|Larry Page stops posting on Google+, posting down by 41%|
The hype surrounding Social Media and it's potential Monetization could be overblown, according to this article. I think the author could have went a little more in-depth on some of this, but some interesting tidbits and discussion points come out. Cites some other sources and articles not posted here for further reading.
|The difficult thing is that everyone believes the whole world will soon be social--that we will do nothing without our friends instantly knowing (and judging) our latest foray to, say, the bowling alley or the mall restroom. |
So, yelps and alerts have now emerged that Page has posted nothing to Google+ for a month. At least, nothing publicly.
|He might also have heard the words of Martin Sorrell, the perfectly formed and perfectly informed CEO of ad group WPP, who posited only yesterday that making money from social networks might not have quite the ease of peas that many in polo shirts had imagined. |
|But equally, even in the last month, the Google CEO might suddenly have begun to consider that there is a place, a space, beyond social--a new, new nirvana where money can be made. |
Read more: Is Google's CEO nonplussed by Google+? [news.cnet.com]
I shall risk getting shot down in flames, or proven to be a complete idiot when I say this but here goes ......
Social is a fad. Like all fads it will die, perhaps a lot sooner than we expect, and be replaced by something equally "permanent".
Larry doesn't post because Larry has a life .....
........ too busy making money !
Because Larry has a job trying to convince everyone they can make money by not actually doing anything other than be keyboard monkeys!
|superclown2 wrote: |
Social is a fad. Like all fads it will die, perhaps a lot sooner than we expect, and be replaced by something equally "permanent".
Social sites in the style of Friendster, MySpace, Facebook and Google+ will come and go, no doubt, but there is always a demand for "social". Internet message boards and BBS'es where people shared personal information existed long before Facebook.
Sites like Facebook and Google+ are just an evolutionary step of the social media species.
There are two species of Intetnet users -- those of us who have to work and don't have time for social and those who have nothing more to do but chat all day long. Social was made for the later.
There's no doubt that there are opportunities to market to those that are engaged in social media. Marketers, get your promo out there.
With Google+ there is bound to be an initial interest from marketers and early adopters. The real test is whether it retains its momentum over the longer period.
Don't count out Google+ just yet as they are doing their best to get people signed in.
Agree with engine, Google is going to put the full of force of Search behind it (Notice that I am not mentioning that it may be illegal) until they are told to cut it out. It's positive discrimination, use it /help Google+ gain share and rank high, don't use it and adios!
That's the only way they can gain any traction.
Google + isn't Facebook. Facebook is the result of years of organic growth, Google + is just Google leveraging gmail and YouTube to try to horn in. It's really YouTube that's Google's success in social networking, and Google had to force users to create Google accounts for the sake of the Google + launch.
But FaceBook users (and I'm not one) aren't stupid. They know that they actually have some control over how FaceBook does things through social pressure. There's is no such owner/slave interaction with Google. I think that's why Google fails so badly with their new services and has to buy their way into new fields, just like Microsoft of old. They are a one trick pony, search, and their current iteration is the equivalent of Windows Millenium.
Google+ will be another failure of Google Labs. Just another one; some day they will announce that the service will be closed in seven days because it doesn't improves the user experience and yada yada yada.
Users don't write in Google+ because it's just a bunch of people too smart to show their lifes as those of Facebook do. Even G+ games will become will become a failure: it's not Facebook the kingdom of timewasters and G+ the county of engineers? Are the techies ready to spend hours launching silly birds?
Once the buzz decreases, Google+ will be in the limbo where the Internet killers remain in peace: Orkut, Altavista, Terra, Geocities...
|Social is a fad. Like all fads it will die, perhaps a lot sooner than we expect |
I tend to agree with this. There have been similar surveys showing that something like 90% of all Facebook users have not logged in for weeks etc. In fact, I don't even recall what my own FB login is (and don't much care). There are some niche forums that I participate in, but to me the whole massive social sites are pretty much Bleh.
There will always be social media - but it may not be anything like what it is now.
There has been this huge bandwagon effect, but that seems to be dying out rather quickly.
|Social is a fad. Like all fads it will die, perhaps a lot sooner than we expect, and be replaced by something equally "permanent". |
I first read something along these lines on a public access UNIX conferencing system in 1985.
|Once the buzz decreases... |
What buzz? lol. The only places I ever see G+ mentioned is in webmaster circles.
I don't agree social is a "fad" but I do think that like every new thing it will peak and then settle while something else peaks and the infinite loop continues.
I'm not convinced social is as effective a marketing channel as some people would like us believe (notably those who are successful in making some money from it!) but it does have some value and will continue to for *some* businesses while others will never be able to leverage it as much as they can other channels.
|walkman said: |
It's positive discrimination, use it /help Google+ gain share and rank high, don't use it and adios!
Are you saying that Google intends to give higher rankings to the websites of people that use Google+ ? That would be totally unethical. It would be like bribery. If they actually tried to do this, there would be a huge uproar of protest, and it would backfire in their face.
|Are you saying that Google intends to give higher rankings to the websites of people that use Google+ ? That would be totally unethical. It would be like bribery. If they actually tried to do this, there would be a huge uproar of protest, and it would backfire in their face. |
I have posted here how they are automatically on top--or were last time I checked. Even Brett posted about it. Edit: G+ posts were ranking #1 not sites that had +1 installed.
And, when you search, especially for a tech story, you will probably see a tiny picture of the person with their G profile on the side. We know that a picture highlights the listing, we all can agree to this, so you don't want to be the one without it.
Then there is this:
Google people apparently told publishers straight forward in a meeting, put the +1 or lose traffic. Only Forbes published it, until they removed it.
Unethical, bribery or whatever, never stopped Google from trying. Are people happy with instant search? Local etc? Google likes to push its luck and it feels confident about its brand so it thinks nothing bad will stick. Plus they'll get their 'engineers' to do a video and say that their data shows that people love it, and it's all about the users and the only ones complaining are bad sites that are not +1-ed. Watcha gonna say?
|But therein lies the rub. If Google’s search results become heavily dependent on social signals from Google+, then there’s going to be heavy pressure on the net’s websites to embed the Google+ button. |
And depending on where you work — say, Facebook or the Justice Department — that could look like Google is unfairly using its search engine might to boost its Facebook alternative.
That might explain why Forbes killed a story by Kashmir Hill entitled “Stick Google Plus Buttons On Your Pages, Or Your Search Traffic Suffers” which was seemingly based on information from a meeting with Google ad representatives. On August 18, Hill wrote, “the message in this meeting was clear: “Put a Plus One button on your pages or your search traffic will suffer.”
Hill followed up with Google’s press team. which gave Hill the same carefully couched answer it gave Wired.
But the story quickly disappeared from Forbes’ website and from the Google cache, though it was noticed and saved by the Raven Tools SEO blog.
[edited by: walkman at 8:46 pm (utc) on Sep 19, 2011]
One year before my 20th HS reunion, all my classmates joined FB. More joined right after the reunion. That was 2 years ago. In the last 12 months, posts by my old classmates has dropped off significantly. Probably down by 2/3rds.
I realize my generation is older, and not integrated with social media like younger generations, but it's definitely on the decline for my 200+ circle.
They've got kids to raise, bills to pay, and other life hurdles. They don't have the luxury of time to waste on something as inconsequential as FB, let alone Google+. They post a few pics of their kids now and then, and some other misc stuff, and that's about it. It's dropped off a lot because I think they know, deep down, it's just not that interesting.
When 90 percent of all tweets, FB and other postings are about as exciting as someone went to the Mall and bought new shoes, or someone celebrated a birthday, Social Media just doesn't match it's own hype that a bunch of "experts" on the left or right coast are telling me I should be hyped up about. It might be part of the culture now, but it's a cultural wasteland of nonsense.
All the hype around Social Media involves the simplest and most inherently inaccurate sort of predicting there is: taking a current popular event and extrapolating it out, but never counting for changes, new advancements, and "black swans" that cannot be seen.
I'm sure Social Media will always be around, but it will become about as exciting as blogs and free email. Something else will appear on our radar screens and then the hype will build, and those same experts on the left and right coast will be telling me I should get hyped about "the next big thing."
When every body is telling me "this is going to be big and grow forever!" - I am skeptical. You mean, like the housing market is going to be big and grow forever? Or blogs? Or Portals? Or free e-cards? Or shopping search engines? The list goes on.
That's my cynical rant.
walkman -- Using Google+ and putting a +1 button on your website are two different things. I've seen some talk on this forum about Google possibly giving higher rankings to sites that add the +1 button, but I'm not aware that anyone at Google has ever "officially" said this, and I still strongly doubt that it'll ever happen. And if it did, there would be a huge protest against that too, and millions of site owners like me would refuse to go along with it, which would force Google to back down..
Me and you have similar sites.
You do not add +1. I do.
You can bet that G will rank me higher (I might get a +1 one day and you get none).
I doubt they'll announce what advantage it has or how much but they'll it a social signal or whatever..."one of the many signals we use to promote higher quality sites...blah blah...we're math geniuses...trust us...we come to work on a t-shirt....change the world...blah blah". Eventually people will get the message.
Plus fear of losing rank and their livelihood will cause many to add it, just in case. It's not like you know what caused your ranking to go up, down or to 0.
|And if it did, there would be a huge protest against that too, and millions of site owners like me would refuse to go along with it, which would force Google to back down.. |
You really believe that site owners can force Google to do something? Sorry, I wish you were right but the boots firmly on the other foot now. If Google decide to reward sites with a button, there isn't a thing any of us can do about it except scream.
If the protest is loud enough, and millions of site owners refuse to cooperate, I think Google would listen. Anyway, it makes no sense to use the +1 button as a ranking factor. It isn't an indication of quality or relevance. I still strongly doubt that it'll ever be used.
I hope it isn't but G+ has put a lot into this, admitting defeat will cost them and might cause people to look at them as failures in all but search, one trick pony, copycats etc. This is their long term project and other steps have been planned.
Everything is coordinated among other properties usually, not much is coincidence. For example Android users apparently search twice as much as users on other phones. What a coincidence!
Tough to be a search engine vying to be social.
Easier to be a social community and then offer search.
|Anyway, it makes no sense to use the +1 button as a ranking factor. It isn't an indication of quality or relevance. |
I think Google do see it as an indicator of trust though - in that you are more likely to trust your friends - and that is likely to be regarded as a ranking factor, at least on a personalised search level.
The sooner this "social" infactuation ends the better.
Now Sergey Brin decides it's time to post. I wonder if all the talk of people slowing posting is getting through to them?
Here's What Sergey Brin Just Posted To Google+ After Not Using It For Weeks [businessinsider.com]
We just called out a laundry list of senior Googlers for not using Google+.
Among them was Sergey Brin, whose last update was on August 29, sharing a picture of a blimp sailing over San Francisco.
20 minutes after our post today, Brin is back on Google+ to share the mysterious picture you see to the right.
I can't say that i'm going to watch his posting, such as that one, very carefully, but some google watchers may.