Google Me
September 15, 2010 2:36 AM Subscribe
Old rumors appear to be true. Google will introduce “a social layer” into online search, video and Google Maps this Fall.
This post was deleted for the following reason: This is probably more a "something has actually happened now" thing than a "something will be happening at some point" thing as far as post-worthiness goes. -- cortex
How could they go wrong extending Google Buzz?
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:57 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:57 AM on September 15, 2010
Am I the only one that thinks trying to "weave some social goodness" into things that aren't social networks just results in a lot of annoying page clutter?
posted by Hollow at 3:05 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]
posted by Hollow at 3:05 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]
So.. what does that mean?
posted by Harry at 3:37 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Harry at 3:37 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
another victory celebration to the popular
posted by nervousfritz at 3:52 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by nervousfritz at 3:52 AM on September 15, 2010
This is pretty thin gruel no? We're going to have the same deconstruction and lovehate fest when the product actually manifests. It's a bit socially awkward to have a party without the honoured guest in actual attendance.
posted by peacay at 3:56 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by peacay at 3:56 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
So this is "a socially awkward layer" then? Maybe Google Me is just fashionably late...
posted by chavenet at 4:07 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by chavenet at 4:07 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
We're going to have the same deconstruction and lovehate fest when the product actually manifests.
At which point our derision will have no effect.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:16 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
At which point our derision will have no effect.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:16 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Gah, getting seriously fed up with websites constantly nagging me to join their lame Facebook-wannabes.
On a brighter note, I discovered Google Classic today. Interesting concept, a simple, lightweight, uncluttered search engine page, seems familiar from somewhere.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:19 AM on September 15, 2010
On a brighter note, I discovered Google Classic today. Interesting concept, a simple, lightweight, uncluttered search engine page, seems familiar from somewhere.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:19 AM on September 15, 2010
I didn't realize google changed their corporate policy to "Do No Simple."
posted by fuq at 4:55 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]
posted by fuq at 4:55 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]
I guess I'll reserve judgement for when it releases, but I haven't liked much of what Google's been putting out recently. I especially dislike auto-search, or whatever that annoying, cycle hogging thing is called.
posted by codacorolla at 5:01 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by codacorolla at 5:01 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
As long as you can turn it off. I do like Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn is useful as hell, but this trend of adding social to everything is annoying as hell. I don't want to share everything I do with everyone I know.
posted by octothorpe at 5:13 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 5:13 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
Heh. The auto-suggest will start to say things like "your friend dwarf-tosser21 looked at this Tentacle Porn page 2 hours and 3 minutes ago. Would you like to go there too?"
posted by awfurby at 5:15 AM on September 15, 2010 [10 favorites]
posted by awfurby at 5:15 AM on September 15, 2010 [10 favorites]
“a social layer” into online search, video and Google Maps this Fall.
Twoleftfeet searched for Spanking Furries, Vol. 3 DVD and nearby locations where it could be boughtposted by nomadicink at 5:23 AM on September 15, 2010
Google Me Instant!
posted by blue_beetle at 5:29 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by blue_beetle at 5:29 AM on September 15, 2010
As long as you can turn it off. I do like Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn is useful as hell, but this trend of adding social to everything is annoying as hell. I don't want to share everything I do with everyone I know.No kidding. Why would I want to share everything I do with everyone I know? 90% of the crap I see on facebook, I could care less about.
Maybe social is interesting to people who have never participated in web forums. I mean, I get plenty discussion and link sharing here on metafilter, and it's going to be with people who are actually interested in the topic, not random people I happen to know.
On the other hand, adding social elements that actually make products more useful might be helpful. For example, being able to mark points on Google maps, and instantly share those points or directions with friends could be pretty useful. It could be fun to 'watch a movie together' with a friend on youtube.
I have no idea how social crap would be helpful for search.
posted by delmoi at 5:33 AM on September 15, 2010
Meanwhile, the unstoppable juggernaut that is Bing overtook Yahoo! to become the second most popular US search engine in the month of August.
Yahoo! stockholders who didn't sell at its peak could not be reached for comment.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:36 AM on September 15, 2010
Yahoo! stockholders who didn't sell at its peak could not be reached for comment.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:36 AM on September 15, 2010
Google has not demonstrated a whiff of a scintilla of a clue about social media. Both Buzz and Wave were very impressive technologies, but that's irrelevant. Google launching a Facebook killer is about as convincing as Microsoft launching an iPod killer. Apple's Ping is another example of the same thing.
In other news Diaspora go open source today with an alpha still schedule for October, so I guess we'll finally discover if they have a clue or become the Duke Nukem of the Facebook generation.
posted by unSane at 5:56 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
In other news Diaspora go open source today with an alpha still schedule for October, so I guess we'll finally discover if they have a clue or become the Duke Nukem of the Facebook generation.
posted by unSane at 5:56 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]
(And let's not pretend Google is a search company any more: it's an advertising company. Its core competence is search but the moat around it is being drained fast by Bing, which is one of the reasons we are seeing them aggressively trying (and so far largely failing) to reduce their reliance on search).
posted by unSane at 5:59 AM on September 15, 2010
posted by unSane at 5:59 AM on September 15, 2010
In other news Diaspora go open source today with an alpha still schedule for OctoberMan, I'm kind of worried that's going to be a colossal failure. Those guys were asking for about $10k and got $200k. Is it realistic to expect them to spend it well?
I guess we'll see.
posted by delmoi at 6:08 AM on September 15, 2010
the unstoppable juggernaut that is Bing overtook Yahoo! to become the second most popular US search engine in the month of August.
Yahoo is now actually using Bing:
Later this week, we will begin transitioning the back-end technology for Yahoo! Search in the U.S. and Canada (English) over to the Microsoft platform, and will post an update when the organic search transition is complete for both Web and mobile searches. Keep an eye out for the “Powered by Bing” indicator at the bottom of our search results page, which will indicate that you are viewing listings from Microsoft.
posted by mediareport at 6:09 AM on September 15, 2010
Yahoo is now actually using Bing:
Later this week, we will begin transitioning the back-end technology for Yahoo! Search in the U.S. and Canada (English) over to the Microsoft platform, and will post an update when the organic search transition is complete for both Web and mobile searches. Keep an eye out for the “Powered by Bing” indicator at the bottom of our search results page, which will indicate that you are viewing listings from Microsoft.
posted by mediareport at 6:09 AM on September 15, 2010
Wait, Bing has actually become successful?No, but this is the trap that Google set for itself when it became a public company. They have to keep growing, or keep growing revenue. And since everyone is already online, and everyone already uses Google they are either going to have to get more blockbuster products like docs and Gmail, or they're going to need to figure out a way to squeeze more time and eyeballs out of their userbase. That means either competing with more and more companies and pissing off other corporations, or trying to squeeze more cash out of the views they get, which pisses off users. Or it could be utilizing the data they have on everyone and creeping everyone out. Everyone who notices at least. They seem to be going for one and three.
Personally, I'd like to see them get into banking and start to squeeze out wallstreet. Of course, that won't happen because wallstreet would fight back, and they own congress.
Remember when Microsoft tried to buy Quicken? It's one of the few tech mergers that the government actually blocked. Why? I've heard it was because wallstreet was worried about trying to compete with Microsoft. If Microsoft owned personal finance on the PC, it would have given them an easy window into banking and it could have cannibalized wallstreet.
Oh well, probably won't happen. But if it wasn't for regulatory capture, a lot of the stuff wall street traders do could be done by computers.
posted by delmoi at 6:16 AM on September 15, 2010 [3 favorites]
First reaction: Ugh.
Actually that's probably not going to change as a reaction.
I hope it's easy to turn off.
posted by Artw at 6:19 AM on September 15, 2010
Actually that's probably not going to change as a reaction.
I hope it's easy to turn off.
posted by Artw at 6:19 AM on September 15, 2010
And let's not pretend Google is a search company any more: it's an advertising company.
Once again, blue_beetle's comment in an earlier thread (now going viral across the Internet -- yay MeFi!) is the most important thing you will read this year and it should be your mantra as you peruse the Internet: "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."
posted by The Bellman at 6:19 AM on September 15, 2010
Once again, blue_beetle's comment in an earlier thread (now going viral across the Internet -- yay MeFi!) is the most important thing you will read this year and it should be your mantra as you peruse the Internet: "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."
posted by The Bellman at 6:19 AM on September 15, 2010
Ew.
I really, really don't want my friends to know what I search for online.
Really.
At all.
Ew.
posted by jefficator at 6:20 AM on September 15, 2010
I really, really don't want my friends to know what I search for online.
Really.
At all.
Ew.
posted by jefficator at 6:20 AM on September 15, 2010
It's seeming to me lately that Google has perhaps hit the limit, or is engaged in a no-win game of cat-and-mouse, with regards to its ability to filter out low-value SEO garbage from search results. Any algorithm they come up with will be quickly gamed.
Although a 'social' system could also be gamed, it would be a bit more difficult. Also, a way of personalizing search results — something that I've been stunned they've never really done, and actually rolled back the one quasi-attempt that they did make at it* — would remove a lot of the pressure. People don't care whether the results are "good" or "bad" on some abstract continuum of goodness/badness, they care about it on a totally subjective scale to them. More personalized results basically equals 'better' results in the vast majority of cases.
Some low-hanging fruit would be taking the existing Google Bookmarks feature and building in a way to share them, so that not only would you get your own relevant bookmarks at the top of related search results (which is handy as hell, and probably the most frequent way I access Google Bookmarks), but you could also see your friends' results pop up there as well. I'd also ask for some way of 'anti-bookmarks' ... basically a way to blackball a particular site, domain, or link, and then share/propagate that anti-link to my contacts.
I can't tell you how many times I've been searching for something, and have gone through a bunch of results and determined them to be shit, and would have loved a way to just block them permanently out of future results (either on that topic or just globally). It doesn't seem a huge stretch to allow this, but then allow users to optionally take their contacts/friends' judgements into account in search results.
* For a while, Google had Digg-style vote up/down buttons next to search results. I thought it was a good idea but then they just went away. I never heard any explanation about why.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:22 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Although a 'social' system could also be gamed, it would be a bit more difficult. Also, a way of personalizing search results — something that I've been stunned they've never really done, and actually rolled back the one quasi-attempt that they did make at it* — would remove a lot of the pressure. People don't care whether the results are "good" or "bad" on some abstract continuum of goodness/badness, they care about it on a totally subjective scale to them. More personalized results basically equals 'better' results in the vast majority of cases.
Some low-hanging fruit would be taking the existing Google Bookmarks feature and building in a way to share them, so that not only would you get your own relevant bookmarks at the top of related search results (which is handy as hell, and probably the most frequent way I access Google Bookmarks), but you could also see your friends' results pop up there as well. I'd also ask for some way of 'anti-bookmarks' ... basically a way to blackball a particular site, domain, or link, and then share/propagate that anti-link to my contacts.
I can't tell you how many times I've been searching for something, and have gone through a bunch of results and determined them to be shit, and would have loved a way to just block them permanently out of future results (either on that topic or just globally). It doesn't seem a huge stretch to allow this, but then allow users to optionally take their contacts/friends' judgements into account in search results.
* For a while, Google had Digg-style vote up/down buttons next to search results. I thought it was a good idea but then they just went away. I never heard any explanation about why.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:22 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
I really, really don't want my friends to know what I search for online.
Why do people always think that Google would do the stupidest possible thing imaginable?
posted by empath at 6:31 AM on September 15, 2010
Why do people always think that Google would do the stupidest possible thing imaginable?
posted by empath at 6:31 AM on September 15, 2010
This is so vague it's not really worth an FPP. I have no idea what this new thing is going to entail.
posted by John Cohen at 6:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by John Cohen at 6:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Stupidest thing imaginable" is actually the entry for "Social layer" in the Marketing-to-English dictionary.
posted by Artw at 6:38 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 6:38 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is so vague it's not really worth an FPP. I have no idea what this new thing is going to entail.
Agreed. Without some explanation of what this 'social layer' is, this pretty thin -- "Famous company to introduce something new in a few months with hopes of increasing market share."
posted by modernnomad at 6:40 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
Agreed. Without some explanation of what this 'social layer' is, this pretty thin -- "Famous company to introduce something new in a few months with hopes of increasing market share."
posted by modernnomad at 6:40 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]
this is the trap that Google set for itself when it became a public company. They have to keep growing, or keep growing revenue. And since everyone is already online, and everyone already uses Google they are either going to have to get more blockbuster products like docs and Gmail, or they're going to need to figure out a way to squeeze more time and eyeballs out of their userbase
This.
By the insane logic of the market, it doesn't matter if you have a business that generates a billion dollars in pure profit every few months. If you don't earn significantly more next year, you're flea bait.
This explains the great majority of stupid decisions that businesses make.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:40 AM on September 15, 2010
This.
By the insane logic of the market, it doesn't matter if you have a business that generates a billion dollars in pure profit every few months. If you don't earn significantly more next year, you're flea bait.
This explains the great majority of stupid decisions that businesses make.
posted by Joe Beese at 6:40 AM on September 15, 2010
This is so vague it's not really worth an FPP. I have no idea what this new thing is going to entail.
great, can we talk about how gmail has gone from a lite webmail solution which just works^tm to a bloated, buggy, crashy monstrosity. I mean, how could webmail crash... oh wait somehow it actually uses Flash^tm.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:41 AM on September 15, 2010
great, can we talk about how gmail has gone from a lite webmail solution which just works^tm to a bloated, buggy, crashy monstrosity. I mean, how could webmail crash... oh wait somehow it actually uses Flash^tm.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:41 AM on September 15, 2010
great, can we talk about how gmail has gone from a lite webmail solution which just works^tm to a bloated, buggy, crashy monstrosity
You are insane.
posted by empath at 6:44 AM on September 15, 2010
You are insane.
posted by empath at 6:44 AM on September 15, 2010
great, can we talk about how gmail has gone from a lite webmail solution which just works^tm to a bloated, buggy, crashy monstrosity.
If you want to post an FPP about this, go ahead. I agree that Gmail is too bloated and buggy. I was going to post an AskMe about whether there's any way to manually cut back on some of the features that seem more like bugs to me ("archive" and "mute").
Of course, that's irrelevant to this FPP. But there's so little substance to this FPP that almost everything is irrelevant to this FPP.
posted by John Cohen at 6:47 AM on September 15, 2010
If you want to post an FPP about this, go ahead. I agree that Gmail is too bloated and buggy. I was going to post an AskMe about whether there's any way to manually cut back on some of the features that seem more like bugs to me ("archive" and "mute").
Of course, that's irrelevant to this FPP. But there's so little substance to this FPP that almost everything is irrelevant to this FPP.
posted by John Cohen at 6:47 AM on September 15, 2010
« Older New Wave and the New Age: a Blondie Songwriter's... | Mooing Vuitton in the verdant fields of a mall. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chavenet at 2:48 AM on September 15, 2010