Google+ Slate Magazine vs. Thomas Hawk
Posted by jonfun
But a social network isn’t a product; it’s a place. Like a bar or a club, a social network needs a critical mass of people to be successful—the more people it attracts, the more people it attracts. Google couldn’t have possibly built every one of Facebook’s features into its new service when it launched, but to make up for its deficits, it ought to have let users experiment more freely with the site. That freewheeling attitude is precisely how Twitter—the only other social network to successfully take on Facebook in the last few years—got so big. When Twitter users invented ways to reply to one another or echo other people’s tweets, the service didn’t stop them—it embraced and extended their creativity. This attitude marked Twitter as a place whose hosts appreciated its users, and that attitude—and all the fun people were having—pushed people to stick with the site despite its many flaws (Twitter’s frequent downtime, for example). Google+, by contrast, never managed to translate its initial surge into lasting enthusiasm. And for that reason, it’s surely doomed.
Yeah I think not. This author clearly has had to much sizzle & not enough steak. Yet, let’s read the other article that says Google+ will be a success. Let’s see what Thomas Hawk has to say…
Yesterday over at the Slate, Farhad Manjoo wrote a post called “Google+ is Dead.”
In it he writes “The real test of Google’s social network is what people do after they join. As far as anyone can tell, they aren’t doing a whole lot.” He says he is “surprised” at how dreary it has become.
Farhad doesn’t seem to have spent much time on Google+ recently. His last post about baby products was on August 22nd.
My experience has been the *EXACT* opposite. My experience (as an active daily user) is that Google+ is not only NOT dead, it is alive and thriving! It is the most exciting social network I’ve ever been a part of.