Talk:Google+

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Horowitz and the "Stream product"[edit]

In looking over the coverage of Bradley Horowitz, it's only clear that the story is unclear. In his blog post, he never mentions Google+. He does say he is taking over Photos and Stream. He does not say what Stream is, and, as Reuters points out, the reference to a Stream product is vague. I couldn't figure out what Stream is either--not online nor from the entry here. Barte (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Although media is covering this heavy. Nothing offical has been reported. Bad reporting. Geek4gurl (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I think Bradley Horowitz is now doing new things (Area 120), but I've seen no recent announcements as to who has taken over Google Plus and/or Streams. ManosFate (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Many edited sections for no reason - removing numbers, dates and information[edit]

I heavily edited this article in 2014 and spent a large amount of time providing information that mirrored facebooks page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook Including the top section and adding table of active users and growth, history etc. Many of these items have been removed. Facebook page is not perfect, but provides a good starting place for how a social network's page should be created in wiki. I have re-added them back because they are factual and add value and history. If someone wants to remove these items please use this section to discuss. Geek4gurl (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I made many of these changes--some of them for the better, perhaps some for the worse. My edits reflected two primary concerns:
  • Google+'s basic description ("what is it") is confusing, perhaps reflecting Google's own struggles to describe it. Is Google+ a social network? A social layer? An identity service? Is there a difference between the last two? Those definitions not only get intermingled, but they confuse the idea of what constitutes Google+'s growth.
  • Seems to me, the coverage of Google+'s growth, after the initial euphoria, was much more measured, and at times skeptical, than the raw stats we present here. User engagement was an issue early on--those numbers shouldn't be buried. And Google addressed some of these concerns, such as The New York Time's characterizing the service as "a ghost town", by redefining Google+ as a social layer. (I say redefining, because the initial blog post announcement described the service strictly as a social network.) Moreover, the growth stats we present don't explain the subsequent management turnover. Or the recent Forbes interview with Sundar Pichai that says that Google+ will disassembled into parts: stream (I assume the social network, but am not sure), communications (Hangouts), and photos. If Google+ were the success story the growth stats imply, what's going on?
I have no problem with the article being modeled after the Facebook entry. My concern is more that the narrative be clearer and better reflect the often skeptical coverage from notable secondary sources. Barte (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I've edited according to the above, consolidating, rather than deleting, material where possible. Large deletions were of duplicate paragraphs. See what you think. Barte (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WSJ: Hangouts no longer part of Google+[edit]

According to this 3/4/15 Wall Street Journal report, "Hangouts was previously moved out of Google+. It now reports to Nick Fox, who is rethinking Google’s messaging strategy as was first reported by tech blog The Information." Anyone have any evidence to the contrary? If this is the case, Hangouts remains a part of Google+ history, but not current functionality, and the sections describing it as such should be deleted. Barte (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Collections?[edit]

I don't see collections anywhere on here? Is there anyone that would like to help me add a section on this new addition to G+? --Airplane Maniac (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

is features section needed[edit]

It practically brags all the features on the site. Features that no longer exists are also listed. Even tiny and irrelevant featured are written. I think only major features should be listen and everything else should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.216.202.55 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Barte (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Google+[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Google+ which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.change.org/petitions/google-change-the-youtube-comment-section-back-to-its-original-form#
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The offending link and accompanying article text both removed, along with the tag. Barte (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexa rank[edit]

An Alexa rank is pretty pointless for subdomains of google.com. All the traffic could going to finance.google.com instead of plus.google.com, but the Alexa rank won't differentiate and therefore tells us nothing about Google plus.76.105.131.18 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That appears to be the case: I deleted it. Barte (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

11/2015 Redesign[edit]

I know it's early but I don't see reference to the 2015 Redesign. I'm not sure where to add it structure-wise though. Advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicdreams (talkcontribs) 15:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a note on the redesign to the intro and body. The is still pretty vague--more on emphasis than specifics. We can expand when the redesign fully rolls out and secondary source publications write about them. Long-term, the redesign might require some paring of our lengthy description, as it's apparent not all G+ functions will live on. Barte (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Youtube Integration[edit]

Hello, as per the last sentence in the article, it says you cannot unlink the G+ account yet without it deleting your youtube account. But for the past couple of months or so, it's been safe to delete the google+ account and the youtube page will remain intact, any comments you made that were crossposted to g+ will remain on youtube too. They made unlinking and deleting of the g+ account nice and easy, but i have no citations heh.77.100.129.163 (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that the sentence said that was coming (back in 7/15), I removed it. Truth is--the Features and Functions section as a whole is out of date. Barte (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, the last time I checked on my YouTube account (which I never linked to Google+), I am not allowed to comment on a video unless I create a Google+ page and link it to my account. 63.155.168.158 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Google + Monetization[edit]

How does Google + make money? I know Google doesn't need Google + to make money but how do they do it? Any credible sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.182.24.138 (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe several of Google's services are not making money, but rather help Google in building its portfolio. I don't have any sources, so these are not facts, but I think Google prioritizes having a foot in all kinds of services rather than making a huge profit on all of them. I think Google+, Calendar, Keep, and a few more are not themselves profitable, but by having them and making valuable updates ("Goals" in Calender, just for example) gets users further into the Google eccosystem and gives Google more data about the person, which in turn enables profitability through ads in search. Again, personal thoughts and not sourced facts. Just wanted you to at least get an answer in case nobody else replies. LocalNet (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I think so too. Google is one of a few companies that offer many overlapping services, the others being MS, Facebook and Apple. Google just wants to offer most of the services that these competitors offer. It's not about a single service but about the ecosystem of services. PizzaMan (♨♨) 06:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Google+. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

“Google Plus”[edit]

The social media is called Google+, not Google Plus. Why does the article say that it’s called Google Plus?
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)