·
I don't have much of an opinion on whether G+ sucks, as I don't use it, but they better be damn careful if they're changing search results to pump themselves up. Could be an antitrust suit waiting to happen. They're already getting really close to that. It seems to be one of a very few things that Dems and GOPers can agree on.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/12/20/implicat...
–
I agree, valuing G+ stuff into search results is really dangerous.
But the thing I like about G+ is the privacy and social tools/interface. It's very easy to group people and share stuff with just specific people. And it's clear in that regard. Facebook is a mess in this area and aims to make everything public. And their fame of changing privacy settings each 6 months or less does not help either. *edit: AND being able to select what timeline/wall you want to see. Filters a LOT of the noise.
I do think that Google has overvalued social in search. And yet, it's so hard for them to resist, because it aligns so well with what their advertisers think they want.
I do not want my search to be catered to my personal preferences. If I want to consume information, then yes, give me the kind of stuff that interests me. But when I search, I want an algorithm to use my search terms and not me to figure out what I am looking for. Much of what is valuable about search is the serendipity of new information. Tell me what I am likely not to know. Surprise me. The last thing I want from search is an internet conversation related to the thing I want to learn more about.
–
–
:)
But seriously, no. I would freak if Google searches started returning Hubski threads. Search for Hubski threads on Hubski is good. Finding them on a Google search would be like finding phone conversations in the library shelves. I guess that's kind of what finding Google+ conversations feels like.
–
Yeah, being facetious.
But in all seriousness, this gets to the heart of what Google is, as opposed to what Google does. What it is is the same as GM and ExxonMobile and Boeing and Bank of America. What it does is search, but this is only a conduit to serve its is, and does is therefore always subservient to is (yes, I'm sorry for the awful word play; bored at home).
–
thenewgreen · 2664 days ago · link ·
I just reread your comment but switched the words in the last sentence as such:
is=corporation does=search Then it makes complete sense.
–
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/014335.html
Someone was probably having fun, but this is too rich: http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Steinheiser_Rick_1382240514.a...
–