Bringing Google+ to work | Hacker News Reader

Bringing Google+ to work

googleenterprise.blogspot.com

75 pointseneveu80 comments

We use both of these features very heavily at Google, so I'm really happy to see them launch externally. The ability to restrict posts to within a company lets you create a corporate social network very easily (think Yammer, Chatter, etc.). One of the main complaints I hear about Google+ is that specific friends aren't on it, but that's much less of an issue if your company uses Google Apps. I spend a lot of time and get a lot of value out of within-our-company Google+ posts.

And since Google has widely distributed offices, I can't tell you how many video meetings I've attended, but it's a lot. Having the ability to join a video conference/hangout from a link in Calendar makes such meetings really easy to set up.

What about Hangouts on Air private to your company? That would be really useful.

For the most part, we use video hangouts for smaller meetings, but that's an interesting suggestion: I could see private Hangouts on Air being useful for company-wide meetings. I don't know exactly what the team has planned though.

If Wave had gotten this feature, I would have used it for all of my corporate documents.

Google Docs (now called Drive documents) work just fine and I think is actually a product of rectifying the mistakes they made with Wave.

How easy is it to reshare a "company" post to the wrong people?

From the post: "Restricted posts are private to your organization and can never be re-shared with anyone outside."

Now if you do a corporate G+ post and say "Bob in accounting sucks" and then share that with Bob--that's on you. :)

Thanks; so, you would need to copy and paste it to share it.

I don't know why, but psychologically I would feel like this is somehow less private than, say, a mailing list. I'm probably becoming old :)

> I don't know why, but psychologically I would feel like this is somehow less private than, say, a mailing list. I'm probably becoming old :)

I think that's a really interesting comment! Perhaps it's because the UX is more social network-y (FB/Twitter), which are historically public, and less email-y+historically private?

That's possible, but a more likely reference is forums. The ones I used were mostly public too :)

Ask Steve Yegge.

I was first very exited about those possibilities but if I get it right I have to basically give up / merge my personal G+ Account unless I want to have 2 account with the same name on G+.

If I do so the Apps-admin will have full control over my account including reading my private messages, deleting my account... right? Besides trust issues I wonder what would happen if I leave the company? How do you handle this at Google?

You just have two accounts. But you have that anyway if your company using is Google Apps. I think the assumption that people have a work email and a personal email is generally pretty reasonable.

Sounds reasonable indeed. Nevertheless a little confusing since both my profiles would be at least partially public.

What's your experience at Google? Do all off you habe 2 accounts and if so, don't you have problems making sure that your not work related friends etc. don connect with the wrong profile?

Any employee who uses Gmail personally has two accounts, yes (I actually have four - personal, .edu, my pre-Google startup, and Google). No one outside the corp environment can see my corp account. From my corp account, I can't find my personal account by searching. If I go directly to my personal profile page and try to circle my personal account from my corp account, I get an error "due to domain restriction".

So I guess the short version is no, what you are concerned about won't happen.

Thanks for clarifying.

> So I guess the short version is no, what you are concerned about won't happen.

It won't happen for Googlers, but it will happen for G+ business users, since they (afaik) can't make their profile fully private, and it won't be entirely silo'ed.

Is that true?

I have a corp account and a personal account. What I do is make two different pictures for my avatar: I use one avatar of me for my Google-internal account, and a different avatar for external use. Then I can just look up and see which picture of me it is, and I instantly know whether I'm on corp vs. personal.

what about rel="author" and authorrank?

I believe it's all linked to my personal account.

Hey Matt - I'm the founder/organizer of the NY Enterprise Technology Meetup, the first monthly tech forum in NYC exclusively focused on enterprise tech company demos. Are you able to connect me with someone from the team so that I can inquire about them demoing at a future event?

We launched in January of this year, have almost 1,000 members, and get about 125 attendees to each events (mix of technologists, entrepreneurs, investors, and students). Check us out at www.meetup.com/ny-enterprise-tech and www.nyetm.com.

Thanks!

Not sure, but let me ask around.

Is there a way to make sure that the default mode for new posts from corporate accounts is "restricted"?

Otherwise the risk for accidental spillover just seems too high...

Yes. I just looked in the admin settings for Google Apps and it gives the option to default it to restricted posts.

Neat. Then this might actually be useful in real life :).

I should have been more specific, sorry:

Is this a per company default setting? Can company admins set the defaults for all company users? Or is it an individual user setting?

It's an admin setting, the default for all users.

This is a great move for G+, only concerns having not tried it yet are the following:

1) Free until end of the year, so in effect open roll-out beta testing and once we have it how you like it and enough hooked, then we charge you a unknown amount. Not sure in what depths of society that marketing model is drawn upon but it is something that stood out.

2) Garantee's - when you share data in a closed circle (company or select group of friends) withing a enviroment that allows open/public sharing and the identifiers being user changable parameters then I would ask and suggest one big addition. Make all interface changes approval acceptance only and by that I mean allow a company to have a technical social person for the whatever changes are needed but have the ability for all impacting changes (level of changes definable even) needing approval of at least another person, maybe even a few down to some needing CEO approval. You may have situations were you have a internal post and later on wish that to be made fully public in just the case that you dont want some internal posts ever publicly leaked and whilst the permisions to say who can see things is there. Perhaps the ability to add NEVERFORPUBLIC tags indicating that nomater what is changed down the line with facebook style permision bias in whatever fasion, they will never ever change unless the user who created them changes them. Also need to have orga chart ability for higher ups to change incase a person leaves.

3) Think Murdoch - What legal aspects do social media posts have in comparision to emails and do you have the ability to blind copy people into posts as you would say BCC your lawyer on emails. Some companies like that approach and how does G+ cater for them if it is going in the direction many think it is.

I really enjoy Google+. It honestly has become my defacto "social network" when I just want to peruse whats happening in the world. There is a video game that I have been following for the past few years that went live this weekend and the community on Google+ is head and sholders above what I have found in other places. The content (as a whole) has been more thought out and and as a percentage I have wanted to read more of it than other sources.

That being said I think "circles" caters to niche groups of people wanting to discuss a certain topic, will be interesting to see how another "post fencing" appartatus plays with circles.

I've been following GW2 on Facebook and the community is terrible. Never thought to check it on Google+. (I'm assuming GW2 is what you're referring to).

Yes, GW2. - I added my G+ profile link to my Y! profile, add me and shoot me a msg and I can send you my GW2 circle.

I have never used facebook, twitter, etc., but I have increasingly found relevant content and discussion on g+ pages.

So much so that last week I attempted, unsuccessfully, to create a g+ account for rsync.net. You'd think that wouldn't be rocket science.

Then all of that "real name" bullshit that I tried to ignore last year came back to me. Google refuses to recognize the account, blah blah blah.

No, I am not giving them my personal information for these discussions, and furthermore, multiple different people will be using this account (it's a business account) so it's not appropriate to tie an identity to it anyway.

Does the "g+ for business" solve this problem ?

I think the use case you describe is that you create a Google account as yourself, along with each of your colleagues. Then you create a G+ Page and make them all administrators of it. You can act/post/etc. as the G+ page and not as yourself, e.g. https://plus.google.com/+TheCorcoranGroup

Not saying this is ideal or that you should like it, just that I think that's how you can do what you want to do.

In my world that makes about as much sense as 'your corporate intranet facebook'. Heck, just as much as Contoso YouPorn. Zero.

Social networks, ignoring the problems with the current implementations, are for your social life. I enjoy social interactions at work, but most of my social life is _not_ connected to work. So social networks and work don't mix for me.

And in what kind of business would you share stuff on a kind-of-but-not-quite blogging platform? That seems to be a SharePoint (no fan either) contender from a very weird angle..

I think it depends on the company, but I disagree with your point in general. There are plenty of companies that would benefit from an easy model for sharing content internally, whether it be links to articles relevant to the company, wide discussions about internal (confidential) topics, or pictures from a recent company BBQ. With the features Google launched today, companies can safely use a social network and assume that internal information will stay that way.

Thanks for the reply.

That is done today already. Ignoring SharePoint: Many companies I know of deploy wikis internally (for content) or just have shared network drives (for pictures, movies).

Why should that leave the corporate net? And what feature is G+ offering? That thing is about social interactions ('share content', 'chat', 'follow news').

So I have some issues here:

1) Mixing a type of site that is mostly for procrastination (FB, G+, this site) into the company culture doesn't seem a smart move

2) All the useful features of G+ are probably already deployed internally (which company doesn't have a way to share documents/news?).

3) What kind of (business) and size of (numbers of employees) would ever go for this thing? For lots of businesses storing stuff in the cloud is a no-go. For small-to-mid sized companies this seems .. laughable. Posting on G+ to your circle of co-workers sitting behind you/on the same floor, connected to the same network?

I'm sure I'm extra harsh because I don't even see the benefits of (some/most of) these products in general, but at work? There's just no way that I can see any added value.

Having seen how vibrant the discussion is using these features at Google, I have to disagree. In my experience, G+ is really well-suited for this, and it's way easier than editing a wiki, for example.

Well, you're talking from experience here.

My problem with that datapoint? You work at Google. G+ is your (company's) product. I assume that you had a headstart using G+ (the basic thing) as well and I also assume that this thing is already heavily used.

I just don't think that this translates to other places. (Forgive my ignorance and correct any mistake in the generalization hereafter): A huge company with a number of global offices all over the world, full of internet savvy, always online, 'young' early adopters doesn't seem to be a good example for things that make sense in general.

Or in other words: I have trouble mapping your experience to any place I worked at so far, plus any customer I've been in contact with here in Europe (with a heavy focus on Germany).

Here's a post from another company that's been using it: http://tomcritchlow.com/private-google-plus-engagement . I understand that some people might be skeptical of G+ in the workplace. Some people were skeptical of Google Apps in the workplace, and that's fine. But G+ can be a really powerful tool for companies that want to use it.

One more anecdote: I have a friend whose company just moved from Lotus Notes to Google Apps, and they love Apps. I can easily see people in that company hopping on video calls or posting internally.

His experience is his data point. Albeit, he works for Google.

What's your data point? Have you used a similar product before?

A company I used to work for with 400+ employees had heavy engagement with Yammer.

Fair enough; again, it's probably not useful at every company, but in the companies that I've worked for in the past (big and small) that have used internal social networks (like Yammer for example), it's definitely been beneficial to me.

I think that wikis and shared network drives don't work as well for sharing content in the same way that they don't work for me sharing with friends. People like the format of a social network, curating content and sharing it with the right people in a way that it will pop up where they are looking and provide an easy way to have a discussion about it. And this sort of content shouldn't really "leave the net" (unless you're talking about the physical intranet); the idea behind this feature is that it stays within the company's control, in a place viewable only by employees.

To respond to your other points:

1) An interesting point, and this is where I think it depends on the company. I don't really view Google+ as a time-wasting site (though I do moreso with Facebook), because Google+ has a big focus on sharing interesting and relevant content to the user. In a company that embraces this sort of internal sharing of content, I think it could be very useful.

2) Perhaps lots of places already have deployed solutions for internal sharing; Google is just providing another way (a way that is being actively developed and potentially already is being paid for by the company because of other Google Apps).

3) I used Yammer at a small startup once, and it proved to be a nice way to aggregate work-related content. But at really large companies that are willing to have their data stored with Google, I think this is even more useful because it provides a good way to communicate with people you don't know at the company, and a way to follow what is being said by the internal superstar developers.

I liked the second paragraph. It's possible that I have an inherent dislike (no pun here) for the 'social' format. It is to be, almost by definition, unprofessional and low quality.

Maybe that's what colors my view on G+ in general and a corporate version in particular. Have to think about it - hard to look past an assumption like this on a whim. :)

"Going for a bike ride this weekend, does anyone want to join me?"

"Is anyone else having trouble with the printer on the third floor?"

"I think we should buy copies of Beyond Compare. I used it at my last company, and it was awesome."

"Hey Chuck, when you get a chance, cal you tell my team about that library you wrote? We have a few questions for you. I'll let them hop on the conversation and ask."

"I'm sharing a link to an article I found about that project we did last year."

And you can SEARCH these conversations (and the results can show up in your google.com search results, if you use that feature). Even the conversations that happened before your start date.

All of these things could be better done with personal email and mailing lists. I'm much more excited about corporate video conferences.

I think personal email is far worse, particularly because it is not visible to people who start at the company after the conversation starts.

Mailing lists are pretty good, but generally companies don't have good tools to quickly make impromptu mailing lists.

And I think you're not giving enough attention to the fact that things shared on Google+ can show up in your search results.

If you work at a Zoo, and you search for "python," it'd be great to see relevant links about the animal. If you're a programmer, it'd be great to see relevant links about the programming language.

I mean, meeting someone for lunch doesn't need to be searchable. Mailing lists are searchable at later times. Google search integrates gmail results now.

The mailing list software is a good point-does google sell Google Groups software?

I can empathize with this point of view. I was very skeptical when our company added Socialcast--which scratches a similar itch--but in a large enterprise with people spread out in multiple locations around the world, I've been able to share information and learn from other people I'd never normally interact with because they're in a different continent or line of business. And, for whatever reason, I've found people more likely to share, comment, or help when the interface looks like a social media site.

I don't know if smaller, less geographically diverse organization would find this type of tool as helpful.

No, this is a competitor to SalesForce's Chatter and the like, not Sharepoint (which is more of an enterprise content management tool).

The implications for sharing in a social sense aren't as significant as that for work - especially if you happen to work in a more tightly secured workplace - how many families or friend groups will kick you out for inadvertently sharing sensitive data? - that's a real potential career limiting move in the enterprise space.

This is a really smart move by Google. This starts to eliminate the need for corporate social networks (like Yammer), and lets businesses take advantage of all the integrations that are happening with the other Google apps. As someone who has used internal social networks like Yammer at previous companies, I can honestly say that they are surprisingly useful - it gives other employees the forum to share interesting and work-related content, and provides a place for basic discussion on internal topics with a wide audience.

Steve Yegge is most likely responsible for this feature being pushed through.

https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesv...

Steve Yegge accidentally posted his rant to the wrong account. Google+ for apps wouldn't stop anyone from doing that, unless there's a way for administrators to ban employees from using their personal accounts during work hours.

In a subsequent post about his current project and conservative vs liberal coding he seem to have mentioned it was not accidental.

I'm downvoted here, maybe because I'm wrong and misunderstood the last sentence of Yegges post (1):

    (Special Note to my fellow Googlers:  
    Yes, I meant to post this externally.
    BOTH times. No, I am not the Mouth of
    Sauron.)

What can "BOTH times" mean, but that the first time, the "platform" rant, is included?

(1) https://plus.google.com/u/0/110981030061712822816/posts/KaSK...

My guess is that he accidentally posted it internally first and then posted it externally. And so, both times he posted it, he meant to post it externally.

As a sinister plot to trick other people into making the same mistake he did?

Mistakes _can_ be made with/without Google+. I agree that Google+ makes it a little too easy to make something like that. But that shouldnt be the measuring stick while evaluating the potential of such a tool.

Great, so now people who don't want to sign away their privacy to a social network don't get a choice when their employer decides to mandate use of this company-wide.

This also pretty much forces you to merge your personal and work personas.

Nope.

Where I work, I have an enterprise account which has a gmail, drive, groups and calendar which is signed in using a login@company.com account.

My personal stuff is different and is a different account, signed in using personal_login@gmail.com

The key point is, my company knows only about @company.com (and Google doesnt have any idea) and the other way around for @gmail.com account.

Whilst I know it's possible to have multiple google accounts, I always thought google+ was supposed to be restricted to 1 account per human being?

Within a domain, yes.

What? How? You'll have one account via your corporate email address (e.g. you@employer.com) and another via your personal email address (e.g. you@gmail.com)

The google apps accounts are completely separate from the non-apps accounts. There's no need to merge personal and work personas.

It's good that Google is trying to think about how companies (and people) might not want to share everything they do publicly. However, Google should spend considerable amount of time working on their core products.

Many of them are feature-poor (as an example, Google Calendar doesn't seem have a setting to prevent your phone from getting automatic notifications, no matter if you turn EVERY notification off).

Core product for whom?

Google+ brings Google valuable information about who you are and what you do to their ad-words (revenue)engine.

Improving a Calendar app which already provides them with that information, brings them little extra.

It's sometimes important to remember who Google's real customers are. It's not you.

The blog post is from the Google Apps team. Their customers are people who pay them money for using, among other stuff, Google Calendar.

Ah yes the Google's real customers meme again.

It hasn't ever had any validity. You are Google's customer as they need you to click on relevant advertisements.

The advertising companies are also their customer. The intention is to hook two customers up together.

Google are matchmakers. How you can twist that into what you posted I don't know.

If you have anyone else's calendar showing up in your Google Calendar, then Google Now treats all their events as though they are your events, so you get their driving directions and similar notifications. Yet another example of doing things half-assed.

I bet someone could write an Apps Script to tweak all incoming calendar events.

Can we make a Joel Anti-Test? Ideally, you want zero points. Cases: Uses Google+ Internally. Uses JIRA. Uses a VCS you have never heard of. Entire product is licensed from an outsourced shop and resold under your own branding. Extensive use of Windows desktops or servers. Uses one or more of {MongoDB, Cassandra, CouchDB} at scale. ...

Why the first, why the last?

Why the second last?

Comment felt a bit like this to me : "I don't like Google+, so I'm going to post a list of things that suck."

What's wrong with JIRA? I've worked at a few places that use it. I don't see the problem with bug tracking software.

Not so much JIRA itself, but the ecosystem and culture that surround it. It tends to be corporate enterprise ware and a symptom of a top-down management driven structure. I'm not aware of any teams that chose JIRA on their own. It's also rather oriented to time tracking and micromanagement (or at least that's how my group is told to use it), leading to Bad Agile focusing on process not results.

It's not terrible to use, just mildly slow and clunky compared to other options like FogBugz or TFS.

My team picked JIRA after examining other options; we felt it was the best and most usable solution that wasn't a) Hosted or b) running on expensive alien software like Windows (we're a unix shop.)

It's bug tracking software. Your experience with it is solely what you make of it. Dozens if not hundreds of OSS projects use JIRA.

This might be the first time I've ever heard someone say something positive about Microsoft TFS.

> Can we make a Joel Anti-Test? ... Extensive use of Windows desktops or servers.

Joel's FogBugz and StackOverflow both make extensive use of Windows servers (and I'd imagine desktops, as well).

No, we can't make a Joel Anti-Test. It's easy to say, from experience, what set of things nearly all good companies do. It's impossible to say from lack of experience what good companies don't do.

Have you used Google+ in a corporate setting? No? How can you know it's productivity negative? Have you used a VCS you've never heard of? Then how do you know it's a negative?

The very idea that you should enshrine your ignorance in a checklist of things companies must not do and software companies must not use is utterly preposterous, and you should be at least a little bit ashamed to have proposed it.

Really? I see heavy internal Google+ use as a good thing: it means people like each other enough to network internally.

Remember: G+ does not replace mailing lists (which you get with Groups); they're two different types of communication. Mailing lists are good for threaded discussions. G+ is good for "look at this thing I just made".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com