Wednesday, July 6, 2011

"Social" means different things to different people

Right off the bat, let me just say that I really like Google+, and will probably jump ship from Facebook once I can convince my friends to join me there. But there's a lot of opinions flying around, from a lot of places, and I think some of them are missing the point a little, and I think they're missing the point because Google+ isn't actually for them.

By "them", I mean people who get paid to write about stuff like this. By virtue of what they do, they're Public Figures, and they attract a wide variety of followers, a slightly narrower variety of trolls, and then other assorted Internet bedbugs. This is in addition to their actual, you know, friends. A complaint I saw raised about Google+ was that it was difficult to manage their Stream because of the numerous comments coming from all quarters.

Well, guess what? That's not a problem with Google+. It's a problem with you. You are, in certain circles (heh), a celebrity. Get used to it, or find another job. But you probably really like telling people what you think, and what they should think, so I'm not sure where else you're going to work. Politics, maybe.

I've also heard the complaint that it's confusing, when following somebody like MG Siegler or Robert Scoble, to have their posts always at the top of your stream because the comments are constantly bumping them.

I have solved this problem by not following MG, or Scoble, or Leo Laporte. I actually enjoy reading their opinions (I listen to TWiT, I read TechCrunch), but that's just not what Google+ is for, at least not for me. They're not, nor should they be, in any way, a part of anything that could be called my Social Network. I don't know them. I never will. I don't really care about where they went on vacation, and I don't want pictures of their dogs. If I want MG's opinion, I'll just read TechCrunch.

Just my $0.02.

No comments:

Post a Comment