Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-12 00:19:04
    Google+ Tip for the day: Stop treating Google+ like Facebook.

    When I got my Google+ invitation, I was already itching to shed my Facebook profile. I still feel that way, but I’m starting to realize something really surprising (at least for me): I don’t think Google is my Facebook stand-in. I think Google is far more than a measly “social network,” and that’s why some of my Facebook friends who are migrating over right now seem to be, as they say on the Internet, “doing it wrong.”

    I've been a devoted Googlephile for many years, so if Google wanted me to use G+ instead of Facebook, it was gonna happen -- unless they really goofed it up, of course (I'm still not entirely over my breakup with Wave, Google -- but at least I've stopped leaving those creepy voicemails, right?). The push and pull factors were there. They were obvious: Facebook is for “moms” and spam robots -- Google was going to be my new social network.

    But something didn't feel quite right about treating my Google+ profile like my Facebook profile, nor treating my Circles like the Facebook social groups I wished I'd always had. There was content everywhere, written by people I’d heard of -- and many I hadn’t. Something about this space was very different than anything Facebook has ever allowed me to experience. It felt like something else, something... bigger, maybe more important. Something collaborative, perhaps. How very Google!

    My friends, however, don’t seem to be having the same Google+ experience I am. My tendency so far has been to add as many people with as many interesting views as possible to my Circles, and then to read voraciously and respond all over the place. Meanwhile, my real-life friends are complaining that there’s not enough content to appease them, and I’m the only one dominating their Streams. Why is this happening for them? I think it comes from a fundamental set of expectations about moving from Facebook to Google+. People are treating their Google+ accounts just like Facebook accounts. And I think that’s a doomed approach.

    Here is how I think Google+ can be most fully enjoyed and utilized, at this early stage:

    Think about what you use Facebook for. If it’s for keeping up with old friends and for keeping up with current, local friends, great. You can use Google+ for that, and it’s definitely got a leg up on Facebook for filtering content.

    Interact with content created by users you don’t know personally. If you don’t follow people you don’t already know, you’re going to get bored, and not just because your friends aren’t all here yet. You’ll get bored even after they’ve all arrived. Why do you think Facebook started implementing games and applications? Well, to make money, obviously, but what was the draw for the userbase? I’m willing to bet Facebook figured out that simply reading your friends’ thoughts all day long gets old, and let’s be honest: very few of us have enough friends with enough interesting posts to keep us engaged.

    If you like the social games on Facebook, well...you’re not really my target audience. Sorry. For the rest of you -- if you don’t like how Facebook allowed third party junk to start bombarding you with game requests and access to your information, embrace its absence here so far!

    I realize that at some point, developers may come up with cool ways to implement games on Google+, but I expect that Google will have learned from the clunky, disorganized, and downright invasive way developers approached this in Facebook. And the best way to keep Google+ rich in content and devoid of lame, invasive apps is to let go of your old ideas about what it means to be on a social network.
  • 2944 plusses - 236 comments - 5146 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2012-09-14 22:02:25
    If anything should ever get a spot on What's Hot, it's this video.  
    It made me laugh and cry at the same time.  It made me think of the teachers I know who have to pay $45 per year to use the microwave and another $45 to use the fridge.  It made me think of my past teachers and the way they shaped my values, my work ethic, my passions, and my sense of empathy.  It made me think, too, that this is an election year and it was my teachers who made me understand why voting is more than a privilege, it is a responsibility.

    Say thank you to a teacher today.  Share this video with 'em, too.

    (Thank you to +Meilani MacDonald, who posted this in my Stream today.)
  • 1763 plusses - 264 comments - 1019 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2013-02-08 14:54:47
    Microsoft, you're a bunch of jerks.
    Have you seen Microsoft's newest anti-Google campaign?  Check it out here: http://www.scroogled.com/ 

    I can't help but respond.  Microsoft, you're totally on my bad side.  Here's why:

    Scanning is scanning.
    You talk like scanning email is only a privacy violation if that data is used to target ads, but scanning is scanning.  Direct quote from the Scroogled site: "Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately." 

    If scanning my email is wrong, why scan it at all?  Oh, right -- because it's necessary to scan emails to protect users from spam -- and it's just an algorithm, not human beings.  Just like Gmail.

    You advertise and scrape keywords, too.
    Bing personalizes search, and Outlook has ads.  Are you seriously trying to claim that you're not interested in your users' data for any purpose except to filter out spam and phishing emails?  Please.

    Negative campaigns make me kinda hate you.
    Just like in politics, negative campaigns leave a bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.  Speaking of politics, isn't your mastermind on this Mark Penn?  You know, the same guy who ran Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign into the ground?  Oh.

    You are mischaracterizing the privacy issue by playing into people's fears -- and you're doing it disingenuously.
    As consumers, it's important for us to understand what happens to our data once we send it into the universe of the Internet -- whether it's through email services like Gmail, social media sites, blogs, or comments we make on online news articles with our real names. That said, it is also important that we understand the trade we're making and that we consider the risk versus the reward. If I didn't want any of my private information to be shared with the world, I'd have an incredibly irrelevant experience online. Taking it further, I also doubt I'd be willing to enjoy the luxury of using credit cards at point of sale systems!

    There is always a trade. Gmail is free. Whenever a product is free, your data is the product that company is leveraging in order to keep the price at $0.  If you're not okay with that, don't use the service.  It doesn't just apply to Gmail, it applies to Bing search, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus…well, hell.  I could keep adding services to the list, but you get the point.
  • 351 plusses - 107 comments - 143 shares | Read in G+