TR Forums

I generally love the simplicity of most Google interfaces, but WTF were they thinking with Google+? Is it just me or did they really make things f'ed up with it? It seems like a lot of different links related to editing your profile link you back to different areas or the same areas of your profile... and simple tasks that should be up in the front aren't, or simply seem like they don't exist.

For instance, I am attempting to make a "Google+ Pages" for my business. On the personal Google+ its simple and easy to change the background color. But suddenly when you change over to viewing Google+ as a "Pages", then that functionality is either buried or none existent... WHY EVEN CHANGE THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE TWO?!?

The naming scheme is worse than Microsoft's "LIVE" branding! "Google+ Pages".... wtf, how does that mean ANYTHING. Its about as bad as them changing from the "Android Market" to "Google Play"..... What if I'm not trying to "Play" and instead I'm trying to WORK.. The name seems so disingenuous that a user looking for a none entertainment app may not even think to look at "Google Play" when looking for the market.

I'm starting to feel like Google's attention span is getting stretched so thin that they are forgetting their roots... Simple, Clean, Function, Effective. Bring it the hell back guys, cut the fluff!

I strongly approve of this rant. Its become quite clear that Google has forgotten how to make the proper tool for the job with some of their goofs, and this one is at the top of the list.

I've never tried Google+, but here are some of my thoughts.

1. Why do we need this? Facebook pretty much covered everything social networking besides professional networking, and there are alternatives for that.

2. I think Google might have been able to swing it, but they should have started by branching out from the things they do well, specifically Gmail and Youtube. Were you able to build the social networking out from there, I think you could experiment with what works and please people while slowing teasing them into full social networking.

3. If your G+ business page is dysfunctional...you could always just link everyone to your business Facebook page

superjawes wrote:

I've never tried Google+, but here are some of my thoughts.

1. Why do we need this? Facebook pretty much covered everything social networking besides professional networking, and there are alternatives for that.

2. I think Google might have been able to swing it, but they should have started by branching out from the things they do well, specifically Gmail and Youtube. Were you able to build the social networking out from there, I think you could experiment with what works and please people while slowing teasing them into full social networking.

3. If your G+ business page is dysfunctional...you could always just link everyone to your business Facebook page

I don't speak for everybody, but as someone who is on Google+, who likes it AND STILL agrees with everyone about how f-ed up it is, I can give you my answer for Question #1:

I don't want Facebook. I didn't want myspace. As a teacher who has students all over facebook (and as a son whose parents are on facebook) I wanted to try a social network with robust networking management (something FB had to "learn" by following in G+'s steps). In a bit of irony, it also helps that most of said students, and my parents have no clue what G+ is or why they would want to be on it.

Finally, as far as big tech companies go who require ever increasing sacrifices from their followers, I like Google and have already sold most of my soul to them. I see no reason to do that with facebook, who hasn't once earned my trust.

gbcrush wrote:

I don't speak for everybody, but as someone who is on Google+, who likes it AND STILL agrees with everyone about how f-ed up it is, I can give you my answer for Question #1:

I don't want Facebook. I didn't want myspace. As a teacher who has students all over facebook (and as a son whose parents are on facebook) I wanted to try a social network with robust networking management (something FB had to "learn" by following in G+'s steps). In a bit of irony, it also helps that most of said students, and my parents have no clue what G+ is or why they would want to be on it.

Finally, as far as big tech companies go who require ever increasing sacrifices from their followers, I like Google and have already sold most of my soul to them. I see no reason to do that with facebook, who hasn't once earned my trust.

I understand all of this, and I wasn't commenting so much on Facebook as I was G+. Cyril pointed this out in his blog post as well, but Google was trying to get that massive social networking market, which Facebook already has. It's the tool everyone knows and uses, and barring a major failure on FB's part, G+ was never going to take that market from them, much like Linux distributors are unlikely to ever steal the market share Windows enjoys.

Although if someone were to provide an alternative for specific crowds, like a TR networking site (devoted to computer hardware?), that might go well for a crowd like this one and be successful, even if it isn't competing for market dominance.