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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 5143 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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 - 1018 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.)
  • 0 plusses - 264 comments - 1018 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+
  • 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 Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+
  • Christina Trapolino2011-07-14 02:07:59
    Why producing and sharing good content will please Google -- and you
    One story floating around today has been about the idea that Google is viewing social networking as an “engineering problem.” I’ve seen a few people say this is counter-intuitive, that Google can’t expect to apply engineering to human social behavior in order to profit from it (or, as they put it, to “improve the algorithm”). But this is where we, as users -- as content generators (where content is king) -- can step in and help influence how the community forms and evolves over time.

    Just for some perspective, I think it’s worth mentioning that all of my posts are being written between answering phone calls at my job. I work at a travel agency as a receptionist, answering calls from anxious clients who usually call me horrible names. I put up with this because I’m trying to save up enough money to go to law school. But I secretly want to be a writer, which is why I started posting my thoughts on my Google+ profile a couple of days ago.

    This evening, I have over 1500 people following my posts, which blows my mind. Isn’t it kind of bizarre how Google+ has given someone like me a voice? Here’s why I think that’s happening: original content on the Internet is like a commodity. It’s rare, and it’s valuable. Just by engaging with the community and by sharing my experience, I’ve created content. Every time you guys respond to a post I make (or that anyone makes), and we start exchanging ideas, we create more content, and this pleases our Google Overlords. For those of you who are more tech savvy, or at least for those of you who have been exposed to some SEO techniques, none of this comes as any kind of surprise. But for many social network users, even the ones who are relatively savvy, this isn’t a concept that necessarily clicks intuitively.

    I’m not formally educated in web use analysis, but I used to run a fairly large forum (100k+ users) with a pretty active community of posters during the mid-00s, and what I learned was that content production is really hard to force. Most of what we did to the structure of our site was to cater to those who brought us revenue in the form of content. We changed the rules of moderation for them, we changed the site layout for them, we rolled out our electronic red carpets and poured the e-champagne when they fostered meaningful conversations in public areas of the site.

    So far, I am seeing Google+’s community as three basic groups: content producers, content sharers, and content consumers. The content producers include people like +Mike Elgan, +Ryan Estrada, and +Danny Sullivan. They’re either posting new ideas, new art, or they’re trying to analyze trends in a meaningful way. The content re-sharers are sometimes non-person entities like +GPlus Tips, but it seems like most often, they’re people whose opinions we respect for reasons other than Google+ content generation. People like +Tom Anderson and +Chris Brogan produce some content, but seem to share more than they produce, and that is still very valuable, because they’re already famous (read: vetted) enough to have an influential opinion. Famous re-sharers also seem to have a good eye for what people might like to engage with in terms of content. Content consumers are the folks who simply lurk, absorb content, and perhaps occasionally comment. Still a valuable group, because if no one is digesting the content, it’s useless -- to Google as well as to the community.

    What is my point? It’s the same one I keep making: engage with the community, because content generation and usage is going to shape what Google chooses to do with this product. Whatever your philosophical feelings are regarding the idea of treating public content like a commodity, that’s what it is on the Internet. It doesn’t mean you have to be disingenuous, it means you have to make sure you have something to say (or a song to share that you wrote, or a painting you made, etc.) if you’re going to share it with the public. I keep making sweeping, overly-optimistic statements about Google+ having the power to change the way we interact socially, to let us move forward as human beings. I say these things because I really think it’s possible.

    Google has the power to pluck anyone out of obscurity (hello, I’ve gone from 1500 to 1600 followers while typing up this post). What makes Google great is that it seems chiefly interested in rewarding original content production (which is judged to be good by re-sharers and consumers), and even if that’s primarily because it will create a better revenue stream, I think it's great. Wouldn’t you rather see a company succeed because it’s rewarding good sharing and good content production, rather than see a company reward spam and “cheating” at content production? Google is going to try to capitalize on our social interactions. No one is trying to argue otherwise. I’m just saying that I think we, as a community, can help make sure Google keeps rewarding us for the things we value. And that’s a pretty big deal, at least in my estimation.

    Bottom line: participate! It will make your experience better, and it will make Google+ better.
  • 290 plusses - 104 comments - 148 shares | Read in G+