Why Twitter Should be Very Worried about Google+ | Hacker News Reader

Why Twitter Should be Very Worried about Google+

siliconfilter.com

86 pointsflardinois53 comments

> For a long time now, Twitter’s proponents have argued that Twitter’s 140 character limit was an advantage. It keeps posts brief and to the point. Once you use Google+ for a bit, though, you come to realize that those constraints are really just annoying at the end – and likely hard to explain to a mainstream user anyway.

I have to say, I really disagree with that one. I didn't truly appreciate the value of the 140 character limit until I spent some time using Buzz. Once people are free to dump an entire essay into your timeline, it ceases to feel like a quick visit that I can pull 20 or 30 bite-sized nuggets of interaction out of, and more like as RSS feed -- an enormous backlog of reading I can never hope to catch up on and stop caring about.

I actually think Facebook got the balance right. 400 characters (approx) of unformatted in the default status updates, and a notes function (which can optionally be configured to import an external web log) that needs to be accessed through a separate user interface.

Facebook statuses are long enough that you can actually say something meaningful without allowing you to ramble on for too long.

>Google, being late to the party

This is biggest advantage I guess. Seeing both the models (Facebook and Twitter) working, Google+ tries to bring the best of both, wherein when I add someone to a circle, it's like following him rather than adding him as a friend, which is more like Twitter; but with it's rich media interface, the stream looks as good as Facebook. And not to mention the granularity of user control over what to share with whom, which again is a better version of what we have on Facebook. So it's more like the best of both worlds where you don't necessarily have to be friends with someone to broadcast and if you are friends, then well, you are friends.

I think Yammer has more to fear from Google+ than Twitter. Once you can auto-integrate Google+ with Google Apps, you've essentially destroyed 99% of Yammer's value proposition.

Agreed. Now Google just needs to getting around to enabling "Accounts" with Google Apps. http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Apps/thread?tid...

Well. I added Markus Persson (aka Notch, of Minecraft fame) to my Following circle, and... his posts are always bumped to the top of the stream because so many people comment on them.

Posts can also take up a lot of space when there are attached pictures/videos and comments.

So Twitter has these huge advantages that everything is streamlined and kept short. Google+ does not; and it's not really necessary if you don't use Google+ as Twitter. This is also something that Google can fix, so we CAN (then) use Google+ as Twitter.

It's funny because the same exact thing happened to me. Notch now dominates my Stream, to the point I might just remove him from my circles.

At the top right of each post is a tiny arrow in a circle. It's a menu -- choose 'Mute this post' and it will no longer float to the top.

The problem is that Notch tends to post stuff all the time. Right now I have 6 of his posts on the first page of my stream. And they are all from the last 12 hours or so. If he keeps up that rate, I'll be muting a dozen posts a day, heh.

Check out this post from a Google+ engineer: https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/GTESUy4y... (sorry, Google+ users only) This was identified as an issue that's planned to be fixed in the next few days.

Why was crb's really useful post marked as dead?

Looks like crb's account has been hellbanned, dating back to this comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2470300) which seems to have attracted a lot of downvotes.

CRB - worth emailing pg or other administrators requesting re-instatement (sorry I don't have an actual address or details for that, perhaps someone else can point you in the right direction).

Wow, getting hellbanned for making a joke about Portal. That's... not right. (The comment itself did deserve getting downvoted though.)

I suspect it's an automatic function when a comment reaches a certain number of downvotes. In this case it may also highlight an issue with not showing points- many people may have thought it warranted downvoting, but some may have not clicked had they been aware it was already showing the max of -4.?

I know I get the flipside often- comments that may warrant a few upvotes get 20 because we've lost the 'feels about right' element of scores. Of course, I can't fault the converse 'vote on its merits' argument.

Which is why there are features to solve this problem already baked in. You have a variety of ways of dismissing that content. (Are the people downvoting unaware of this or upset that they had to come to complain before noticing or what? Jesus, what a stupid post to downvote)

"Available" and "Easy enough to actually be worth using" are two very different things, and the former isn't worth anything without the latter (Note that g+'s most lauded feature, circles, has been in Facebook forever in the form of lists; they're just too tedious to actually be used)

Requiring someone to individually mute every single popular post is hardly a real solution to the problem aristidb describes.

They're working on the issue of popular posts getting more or less "pinned" to the top of your stream.

Google Software Engineer Kelly Ellis on the subject... https://plus.google.com/108159551615224338529/posts/hrCkgmko...

I think we all need to appreciate the fact most people use Facebook and/or Twitter because they are agnostic - that is, are not tied or linked to any singular email account. I have a Gmail account - albeit "lay persons" in the tech world - use Yahoo or Hotmail, and sure, some use Gmail [shocking generalization :)]. Most, in some capacity, usually check FB and/or Twitter on their mobiles and website daily. Many do not even "log into Google" to use the search engine [why would they?]

Facebook works. Twitter works. All their friends already exist on it - FB friends list are closed, Twitter's are open. Both do everything they could possibly want it to do "connect to their friends" and "find what's happening in the world". In my mind - it's "Google and Bing" all over. For example, Bing is arguably just as good as Google now yet everyone continues to use Google. Why will Google+ bring about such a "rapid shift" that it will lead to a hemorrhaging of users from Twitter and/or Facebook ?

Google+ - great for technology people who want to "control their data". My friends don't even understand what "exporting data for portability" even means. They use Facebook, see their friends posts, upload photos, check-in to places and they love that. Those that use Twitter do so to find out instant real-time updates and news from around the world. Twitter focus on this and this only - not building and trying to be "everything to everyone".

Facebook will improve their "groups" feature to something similar to Circles and continue to innovative. Twitter will continue to expand as the real-time news service because it is so ingrained in modern culture now. People "tweet" it just like people "Google it" [in the verb sense]. Google+ - is great for "forcing" FB to continue to innovate - but I am still a cynic in relation to it's ability to have such a high incentive draw that users leave FB or leave Twitter "exclusively" - or even "in addition to" - Google+.

[that said, any chance of invite :) email in profile]

edit: Thanks to those that sent an invite. Seems that Google's disabled them :( i.e. there are no links in the sign up emails so there is no way to join. Awesome effort though! Thanks again +1 [pun intended]

Tried with this workaround: Create a circle, add a person to it, then share some content in the circle. Everyone who isn't yet member of Google+ gets an invite. Let us know if it's still working.

thanks - haven't got an invite yet however ? will let you know if I get one :) [otherwise won't update] thanks ;)

I got an invite two days ago and had the same problem. However when I installed the Android Google+ app, it allowed me to register start using it immediately.

When about an hour ago, someone to whom I sent an invite clicked on the big orange button in the email, they got a page telling them, "Already invited? We've temporarily exceeded our capacity. Please try again soon."

They are rate limiting new sign ups. The person doesn't need to get a new invite, they just have to try the invite again later.

There is one thing that Google+ currently lacks that both Twitter and Facebook have:

  Like us on Facebook! facebook.com/ProductFoo
    
  Follow us on Twitter! @ProductFoo

In G+'s (hypothetical, since they haven't done it yet) case, neither the phrase nor the url are as catchy or memorable:

  +1 us on Google! plus.google.com/ProductFoo

Or was it "Follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/ProductFoo" at first?

The same way +1 could develop in to "+1 ProductFoo". Just give it some time.

or just +ProductFoo

I think this is the most likely. The top left of the google bar is +[name], and Andy Hertzfeld referenced other people in this way in his post: https://plus.google.com/117840649766034848455/posts/FddaP6je...

How about a more natural-sounding "add us on Google!"

I wonder if Google will buy the "plus" TLD for this.

How about "circle us" on Google+?

Edit: I did see mentioned on G+ that they would eventually build in support for organisations, so presumably you would add them to one of your circles if you wanted to receive updates.

There is one thing I love about +1: It's a lot more neutral than Like or Follow. I can +1 a story about, say, someone getting shot and it won't look as if I like that someone was shot.

google.com/+productfoo

Why not? It's not like the namespace +{whatever} is likely to be in use at google already.

Better yet, Google is much more used as a verb than any other site I can think of. "Just Google +ProductFoo", etc.

Follow means "subscribe to our feed", Like means "subscribe and upvote", +1 just means "upvote". Google's had similar verbs in terms of interface (stars/bookmarks, SearchWiki voting, likes, etc.), but they weren't public. The SearchWiki announcement emphasized, "The changes you make only affect your own searches." [0]

reddit, HN, and StackOverflow have only scratched the surface of can be done with upvoting. I would very much like to see Google add a prominent "+ Average", like HN's comment score average. As we've seen here on HN, focusing on total upvotes (i.e. the now hidden Leaderboard) seems to encourage quantity of comments, while displaying one's average may encourage quality. Facebook and Twitter are clearly optimized for quantity; the best hope for Google+, hopelessly behind in terms of sheer content, may be to push users to generate/share more interesting content, rather than more.

[0] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/searchwiki-make-searc...

They already have this, but it's a bit hidden.

They're replacing the @ with +, which really ties the whole service together quite nicely (while integrating +1's as well).

Your example would use +ProductFoo, for example. If you are writing a G+ post, if you type +, it will prompt for suggestions, much like Facebook does with @.

I'm surprised it's not highlighted by Google, but they do mention it, buried in the help (which is very nicely laid out, if not hidden).

http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/static.py?page=gu...

I think if Google+ has a decent set of APIs and doesn't go on a "kill the client" spree, it might be a fairly interesting fight.

I was just about to say that. Google needs to make sure they get the API's right from the start, and not have a huge change of hard later, and say, like Twitter, that they want to improve the UX or whatever, when they really just wanted to be able to send you their ads.

Google should make sure they're not giving functionality that they're going to take away later on and piss off a lot of developers.

Google+ is reducing the amount of leverage Twitter has to monetize their service. I believe Twitter has waited too long to make money off of its platform. The only ones seem to be making money off of Twitter is the 3rd party developers that are making it easier to use the product!

I've just realized today that I can use Sparks to get the news I'd be interested in finding on Twitter. For example if I look for "antisec" on Spark, I get pretty good new results with a much better signal-to-noise ratio.

Couldn't you get the same thing by searching Google News?

I've never really used or liked Google News interface. But they said Google News is just a part of it, since they also show blogs, videos, etc

But they said Google News is just a part of it, since they also show blogs, videos, etc

Google's search result pages have options to search blogs, videos, realtime, etc too. Seems like they just integrated this functionality into Plus.

While I realize it mentioned it in the article, and that it's forthcoming, I'll withhold my opinion of the "threat" to Twitter and Facebook until I see what kind of API they're going to roll out for Google+.

One of the reasons I like the older services is that I can access them via SMS - in fact, Twitter is just about perfect for that use case.

One of the things that is great about Twitter is that you can subscribe to someone else's posts without them having to take any action. Is something similar available on Google+? Are your posts required to be directed toward a specific circle? I can't just add myself to someone I like's circle, right? They have to add me?

I'd appreciate any clarity on this, I think that the asymmetry and follower driven nature of Twitter is a huge asset. Merlin Mann isn't going to add 160,000 people to a "comedy" circle.

> Is something similar available on Google+?

Yes, you can add someone to your circles without them doing the same to you. There's even a default circle called "Following" for "People that you don't know but find their posts interesting" (i.e., basically the same thing as following famous people on Twitter).

> Are your posts required to be directed toward a specific circle?

Sort of. They can be directed at any combination of your circles, or all of them.

> I can't just add myself to someone I like's circle, right? They have to add me?

Right, you can add anyone you want to your circles, but you can't touch their circles at all. It's like Twitter in that respect.

> Sort of. They can be directed at any combination of your circles, or all of them.

Minor correction: there is an option to select "Public" instead of selecting 0 or more circles, which is basically Twitter.

The problem with adding someone to my circles is that the relationship is backwards from what it needs to be for some use cases.

Suppose that I want to tell a bad joke every day. (Not an entirely hypothetical example - I did this on Buzz for a couple of months at one point.) I know that a lot of my friends like my jokes. Some of them don't. I don't want to push jokes to people who won't like them.

What's my solution with Google+? Here are some options:

- I can make my jokes public, pushing them on people who I know don't want them. This gets in the way of other relationships that I want to keep track of.

- I can create a circle for people who I think like my bad jokes, start adding them, and send them jokes. But now people have to ask to get my jokes (which they probably don't know that they can) and have to ask me to get off that joke list.

- I can create a new account just for my bad jokes. Now I have to be managing multiple accounts, which gets to be a real PITA.

Here is what I want instead. I want to have private circles and public circles. Private circles, I manage. Public circles I let the world know about, and they manage. When I create content I just send it to the appropriate circles. Anyone who wants can see me, see my public circles, and can see what I put there. And can sign up for them.

>> I can't just add myself to someone I like's circle, right? They have to add me?

> Right, you can add anyone you want to your circles, but you can't touch their circles at all.

Not only that, but also you cannot learn the names of the circles they put you in.

So by adding someone to one of my circles, I'm automatically added to their "Following" circle? It seems like you mean the opposite, that I would put someone I don't know really well into my "Following" circle, but that still means that I don't get a feed of their postings, right?

Unless, as someone else mentioned, they set their post to "public", does that post then show up for everyone who has the poster in their circle, regardless of wether the follower is in a poster's circle?

You seem to have it mostly right, but to clear up some confusion:

There's basically two directions to consider.

Your circles are for your outgoing posts. When you post something, you choose which circles are allowed to see it (or you could choose individual people, or "Public").

On the flip side, your circles inform your incoming news stream. By putting someone in any of your circles, you basically say, "I could be interested in what they say."

What appears in your stream, then, are posts in the intersection of the two: from someone in one of your circles, and to a circle of theirs that they put you in.

So to answer your original question: Google+ can operate in the Twitter modality exactly. You put someone in any circle ("Following", by convention), and then any posts they make to "Public" will appear in your stream. The difference is that the person you're following doesn't have to direct all his posts to "Public". He or she could send some to specific groups of people, which you wouldn't receive.

I thought Google Wave was Twitter's doom. Then I got to try Wave. I think it's too early to hold a wake for Twitter until everyone can get into Plus.

A closed communication tool mostly targeted at projects vs an open status broadcast is hardly each other's doom.

As much as I like Twitter, I basically agree with most of the points in the article. G+ will attract developers, it does have a clear path to monitization, and for people who already use GMail+Calendar+Picasa+etc it is a natural since it is always available.

author is wrong..

Google Search right now has more users than FB and twitter and linkedin combined..its a direct threat to all not just one and those Google Search users have a network effect as we saw in several past search engines just absolutely just die off due to competition from Google

Reply on news.ycombinator.com