Why the Google+ long game is brilliant
venturebeat.com
venturebeat.com
"The pineapple has some trick up its sleeve," a moose said.
Pineapples don't have sleeves, an owl said
"Well, you know what I mean,” the moose said. "If a pineapple challenges a hare to a race, it must be that the pineapple knows some secret trick that will allow it to win.”
“The pineapple probably expects us to root for the hare and then look like fools when it loses,” said a crow. “Then the pineapple will win the race because the hare is overconfident and takes a nap, or gets lost, or something.”
The animals agreed that this made sense. There was no reason a pineapple should challenge a hare unless it had a clever plan of some sort. So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple.'
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/talking-pineapple-questi...
MORAL: Google+ doesn't have sleeves.
To anyone looking at that article: clearly the test meant that the owl was the wisest, as he literally said the moral of the story. And the animals ate the fruit as they were annoyed (there's no other negative emotion there, and the whole point of the story was the animals didn't like that the pineapple seemed to be tricking them). The more difficult question is actually "What would have happened if the animals had decided to root for the hare," though the correct answer is probably "They would have been happy to have cheered for a winner."
Upon reading the first part of the story, I was actually really excited about the questions that "had everyone stumped," because if given in a class discussion, they'd lead to students saying all kinds of outlandish, but really interesting, and hopefully perceptive and creative, things. Unfortunately, there were then four answer choices: what's the point of having creative thinking exercises, with a very creative story, if the students don't then get to show off a bit of creative thought themselves? And here is where I really dislike standardized tests, as done by companies like Pearson's or The College Board: educators want to tell students to be creative, to explore on their own, sometimes to be silly and give silly answers, and need a good outlet for that. But if we teach to these sorts of tests, then we're saying that you need to suppress your silliness and creativity even in the face of a dauntingly silly story.
As a personal note, I always really liked taking standardized tests, because the math was usually fairly easy and fun to do, and the reading passages were usually very interesting reads (I remember one was about the Trail of Tears, another about a girl climbing a redwood, and there were a bunch more. The worst ones were the passages that read like shopping lists). Also, it definitely didn't hurt that on most the tests I took, I was told I was in the 9xth percentile (this likely had a lot to do with the fact that I enjoyed the tests, rather than getting anxious at them).
The fact that people thought the questions were confusing is quite worrying.
Here is what I feel the story is analogous to:
A scammer is selling dieting pills on the internet.
The scammer claims it will beat all other methods of dieting, even better than not eating outright. The scammer challenges half the commenters to use his pills (eating normally at the same time), and the other half not eating at all, may the best dieting method wins.
The commenters thought it was strange the scammer would want to challenge the best dieting method of all.
"This isn't even a dieting method, you're eating more by taking the pill!" One said.
"Well, you know what I mean", the scammer said. (it's a weight loss method).
"The scammer has some trick up its sleeve," said another.
Scammers scam, a moderator said.
"Well, you know what I mean,” another commenter said. "If a scammer challenges the best dieting method of all with his dieting pills it must have something to it to allow him to win.”
“The scammer probably expects us to root for the sensible dieting method and then look like fools when it doesn't work,” said the person with 76 points of karma. “Then the scammer will win because the dieters are overconfident and takes a banana, or binges, or something.”
The commenters agreed that this made sense. There was no reason a scammer should challenge actual dieting unless his pills had a clever mechanism of some sort. So the commenters, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the scammer.
When the challenge began, the commenters who dieted by skipping food lost 5 kilograms within a week. The commenters who took the dieting pills just continued to gained weight.
The commenters continued to observe how the dieting pills were going to beat actual dieting. Two weeks later when the actual dieters have lost 10 kilograms, pill takers did not lose any weight, and in fact, gained 10.
The commenters lynched the scammer.
MORAL: Scammers scam.
People make foolish predictions because they don't want to become fools, but then when their foolish prediction turns out to be foolish, they seek revenge, vengeance. This seems to be happening more and more these days, and that's why I am worried people think this set of questions were confusing.
There was no reason a pineapple should challenge a hare
unless it had a clever plan of some sort. So the
animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the
pineapple.
The owl correctly states that the pineapple has no sleeves, but it only does so on a literal basis, not necessarily a figurative one.
The hare is the only creature that, from my reading of the language, does not cheer for the pineapple, making it the smartest of the lot.
So it's a weird test that is interesting to discuss for fun, but ridiculous to put on a test that will define the lives of the people who have to answer it.
Depends on how the question is graded and what the objective of the question it. I think it's a wonderful question, personally. It's not the type of question that you can just memorize the answer to, and then regurgitate on the test. You also can't just put down an answer that you think the testers are looking for, as you would on a question about, say, climate change or multiculturalism. So what's left? You use your brain, reason something, and then justify it.
// No standardized test in grade 8 will define your life and certainly not any single question will make much difference.
But practically speaking animals usually eat because they're hungry. Even in a story about talking fruit, that has to seem like a viable option. So I think the point about the question being ambiguous is fair. Anyway, I actually thought the passage was rather amusing, which I guess is why I remembered it here.
It's a silly test, because it's ambiguous. Ambiguity is fine in a class setting, but not one where you don't require one canonical answer.
It's perfect for something like this, because we assume it's Aesopian and open-ended, but not as a test. I still like it on its own.
I had a hard time reading past that line since Google is literally ramming G+ down everyone's throats at every possible opportunity. It's almost impossible to use their services without being forced into a G+ account nowadays.
It's not that they're being understated, it's just that people aren't noticing because G+ is that boring to everyone.
Edit: And as I write this comment, I'm once again reminded of how idiotic the name 'Google+' is. Do I call it GPlus? G+? Google Plus? Google+? Should I put a space between them? How do you search for a plus sign? Oh, that's right... Google didn't realize they had to completely break that operator until AFTER they named their social network. How's that for a brilliant strategy?
Google+ is Google. It is a way to consolidate all Google services. Requiring a Google account to utilize Google services seems pretty okay to me.
that couldn't be more wrong.
it used to be a gmail account was a google account. They even 'consolidated' in the clumsiest possible way my google-domain account into my personal gmail account some time ago.
now they are bullying everyone to use their gfacebook.
People act like Google waits for you to do a search and then says "Please post to Google+ to continue with your search".
now let's use your example, but instead of search let's use a android app review.
i go on, buy a phone, configure it, download and pay for an app, use it, go to leave review, BAM! need a G+.
so, yeah, it's not YET for search and gmail, because those are their gateway drugs, but for pretty much anything else it is just like you described.
If you don't like it you can use third party app stores, like GetJar or Amazon. Or get a different phone.
As what happened when Buzz was (c)rudely integrated into the rest of Google+.
One minute you're sharing links and sending short messages to a small private group. The next, your posts are all publicly visible on a public profile page you didn't know existed.
For the rest of us who use calendars, get along with our cell phones/landlines just fine, use a browser as a tool to browse the internet rather than as our permanent desktop, and may or may not use gmail, I'm not convinced at all.
i use gmail, gmaps, i use android, i use gcalendar, i use gdocs... but I don't use freaking facebook or g+. but now every new feature i click i get a "you must have a g+ profile"... want to leave a review for an android app? too bad, you need G+. Want to thumb up/down a youtube video? too bad, need G+. want to share location with someone on latitude? too bad, he's not in your circles.
for the first time, i'm looking for alternatives to Gmail. because i'm pretty sure i won't be able to use it unless i have g+ at some point. And everyone knows what happens after you get free from the gateway drug...
Unfortunately, that convenience is often paired with bad default privacy options and seemingly-impossible-to-stop annoyances. [2]
[1] Compare youtube integration vs the various clumsy half-measures they've taken since the acquisition. Or consider chrome/google+ bookmark sync'ing vs the various iGoogle bookmark situation and plugins and half-measures.
[2] a.) the emails google continues to send me, recommending people i may want to add to my circles. b.) the nonsense 'popular' post crap they inserted into my google+ 'timeline'-thing, back when i was actively trying to use it. I turned that off, at least once. But after a few weeks, it just magicked itself back on. c.) the nonsense 'popular' post crap they email to me every few months.
I'd usually expect an article like this to at least end up with what Google really gains from G+. Whats the big win in this game? Eyeballs? Behavior data? It may or may not be successful, but honestly I'm not sure I ever see a mass seachange of friends and family from Facebook to G+. I think its much more likely for a challenger in this space come from out of left field.
I'd love to see Google doing something else with the G+ resources, something really new and innovative then iterative. The whole G+ thing seems kind of a waste (I say this as I see my usage of social networks start to slip every day)
Unlike its intended use, I personally have been using private Circles for bookmarks where I drop lengthy articles in my Read Later circle (where I am the only one there) to come back to it as time permits. G+'s search feature is not bad and if you add few keywords to the text box of a post, you can make a fine bookmarking service for yourself.
Implementation docs are at https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2
Any site, such as Yahoo, MSN, AOL, etc. with a large number of users and multiple properties that touch social network features like posting (images, videos, blog entries), comments, followers/friends/groups, etc. could have grown a social network the way Google is doing.
Google tried to do it as a standalone product, with Orkut, and failed, and then they correctly realized that by integrating the concepts of "posting" and "circle" into all their properties that have similar characteristics, they would succeed.
Yahoo tried this half-heartedly and failed. I'm sure others went halfway, without discipline that enforced implementation in multiple Web properties, and failed. Google is integrating more systematically than these failures.
Facebook is largely an image sharing network to communicate with friends and family, while you use many google services such as a calendar, gmail, docs, and groups for work and networking and not necessarily just friends and family. Facebook will arguably never be something i use professionally (aside from promotions), while Google+ is something i already use professionally and could easily use instead of facebook socially.
and then you will see how this is an amazing strategy.
edit: to be fair, it does use data. a whole 5MB tying it in near last place with the stock News and Weather widget. Though that also includes the data used for all of my searches, including my voice based searches from the app.
In short, I have nothing to prove. The battery life on my unsupported, Google branded phone has been poor from day one, as has the other Android devices that I have owned. Google now in my experience has added to the load and not provided me with anything that I consider useful. It's as much a gimmick as Siri, which has the same issues but is marginally less needy.
This is why the guy who designed this Google+ plan (Vic Gundotra) is where he is (at Google) and you are still a commentator in a public forum. You need some long-term vision, bro.
In this he is hardly alone, as a spokesman for a major corporation: but Google used to be better than that, and Google especially used to be a place where the top brass would tell the truth internally. It was a place where any Googler could speak up on a Friday company meeting and ask pointed questions and expect to get a real answer. Not so with Vic Gundotra: he bullshits internally just as hard as he does externally. You can't crack him; no matter how obvious his boosterism for G+, he never stops grinning and blustering and insisting that everything is awesome. It is severely off-putting.