| 6:32 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I wonder if eventually you'll have to log in to some service to access the www.
| 8:25 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@Panthro - China's set the precedent: can the world be far behind?
| 8:43 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@albo - How's that work? Never been to China myself
| 9:01 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
That's funny, I avoid Google+ just fine and I have been to China so I can confirm that you are much more free to surf than the U.S. news agencies would have you believe.
Take the recent hype about China making it harder for people to access the net, it was in every news site recently. What did China do to deserve the hate from U.S. media? China made it law that internet providers would need to acquire the real names of their clients. Guess what, that's been standard in the U.S. for a decade, but U.S. media skips over that little tidbit.
| 9:37 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I don't get it, they force people to create a G+ account when they sign up to something else and, yes they sign up, I did. I then ignore my G+ account because I don't see that it's any use to me and that's that.
Creating G+ accounts is one thing but people using them is a totally different matter. I continue to get emails from G+ about people following / subscribing and whatever, I have no idea what it all means and no inclination to find out.
It's the same with Gmail - I must now have several different accounts none of which I use, I don't know what the logon is nor the passwords, same with G+. It's a joke.
| 9:51 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@Panthro - I *ass-u-me* ;) you've read the news. One story: [engadget.com...]
| 10:00 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Since Google+ made its debut in mid-2011, the Mountain View, Calif., company has had limited success getting people to spend time directly on the Google+ site. Research firm comScore Inc. a year ago estimated that Google+ users spent an average of three minutes on the site each month, versus more than 400 minutes for the average Facebook user. In the U.S., Google+ had nearly 28.7 million unique visitors through PCs in October—well below Facebook's 149 million, comScore says. |
I just don't know, strong arming people to actively participate in your social networking platform seems like a risky approach, born out of frustration.
| 10:47 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
next time you find yourself reading a popular article on a news site or blog, check out the share numbers for FB, Tw and G+, that tells you how much they're actually being used on an everyday basis, not just forced accounts being opened in order to access other stuff.
the current ratio seems to be about 100-1: 100 Tw/FB shares for every G+ share.
G+ is a failure.
They should rename it Google Buzz 2.
| 10:59 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
There's plenty of avoiding Google +, just ask FB
| 11:57 pm on Jan 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
every time some uses the word "THEY".. it becomes addictive to the masses...
| 1:23 am on Jan 4, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Unless people begin to tire of Facebook and leave in droves to setup shop on a site like Google+, not much will change. Facebook and Twitter dominate the social market and I think it's a little late for Google's strong arming
| 2:36 am on Jan 4, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Only an exceedingly anti social person would think you could really force people to be social.
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 2:48 am on Jan 4, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|I just don't know, strong arming people to actively participate in your social networking platform seems like a risky approach, born out of frustration. |
I'd agree, but there's also the other benefits of unifying accounts & associating them with people, regardless of whether people "post stuff" on G+ or not.
| 7:14 pm on Jan 15, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I am hit since April 2011 with the Panda update from Google.
I started with Google plus in the hope to have some positive effects on search results coming back to my strength before April 2011.
About 3400 followers on Google plus, many posts, many links to my site, many discussions, but no effects on my site.