Google+ redesigned their layout and nobody even noticed
- Thread starter Instrumentalist
- Start date
I'm actually glad this thread morphed into something else, that's what discussions are all about. And honestly it made me think that maybe I should add G+ pages to my repertoire, considering that it's a property owned by the search engine that actually brings me results.
There is no testing required, the effect of +1s on SEO is public knowledge.
I don't know about this, but G+ is nothing like Facebook, so I am not sure how people thought they were trying to compete.
Outside this forum, I don't know one other person online who has spent more than 5 seconds of their life thinking about G+, good or bad.
I think he has a point about women not buying in, and women being more interested in something like Pinterest, but at the same time, women weren't early adopters of a lot of things, and that didn't prevent them from taking off.
If people continue to measure G+ as just another social network, yes, it is an enormous fail. I think you and I understand that it is not just another social network, but something very different.
It's kind of weird because most of my friends have a gmail account, but we never actually use them to talk to each other at all. I just never used gtalk at all. It was aim/msn -> facebook -> facebook/skype.
Google was never that "oh we use this to talk to our friends" company. I used Google Docs to collaborate on projects all the time in school, but it never carried over for some reason.
I feel like this sort of thing would have been easier with AIM or Skype names or something. Like if Skype would have launched Skype Spaces or Skype Live, I feel like it would be more successful than Google+ at least in it's current state.
Google was never that "oh we use this to talk to our friends" company. I used Google Docs to collaborate on projects all the time in school, but it never carried over for some reason.
I feel like this sort of thing would have been easier with AIM or Skype names or something. Like if Skype would have launched Skype Spaces or Skype Live, I feel like it would be more successful than Google+ at least in it's current state.
it became something very different because it failed to do what it was designed for. A broad social network which will provide additional information to the google algorithm.
Now it provides(according to you, and I am more than willing to trust your judgment on this subject) information to the algo, but actually all that is happening is people abusing it for profit(because only SEO experts are using the platform). Zero goods for the end user.
Google+ was deisgned as broad social network and I do not think that can be denied.
ps: oh, and belive me, quite a bunch of people were pissed off because they were forced on g+ accounts. And google buzz accounts before that.
Google + Gmail Tap FTW!!
In reference to the above!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je7Xq9tdCJc"]A word about Gmail Tap - YouTube[/ame]
Both of which may or may not be relevant to this thread.
But I like'm!!
In reference to the above!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je7Xq9tdCJc"]A word about Gmail Tap - YouTube[/ame]
Both of which may or may not be relevant to this thread.
But I like'm!!
If you follow the development of social network, including the philosophy behind it, I don't think it was ever designed to supplant Facebook. It's simply not designed that way at all.
I'm not sure you understand how it works, because it is working as intended.
Let's assume this is true and play a game.
How long did it take facebook to become the dominant social platform?
How long did it take Google to become the dominant search platform?
I've never met them. I know literally hundreds if not thousands of people online, and the only place I hear anyone talk about G+ is on marketing and webmaster forums.
Leaked internal rant highlights Google Plus struggles - CNN
"Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product," Yegge wrote in what was supposed to be an internal memo. "But that's not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone."
The logical fallacy wheel landed on argument ad populum this time?
All that aside, when I'm searching for shit, I'll find stuff in the 80's and 90's with shit like 17,650 +1'd this. I really don't give a flying fuck how many idiots +1'd something, and I hope Google doesn't either, because to me it means somebody bought a +1 package or they're in some circlejerk I want no part of. Likewise I'm tired of seeing the nerd glamor shots of these so-called "high end google users" and I'd rather not read the bullshit of some seo guru or ignoramus tech blogger and all these dipshits with their ugly mug or picture of them holding their stupid infant make it that much easier to spot the eza-level fucktards. I've actually been bounce-blocking some of the more obnoxious, idiotic, retarded shit with a picture next to it, where without the picture it'd be easier to ignore it. So Google, heed me, put an "ignore" link next to the "follow" link next to these "author" pictures, give me a -1 button, help me help you recognize these eza rejects for what they are.
An argument ad populum would be that because a lot of people believe something, it is true.
That is not what I was saying.
I think your issue is that you don't understand how +1s impact SEO.
You could always use Bing. Their search isnt too bad.
I am pretty sure Google thinks less of your opinion than I do.
It works this way:
more social signals relevant to you -> effect on ranking on your "personalized" SERP.
No one uses it -> results are the same.
Only SEO experts use it -> algo is tricked. You get a commercial instead of content.
How is that working as intended? It works the opposite of "as intended". It should have made results more relevant, and their algo more about what people(close to you) are really talking about and interested in and less about what "SEO experts" want to be #1 on the SERP. The exact opposite thing is happening now.
If you think that google+ is made to serve SEO peeps you are deeply mistaken, as google hates you folks
It will work as intended if a critical mass uses the service. Than it will change results in a meaningful way.
I'm actually not interested in discussing this further. As I feel like a broken record right now.
Uhm, no, that's not how +1s work.
Maybe you should find out how they work, and then come back to this thread.
I don't.If you think that google+ is made to serve SEO peeps you are deeply mistaken, as google hates you folks
Can't say I blame you. If I couldn't make a cogent point, discussions would be really frustrating!
I mis-typed. I do buy G+ for some sites, sometimes. However, I always buy tweets and shares for any sites I care about. For G+ it depends on my mood that day and 4/5 times it's "Fuck G+, will buy extra shares or tweets instead".
I like the part where Guerilla totally ignores Mixies post and quote replies to everyone else.
Guerilla, clock is ticking. Tick tock tick tock.
Guerilla, clock is ticking. Tick tock tick tock.
I don't care, you're a poopy head.
See my sig. I have a substantial ignore list.
Focus on your own websites SON!
Of all of the memes I could have created, this is the one I would have chosen. It says it all really.
Someone should SGW their G+ account and see if all their websites go up or down in the rankings. That will answer alot of questions...