PCWorld Forums: Google+ Struggles To Stay Relevant - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Google+ Struggles to Stay Relevant here

was this thing ever relevant? I mean, MySpace was relevant 2 years ago, but G+? come on people, we all know only Google employees use it, they fooled none.

CompareUltrabooKCom, on 04 December 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

Obviously you don't use G+ and therefore should probably keep your "opinion" to yourself concerning it. A quick look around G+ shows that it populated with a diverse cross section of people who aren't Google employees. The sheer number of tech luminaries, celebrities,and average Joes on the site and the engagement level of G+ users shows that it is indeed relevant to those people. And whereas it may not have the same number of users as Facebook, it definitely has a large user base and it is most assuredly growing. Facebook didn't start off where they are now, they started off small and grew! G+ will grow also.

Given Google+ hasn't been around that long, it is doing very well. It is being integrated across Google's product range and its impact on search alone will force businesses to use it.

"The ability to schedule posts or autoposts isn't even technically feasible"

If it's not technically feasible how come Hootsuite can do it?

NeilGrainger, on 04 December 2011 - 09:17 AM, said:

Also, G+ doesn't allow any one under 18 to join.... which is a huge percentage of Facebook. G+ was never instantly relevant either. It has to work its way up, just like Facebook did. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the current layout though. It looks bad on large/wide screens because there is so much wasted space. I mean it works, but I still like Facebook's design better for the news feed and what not.

CJ100570, on 04 December 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

A more careful look at the data shows that G+ has failed to attract and keep anything close to a demographically widespread user base.

That "sheer number of tech luminaries [and] celebrities" registered there owes simply to their being the ones targeted by Google's initial invitations, very many of whom came, looked, and left.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 04 December 2011 - 03:49 PM

CJ100570, on 04 December 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

really? 80% of users is male! I used it for a while until I realized I was forcing myself to do it, nevertheless it was the better attempt to replace FB I've seen so far.

G+ is weird: The +You is always on the black bar at google.com. It is always on the black bar at gmail.com. If you click it to sign up they let you "get in" with any old name. Once you have arrived at g+ the site is built for interacting with people that you know and especially people that you don't know already. It's very odd for someone to use their "real name" when they are trying to have conversations with ALL of the g+'ers they don't know already. How often do you wear a name tag at a mall for everyone to see? Would you walk into a convention of identity thieves with your real name and information on your name tag? It is beyond illogical to tie g+ into google search, gmail, blogger, etc. It taints those other services for those of us that refuse to show google an ID to use g+. Always having to look at the +You even though you don't want it or need it. G+ should be a separate property from the others or else people will become disgusted with them ALL. The content controls are non-existent. Adults can't share adult content, and I'm not talking about pornography, I'm talking about pictures of paintings and other forms of art that show nudity etc. In these ways g+ is anti-privacy, anti secure against identity thieves, anti being real and letting it all hang out because your employer might check out what you are up to. It is anti free speech. It is a classism in that celebrities get to use names like Snoop Dogg when the rest of us would have to be Calvin Broadus. Eminem can use it, but all of would be Marshall Mathers. Google celebrates Mark Twain's birthday with a doodle yet Mark Twain is a pen name, if he were on G+ before he became a celebrity all his g+ pals would have known him as Samuel Clemens. So UNCOOL. Google is an advertising company and only values your info which is why they want your REAL info. Buy a product instead, don't be the product. Amazon is forking Android, Diaspora is coming, Bing is as good as Google, on and on. Google is dying.

CJ100570, on 04 December 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

So you feel comfortable giving Google your real name on Google Plus? Do you feel comfortable with total strangers knowing your real information? Do you feel comfortable that if you posted a pic of a famous painting that showed nudity you would probably be warned about their "content" policy? There are no content controls nor controls on which name you choose to go by or not go by in Google's Google Plus world. I've seen many people even put their place of employment, work and home phone numbers on their Google Plus Profile. These people don't value privacy, freedom, being an adult, and instead have no problem giving an ADVERTISER, which is what Google has become, ALL of their information. These people are the bane of the internet.

TehGoldenRule said:

Spot on, in all respects.

The Big G sheeple will sell their souls for the freebies.