Google+: A few big improvements before the New Year
googleblog.blogspot.com
googleblog.blogspot.com
I'd even be happy with a native iPad app, as long as it supported some of the 'desktop only' features like Shared Circles.
I got the Galaxy Nexus on release day. Upon trying to visit a G+ post that was linked here (the one about Goog making some guy's daughter cry), it consistently crashed the browser. Every time. Within seconds of load, clearly while doing js gymnastics. A friend with the same phone reproduced. Previously I had seen occasional G+ page crashes or hangups on a 3.0 tablet (TF101), and had a pretty dismal experience with G+ pages on 2.x, but this was outright killing the browser on every single attempt to load it. Whatever the problem was, it didn't go away until several days ago. And while it may no longer crash, G+ is still stupidly sluggish in the browser.
All of this on Google's new flagship ICS phone. Why would I put time into engaging with G+, when it seems like they're drunk on javascript bloat and have no one minding the shop on actual end-user experience? If people will have a terrible experience or need to download a dedicated app to view my posts, that's a critical fail. Nevermind these "big improvements'. Get the basics done right first, goog.
For all the UI's clean, minimalistic pretenses, it's ultimately a hog underneath. If there is no adult supervision on the G+ team to prevent this mess happening, because after all people should just download the app or something, then again, I'm inclined to steer well clear of it.
Regardless, there are simple features (shared circles for one) that only work on 'desktop' that need support on mobile.
It's a pitty that pseudonymns are still not mentioned here though. NSFW controls would be nice too (as opposed to the blanket ban on NSFW content in place at present).
You don't "have" to do anything, but if you wish you can change the volume for each circle.
Just curious, has anyone stopped using other soical networks and are using G+ instead, or do you use G+ on top of them?
What Google+ is missing when compared with Facebook is the event planning tool. The one time I find myself returning to Facebook is when someone is organizing a party or a night out.
I find that G+ is good for finding content on topics, and creating a community around them. I just don't see any use for more personal social networking as long as all my friends are on Facebook.
I'm usually not the paranoid 'Google-has-all-your-data-be-afraid-of-your-data-on-the-Internet' type. But nicknames would be cool. There's so much more to "me" than my Google+ profile, thank you very much.
These few improvements only seem interesting to people who are current users of G+, and I feel like that's a really small group -- but maybe I'm wrong.
It is ironic: because of that, I might use the product more if it were made by any other company. I just rely on other Google products so much that having this one intrude on others means it's not worth it.
Right now the only way I see to do that would be to have them specifically mention me in the post.
But I'm glad to see that they've added lots of features - like multiple admins for brand Pages, which was a big complaint during the recent brand Page rollout. Google is clearly listening to its users and trying hard to compete in the crowded social network environment.
It is extremely useful however if you want multiple channels of communication. Say, you want to post news for Ruby developers and you do that daily ... so why on earth would you want to spam your friends that aren't even developers? On the other hand posting pictures of your child should be for close acquaintances only - friends, colleagues from school / work, family, otherwise if you get popular you'll regret exposing your personal life ;)
A feature is busy work as long as you don't need it. As soon as you need it however, it becomes indispensable. Also, this particular problem cannot be solved by either ignoring it or solving it algorithmically.
That's actually one of the weakest part of G+: I can't post something that's both public and limited to one audience. If I post Ruby stuff publicly, I'll spam my friends; if I don't publish it publicly, nobody will know I post Ruby stuff.
I would much rather be able to mark all of my posts as "Technology" or "Music" or "Politics", where they are all publicly viewable from my page but my followers decide which kinds of categories they want to see from me in their feed. Let the end user control what they consider 'spammy' - not the source user who doesn't know what the end user wants to see.
I tell everyone I know to avoid Google+... stick with Facebook.
Google has severe quality problems... only use them if you have to.
Actually the cached pages are still there. Hover to see the "mini-view" you mention. Right next to the URL above the preview is the "cached" link.