hear what they have to say. And even as I cringe at a conclusion, I want to show them respect and that I took the time to understand how they arrived. Just like anything, angle/perspective makes all the difference.
This is just where I'm at - not meant to tell people how they should behave or how well my perspective meshes with their personality and experiences.
This.
It removes boundaries, barriers even. Holding on to empathy is hard work, but it does pay off.
Jobs seems ontologically based on a closed system of semi passive suffering.
The site copy includes these value props:
Core: Engage employees. Have meaningful discussions. Stay current — together.
- Share ideas with employees and gather input through meaningful, focused discussions on topics that matter to your organization.
- Find previously siloed content and resources that are relevant to your work with customized help from Currents.
- Discuss key topics with employees across your organization through posts and comments that stay accessible on Currents so you can refer back to them over time.
- See the most important content first, using Current’s home stream, which is ranked by relevance for each user. Follow tags on topics, search for specific information, and find what interests you.
- Manage and moderate content faster with help from Currents. Key metrics help admins and users measure engagement and find valuable insights.
What am I missing?
I was under the belief Google+ is dead. What is happening?
Also, if you roll into currents you can't roll out.
Disclaimer: Google Employee, close but not directly involved with GSuite.
Slack? Email? Currents?
In a few years, Google will do it all?
Then again, I don't like anything that resembles instagram culture, so I'm probably in a minority.
Curious why basic bugs with Google’s spreadsheet are not fixed (or acknowledged) for months. Feel like Google just don’t compete very hard on some of these products even when they actually have some advantage over MS. Do people not use these tools internally? Or is it just broken for some versions?
Not aware of anything exciting from Alphabet altogether, in fact.
Web page also seems unfinished (showing many placeholder texts like "arrow_forward" at least on Firefox)
In addition to not trusting that this platform will be supported by google for any extended amount of time (if you can consider google’s “support” track record support at all) I have zero interest in feeding all the “meaningful discussions” of my company into the google data surveillance/harvesting complex. Hard pass.
The previous one was not exactly outstanding, but I found it tasteful and pretty functional.
Are these big product looks done by dispassionate design committees?
Google is branding this as the replacement for Google+ (and sending out emails to Gsuite admins re: content migration from Google+ to Currents)
Here was the announcement of the beta last April: https://gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com/2019/04/currents-for-gs...
I find Google utterly confusing. It's a constant stream of, rename this product here, make two products that do almost the same thing there, merge these two products but without combining the key features of both. A total mess.
It's not just retiring old products, but creations like the Google Nest Home Hub Plus Max Whatever.
Just a few months ago, they had Google Hangouts and Google Hangsout Meet (now just called Google Meet).
I don't know how it works inside Google, but they really should centralise branding for anything public.
I'm trying hard to imagine the dysfunction going on in the product organization. Maybe the Google Meet PM looks at their user numbers and touts that they're rising (from zero), even while the sum total of people using Google's video call products falls. Google Meet PM gets a promotion and then finds another product to kill and replace with a less featureful product that shows large user growth from zero.
What works? Whats deprecited? Is anyone behind the controls out there?
- Google Meet (~Zoom)
- Google Chat (~Slack)
- Google Currents (~Yammer)
For consumers:
- Google Duo (~Facetime, but cross-platform)
- Google Messages (~iMessage, but non proprietary: SMS, MMS > RCS)
Everything else is on the retirement schedule.
Didn't Google Chat become Hangouts? Did they rename it back, or is this a different new product?
There’s no way I’ll attempt that at work as it will only end up in me being fired.
And this coming from Google, of all places.
Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on you; But fool me a third time?
Well, tonight I just saw the next ex-Google product, just a few short years away from being sunsetted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Currents_(2011%E2%80%93...
(very different product, but still...)
I guess that is one (inaccurate) way of describing them.
> Top questions about Currents
> Who has access to Currents? Can I interact with people outside of my organization?
> How do I manage and moderate the use of Currents?
> How much does Currents cost?
Really? There are already questions and they are this lame? I seriously doubt it. And of course it's 3 questions so it can fit that un-creative 3 column marketing site format.
To be fair, it's just a FAQ under a different name. FAQ aren't really questions that people ask, it's just a company being too lazy to come up with real documentation.
It's not like anyone has been burned by a Google product that is a name of something that occurs in the ocean before either.