Google+?

[Janx]

That's because you aren't following someone like Sean Bonner (Wil Wheaton got 10k people to follow him) who sends random picture and posts tidbits of info every few hours or random geek celebrities that who got over facebook and twitter and constantly hop to the new social network.



As long as Zuckerberg is an an enemy of Google then no.

Key term you used, "follow."

I don't twitter. I don't buy into this concept of "following" strangers or reading blogs.

To me, social networking, friendslists are for containing lists of people I actually know so we can easily share correspondences with each other. it's more efficient than sending letters or email.

I personally know everybody on my PS3/xbox friends list as well.

Technologically, I think the problem with these social sites, is they each invented their own architecture for interconnecting people. Unlike smtp, IRC, or usenet which were protocols for communicating to others, without a static, hosted intermediary.

If there were open protocols for setting online status, sending instant messages, putting up a post, and initiating a multi-user application, then FaceBook and G+ would simply be clients to that protocol.

The challenge is, many of these activities require the data to be hosted somewhere, and it usually helps that it is centralized to all the users of interest. Your email provider probably wouldn't mind hosting your online status (it's less than 1K of data if you include a comment). But they probably don't want to host your lifetime of status posts. Plus, most people don't want to be tied to their normal ISP's email. But google, hotmail and FB already corner the market on centralizing that (google especially).

 

[Relique du Madde]

Theo R CWithin

There isn't a good answer to your question since its unknown if google will allow nicknames or psuedonames to appear on your profile in place of real names (why give people the ability to enter those if theyare not used).

However, you should know that there is currently a push to force people to use real names on the net (at least in the us) as a result of Anon, online stalkers and preditors. So who knows if google was told anything by the us government and decided that its best to make a real name policy as a result.

 

[Felon]

Key term you used, "follow."

I don't twitter. I don't buy into this concept of "following" strangers or reading blogs.

You don't buy into the concept of reading blogs, yet your sig directs people to your blog about gaming.

 

[Janx]

However, you should know that there is currently a push to force people to use real names on the net (at least in the us) as a result of Anon, online stalkers and preditors. So who knows if google was told anything by the us government and decided that its best to make a real name policy as a result.

that kind of sucks. I deliberately created seperate email account with a fake name for all my personal hobbies and facebook. I don't want potential employers googling my real name and seeing anything personal. Technically, its not that hard for me to reverse it back to myself. But it prevents anyone in HR from doing a with a hate-on for D&D to cause me problems. In my industry, I expect a google check (I interviewed at Bing, I'd be appalled if they didn't check), and I live in the south so the possibility isn't remote.

I've seen great arguments on enworld on why some folks DO use their real name. Mainly that they don't say anything they wouldn't regret. And that's just a good behavior regardless.

Given the problems the FaceBook generation already has with sharing too much, and it getting them in trouble, I think more identity protection (anonymity, post visibility control) is in the works, not less. That's what I took G+'s main improvement over FB was the Circles was a better way to manage visibility of posts.

 

[Janx]

You don't buy into the concept of reading blogs, yet your sig directs people to your blog about gaming.

people are contradictory, aren't they.

On the other hand, I update my blog about twice a year, if that.

I doubt anybody follows it as in reading everything I post to it

I use it as a publishing mechanism for small articles about gaming

So instead, I expect it gets read by people searching about topic X, and finding an article i wrote.

Rather than blogs as stream of concious, here's a continual update on the life of me and what I think about every current topic.

Thus, I still fit within my disinterest in regularly reading what famous people I don't know have to say.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Theo R CWithin

There isn't a good answer to your question since its unknown if google will allow nicknames or psuedonames to appear on your profile in place of real names (why give people the ability to enter those if theyare not used).

However, you should know that there is currently a push to force people to use real names on the net (at least in the us) as a result of Anon, online stalkers and preditors. So who knows if google was told anything by the us government and decided that its best to make a real name policy as a result.

Yeah I've paid pretty close attention to the debate over online anonymity here in the US and elsewhere. I've followed arguments on both sides, so I'm a little disappointed that Google isn't being more forthright about this, so people with concerns can know whether or not to bother with the service.

A more direct question: Assuming one avoids the "unrealistic name" issue, is there anything that actually prevents a a user from setting up a G+ account with a completely fictitious name tied to a valid matching email addy? And is there anything that prevents that same user from setting up another account with under another name tied to a different valid email addy?

I can't see how Google could prevent this in practice, short of requiring a birth cert or something... but the folks at Google are far more clever than I am.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Yeah I've paid pretty close attention to the debate over online anonymity here in the US and elsewhere. I've followed arguments on both sides, so I'm a little disappointed that Google isn't being more forthright about this, so people with concerns can know whether or not to bother with the service.

A more direct question: Assuming one avoids the "unrealistic name" issue, is there anything that actually prevents a a user from setting up a G+ account with a completely fictitious name tied to a valid matching email addy? And is there anything that prevents that same user from setting up another account with under another name tied to a different valid email addy?

I can't see how Google could prevent this in practice, short of requiring a birth cert or something... but the folks at Google are far more clever than I am.

Nope. . Hell my girl friend's G+ is under her Etsy shop's name/ email account.

 

[TheClone]

I've got my surname left out of G+, but until I got no notice whatsoever from Google to delete my account. Hope it stays this way.

I just feel ultimately more relaxed using G+. I know where and what my privacy settings are. I can hide the location code of my photos (I'd like to have it removed during upload, but better than nothing). And can share information with specific sets of circles. No chance of telling my colleague I'm just browsing blogs when a deadline is due (okay, does not happen, but you get the point). I don't have to think twice or 5 times over whether to add someone to my lists or not, because I don't want anybody to read my personal things. He just gets put into some "follow only" circle that only gets things I'd say aloud on a street and done with it. If he's cool, I can move him "one step up". And I can follow the designers of my favorite RPG without the thought of "Do I want to share my personal things with them?!". Awesome.

It's no revolution of social networking. It's not that much different from FB or anything. It's totally fits my style. I'm still on facebook, because there are many other people, but some day I'll post less there. some others may find facebook better for their habbits. Nobody has to use or the other except for peer pressure But me, I love G+. It just makes my live easier and lets me sleep more relaxed.

 

[Agamon]

G+ has registered 25 million visitors in less than a month. Wow.

Leo Laporte said on TWIT the other week that he's gotten more followers on G+ in 3 weeks than he got on Twitter in 2 years.

It's populating quickly, if nothing else.

 

[jaerdaph]

The more I use this thing, the less I like it. It's making me get angry about things I really shouldn't be getting upset about. For example, today I went through and dropped a bunch of people I added to my circles that didn't add me back. I mean, I get it if someone like William Shatner or Kim Kardasian doesn't add me to their circles. But if you run a small game company I buy products from or have a blog with a handful of regular readers of which I am one and you post to Google+ on a regular basis daily, common courtesy would dictate you add me to one of your circles as well.

Yes I realize this is something I probably shouldn't be getting that upset about, but it irritates me nonetheless. I guess Google+ still needs to develop a Netiquette like Facebook has.

I won't be giving up Facebook anytime soon for Google+.