Ensuring Opportunity in Our Networks

Ensuring Opportunity in Our Networks

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Ensuring Opportunity in Our Networks

Yesterday, Google rolled out the new “views” metric that allows us to see the total number of views of people’s (and page’s) posts, images and video’s here on Google+. And yesterday, I wrote a post that explored what I’m calling the V2F ratio, which is total views of our content divided by the total number of people/pages following us.

Today, I want to talk about why I think a number like this matters. 

The V2F ratio has some problems (see below), but the one thing I like about this metric is that it could help a new person just starting out on Google+ to gain a little more visibility.

Social Proof and the Rich Get Richer

We humans are funny. We use this thing called “social proof” as one of the ways we decide whether or not to pay attention to something. If a lot of other people are paying attention to it, it must be important. From an evolutionary perspective, there were no doubt some advantages to this strategy, but in our modern world of digital networks, it can lead to something called the “rich get richer” phenomenon. In simple terms what this means is that when someone already has a lot of links, it’s way easier for them to get more links than someone who doesn’t already have a lot of links. 

The rich get richer phenomenon is a well-established fact in network science. Some people call it a power law. There are lots of ways that this phenomenon feeds on itself, but the one I want to concentrate on today is “social proof.”  

Social proof is some signal that quickly conveys information about an individual’s status in a community or network. 

Social Proof on Google+

Up until yesterday, here on Google+ that primary indicator, or signal, of social proof was people’s follower count. Yesterday, we added a new signal: the view count. 

The view count might well be an improvement on the follower count because, in theory, it depends more on the quality of someone’s content. One of the problems that people have complained about here on Google+ (and on Twitter) are official recommendations, like the Suggested User List, that steer people to follow certain people and pages. Get recommended, and you have the opportunity to build a lot of engagement with people, and well, frankly, get a lot of what many people seek in the “attention economy.” That’s right: attention

The new view metric might change this a bit. Notice that I said that if you’re featured and have a lot of followers, you have “the opportunity” to build engagement and attention. If you have a lot of followers and don’t do a good job of engaging them or delivering good content, you’re going to get less attention than you could. 

Leveling the Playing Field

But the truth is, if you have a big following, you’re still going to get a fair amount of attention, as measured in view count, simply because there are so many people following you. 

By dividing the total number of these views by the total number of people and pages following you, the V2F ratio levels the playing field a bit for people who don’t have large followings. Someone with with 20 million views and 200,000 followers would have the same 100 V2F ratio as someone with 50,000 views and 500 followers. 

If Google made it easier to find people with high V2F ratios, I think it could well help new people have an easier time getting initial traction here on Google+. Tools like CircleCount, Circloscope and NOD3x can help with this process too (in fact, NOD3x is currently testing the V2F ratio in its reports). 

The Problems with V2F

There are a number of problems with the V2F ratio that you can learn more about in my post from yesterday and the numerous comments it generated:  http://goo.gl/m3WGYv

One of the key problems I’ll call out here is that not everyone here on Google+ is here for the same reasons. Many of us are here for attention (as hard as that is to admit), some because our work requires it and some just because it feels good. Others of us are here for different reasons, such as, for example, for learning. I know some wonderful Google+ denizens who are here for that particular reason and spend most of their time commenting on other people’s posts. The V2F ratio fails to account for their contributions here because comments aren’t counted and because these folks are spending proportionately more energy on other people’s posts, or on going into very deep conversations with a smaller set of people on their own. I believe Google needs to address that if we want to encourage depth of engagement here in addition to breadth. 

Another problem with the V2F ratio, and the views metric in general, is that it will be subject to cheap tricks. There are lots of ways to generate views. I don’t happen to be a huge cat fan (sorry), but I know I can generate a lot of activity by sending out cute pics of kittens. In other words, just because content generates a lot of views doesn’t qualify it for a Pulitzer. 

The Bottom Line

The bottom line though is that in a world where things like Klout exist, and where online attention is increasingly translating into real economic opportunity, this issue of opportunity in our online social networks really does matter. Call it network opportunity. 

I happen to be a U.S. citizen, and one of the United States’ greatest assets is its “American Dream,” which in essence is a dream based on opportunity. This dream is running into problems now days on many fronts, and one of the things that concerns me is that our online networks don’t contribute to an overall decline in real-world opportunity. 

That’s why I think stuff like this matters. 

#views   #V2F   #networks  

No comments

  1. Personally, my understanding is that people flooding streams with 10 photos a day are more likely to accumulate views than people posting 1 text a day, even with the same number of followers, and mostly regardless of attention paid to following up in comment threads, etc… so the #WarOnWords  continues unabated, while the promotion of #QuantityNotQuality  is gaining momentum.

  2. I did some quick analysis on this yesterday, Denis Wallez, and while photos definitely are a huge driver, it’s not just that. Plus, I think that the new image view for link shares is starting to change that whole war on words thing. A bit. 

  3. I appreciate your perspective, Denis Wallez, and feel that way for the most part as well. But I also agree with Gideon Rosenblatt. If you place  your words, at least your long-form content, outside of G+ (on your blog, for instance), then you can leverage G+’s new large image article link feature.

  4. People who write texts rarely posts 10 times a day… my point wasn’t so much about photos but about frequency of posting. If I post 10 short snippets, I get 10 views, 1 long form gets 1… so this promotes twitter-like thinking!

  5. Denis Wallez Very true.

  6. Nope. It doesn’t work that way. Will explain why not when I get back to my desktop.

  7. Precisely what I was thinking. Views is a more relevant qualitative measure if it is compared to number of posts. Otherwise it is just a number.

  8. There are a lot of metrics that would be fun to see added to better profile users. For instance, a graph showing how many posts the user has had in the last 2 months, then plotting this against the V2F. 

    V2F is a good basic measurement though, and it is far more revealing than the basic number of circlers, oops, I guess we’re now calling that followers now. 

  9. Jeff Sullivan also made similar considerations about leveling opportunities…

  10. You lost me at American Dream, Gideon Rosenblatt – as I’m a Carlin fan 🙂

    Nice discussion of social proof though, and it’s pitfalls.

  11. Ole Olson comment to post ratio 🙂

  12. Honestly – the endless discussions of this have made me realize how silly Google+ has become   It has always been the most self referential social network, but I thought it reached a ridiculous level of absurdity yesterday.  In a way, the only thing totally safe to post here is a post about Google+ itself, and all the Googe+ consultants here could end up destroying Google+ itself.   Before you say that could never happen, think about why Google+ exists in the first place – what problem it is attempting to solve and you will realize the possibility isn’t that far out there. 

  13. Denis Wallez, here’s the point about frequency of posts (from a comment I made in yesterday’s post): 

    You could crank out a bunch of simple links with no original commentary, but: a) that tends to be lower quality and gets less engagement; and b) that burns people out and you get less engagement. I have no idea what the multiplier would be. But here’s just a speculation: let’s say that scenario 1) is lower quality, higher frequency posts and scenario 2) is higher quality, lower frequency posts. Let’s assume scenario 1 gets 3 plusses and 1.5 comments on average, while scenario 2 gets 30 plusses and 15 comments on average. There’s a network effect at work here, which is the key, which is to say that it’s not just a 10x multiplier. It’s much bigger because for each of those plusses and comments, the post ends up rippling through the network of each of those plussers and commenters, and thereby greatly increasingly the probability of the post being seen in the stream. (I’m not sure I have the mechanics of how the algorithm works right here).

  14. Yes, Rob Gordon, an awful lot of navel gazing takes place on G+. The quickest way to get a lot of plus ones is posting a cat picture. The second quickest way is write about G+. I guess this occurs because the demographic of G+ skews towards techies.

    I agree with Gideon Rosenblatt that View count privileges people who have been on G+ the longest. This may be its biggest drawback. Views over time would offer a better metric. Better still would be a Ripple-like chart of views per post. 

    Google hasn’t demonstrated much trust in its user base. If they opened up a robust API then third parties could program an infinite variety of analytical tools that far exceed Views both in granularity and meaningfulness. More useful to me would be the ability to file and display my history of engagement in multiple ways, making G+ more of an authorship tool.

    I’m not holding my breath.

  15. That may be, Rob Gordon, but as I’ve tried to paint in this post, this stuff actually does matter, and it will matter a lot more in the very near future. Authority isn’t just about SEO consultants. It matters for anyone who writes on the web, who sells stuff on the web, or does pretty much anything else on the web and wants to be found. 

    My focus here is on something that I would think should matter to you – which is on making sure that there is equality of access, equality of opportunity for folks. 

  16. Looks pretty interesting, Siggi Becker. Will have to find time for it later. Thanks. 

  17. Gideon Rosenblatt Equality?  Google+ isn’t about equality – your own post here refutes that.    Google, in its heart and soul is a popularity contest – that is what Google wants it to be anyway, and this is just the latest manifestation.    

    Google had to build Google+ because organic search was dying – SEO consultants were killing it.    Google+ consultants may very will do the same thing to Google+.    A great deal of our time in moderating the entrepreneurs community is trying to manage the social media consultants, who are constantly innovating on ways to game the system. 

    The primary topic of discussion on Google+ is generally Google+  Perhaps that can continue for a while, but for how long?   Would you buy a copy of the New York Times if most of the articles were about the New York times?

  18. I’m trying to focus on what this network should be about, Rob Gordon – and not just this one. Same goes for Twitter. This stuff matters. 

  19. By the way, here is the announcement from NOD3x on their new metrics tracking: 


  20. Haven’t read your explanation yet, but here is why that measurement would be important to me. The views tells you that something triggered someone to take a closer look. Followers tells you the number that liked what they saw and hoped for more. Ideally, you would want to push the ratio towards 1:1. Now to read your article. This is very interesting stuff.

  21. OK, I scratched the surface at least. I mainly use g+ for recreation, so this sort of analysis is new to me. Fascinating material. Thank you.

  22. Denis Wallez While I post more than my fair share of memes, I have lots of sympathy with the #waronwords  camp     This is just not the place for anything approaching long form     This number doesn’t cover quality –   Jack C Crawford pointed out that almost all inspirational infographics get tons of plus ones, no matter how idotic   

  23. Gideon Rosenblatt,

    « You could crank out a bunch of simple links with no original commentary, but: a) that tends to be lower quality and gets less engagement; and b) that burns people out and you get less engagement. »

    In principle, I agree; in practical observations, I don’t.

    I think the explanation “some people have followers but don’t engage well with them” is a copout: maybe that’s true at times, but many also engage in great manner however they don’t get 1bn views! Meanwhile, some celebrities don’t engage at all, but systematically gets 500 (usually pointless) comments…

    Let’s be brutal, the quality of my posts and my engagement (feel totally free to tell me they’re crap, but then please argument  so I can learn something!) doesn’t generate tons of views.

    While some people just never tire of selfies but ‘engagement’ isn’t going down (in particular if they’re young and slim women). Some people just never tire of cats, or of food pictures… I have nothing against selfies, cats, memes, or food (I can laugh or smile at some of these, like everyone else), but let’s say not all  selfies are of equal interest or originality! And some people never tire of misattributed or misquoted quotes but these remain very well rewarded posts: in the “Buddhism and Meditation” community, I delete such “pictures with quote” when there’s no accompanying content (at some point we were so flooded by such memes that they were killing any other content)… but my observation is that every time someone posts one such meme, they get plusses faster than any other post!

    So I think it’s time to drop the fallacy that quality of post and of engagement will win the day. That’s just a fabrication (maybe unconscious and self-serving, by people who do indeed think and write, hence would like it to be true (for others but also for themselves!)).

    « I have no idea what the multiplier would be. But here’s just a speculation: let’s say that scenario 1) is lower quality, higher frequency posts and scenario 2) is higher quality, lower frequency posts. Let’s assume scenario 1 gets 3 plusses and 1.5 comments on average, while scenario 2 gets 30 plusses and 15 comments on average. »

    Views are innumerable compared to plusses or comments. Let’s be clear, there has been a viewer counter for photos for a while. By this counter, it was possible to track “views per post” (as long as you associate a picture to each post) for quite a while. My personal observations a while back was: each of my post is seen by only 5% of my followers (a rather stable ratio as my number of followers exploded), and I get plusses by 0.05% of my followers (same ratio approximately than the Dalai-Lama, so I don’t seem to be out of business in terms of ‘industry-specific’ engagement levels): 100 times more views than plusses (and a lot more plusses than people involved in comments: even long comment threads involve just a few people!).

    The plusses and threads have negligible effects in the views count. Moreover, the quality of engagement might bring back a few people involved in a thread back and back again (hence quality of threads will add views) but  it doesn’t bring the silent majority (even those who plussed the post) back and back again. Out of 150,000 followers, I’d say the average thread involves less than 10  people (not always the same ones…). Counting multiple times these 10 will not make a major difference to the 5% of 150,000 = 7,500 views (in home stream).

    « There’s a network effect at work here, which is the key, which is to say that it’s not just a 10x multiplier. »

    I believe I have shown the network effect is negligible, unless we start looking at posts massively shared (not plussed, not commented, shared).

    As far as I can observe, this affects only photos and memes. And maybe at times a news article. Extremely rarely original posts or content: posts “about g+” might be the content most shared among these, which means I don’t see anything else being massively ‘shared’.

    « It’s much bigger because for each of those plusses and comments, the post ends up rippling through the network of each of those plussers and commenters, and thereby greatly increasingly the probability of the post being seen in the stream. (I’m not sure I have the mechanics of how the algorithm works right here). »

    I agree with this but again it seems it’s negligible in my case, even if I get the industry-specific standard of plusses. Maybe it’s because most of my followers are new (they picked me up from the SUL, just like they picked the Dalai-Lama from the SUL…) and don’t have much following themselves. But I believe I also enjoy regular engagement from a few much-followed people. It remains negligible compared to (5% of followers) views me in home stream.

    Overall, I naturally agree with the post that this is another cultivation of the ‘celebrity’ culture… and that this isn’t particularly constructive. But for now, I stand by my opinion that me cutting my posts in two parts would probably double my rate of views: those who read me would see and read both semi-posts… The update kills long forms in favour of tweets.

    [I systematically attach pictures to my posts, Jeff Sayre so that my long forms become visible! So I don’t think the new enlarged photos for links would make me more visible.]

  24. I think the views metric is a step in the right direction, and I think you’re on to something with this ratio idea Gideon Rosenblatt, but like some others here I don’t think it’s there yet. Also, of course, time will tell. There is a sort of subjective ground truth here, each of us has a sense for who posts the kind of stuff we want to see, and I think you’re after a metric that has some “signal”, that correlates with what you want. No metric will be perfect.

    I’ve advocated in some g+ forums for better user-controlled filters. I DONT want to see cat pictures, but some people post useful content with the occasional picture-of-X (food, cats, sunsets…). I’ve found muting a post is very likely to eliminate that person from your stream. Muting a person works well for feel-good quotes of the day, but not sunsets and beer (the former I don’t want to see, the latter I do, since I think of g+ as a work related social forum).

    Like some others, I don’t see how a useful metric can avoid accounting for the post rate. What about: views/(followers*log(posts))

    But most importantly: we have very little control of what we see here. If your circles are larger than 100 or so, some algorithm uses some metrics to determine what you will see. If this algorithm starts using views, it will become uncontrolled positive feedback.

  25. Some replies to your thoughtful comment, Denis Wallez:

    On the question of taste: well, there’s no accounting for it. You really don’t need to tell me this. Like you, I work my ass off here and with many topics (unlike this one) that don’t tend to capture a super wide audience. But then, they would never capture a super wide audience anywhere. Both of us have chosen topics that have a more narrow niche of appeal. And, to top things off, we tend to write longer pieces, which for many creates a kind of “too-long-didn’t-read” psychological impact and is just not as well-suited to social networks. 

    So, in the end, it really comes down to what our goals are. Get a little bit of attention from lots of people, or get deeper attention from a much smaller set of people. Both of us have made that choice. Blaming Google for that, won’t change anything. I don’t mean to be harsh, but I truly to believe that is the reality that is facing both of us. We are both free to choose a different path at any time, but neither of us likely will. 😉

    And by the way, you can pretty much ignore the billionaire views thing. After digging into it yesterday, most of those were flukes related to photographers (most of whom were Google employees) whose photos were featured on Chromecast screen savers. 

    Look at some of the famous people listed in the sampling I did in the linked post, and you’ll see that their V2F ratio is fairly low. 

    On the network effect, the multiplier effect will tend to be negligible for people who are on any sort of recommended list (relative to people who have grown 100% through organic) because the vast majority of the people they’re being followed by simply have no network. They’re new to the network and many of them are sparse, if not abandoned accounts. So the network effect is most definitely not going to work. Me? I see it all the time. When I get certain clusters of my followers engaged in a topic, it definitely raises the post’s visibility in the stream. I can usually tell within the first 30 minutes or so whether or not this is going to happen.

    I was answering this point by point, and ah, I see that you get to this latter point later. 

    You should try cutting your posts in half and see what happens, just as an experiment. If I’m honest, some of them do feel long to me. They’re always a treat, but sometimes my brain just can’t handle the density. Smaller chunks, even breaking it in half might actually really help. And even half of one of your posts would still qualify as one of the interesting posts that I’m talking about. I don’t think you start getting into the low quality posts until you’re really just talking about links with quick one or two sentences. When I see someone cranking out lots and lots of those like this place was Twitter, I tend to very quickly put them in a low-priority circle, where they soon see little daylight. 

  26. I think to get what you’re talking about Chris Welty, Google would have to be applying a lot of processing power on a lot of content. They are already getting good at helping us to add hashtags that are automatically generated by the content, but I think that what you’re talking about, if I understand you correctly, requires a level of understanding and semantic structure or interpretation that we’ll probably get to, but aren’t there yet. The other approach, of course, is for people to voluntarily categorize their own content publishing time with their own categories. Jeff Sayre had a proposal for something like this a while back. 

    The views/(followers*log(posts)) suggestion you made is actually quite similar to something that Yonatan Zunger mentioned the other day as perhaps being more useful. The issue is that you have to rely on a third party service like CircleCount to get that total posts number. Still, it’s interesting and NOD3x just announced that they’re providing that view:


  27. Thanks for the mention Gideon Rosenblatt.

    Just a short note: you don’t need to rely on a third party service. The information is available through the official Google+ API. Right now you would need to call for all posts until you reach October 2012.

    But there is a feature request to make this number (number of posts) even easier through the Google+ API: https://code.google.com/p/google-plus-platform/issues/detail?id=800

  28. Gideon Rosenblatt I’m still curious to see this discussion factoring in Communities. At least theoretically, they would in some sense specialize your audience, such that in some cases longer, more text-based posts would not be showstoppers. So, within that Community, would have different statistics (reach and engagement) and that might be what you are looking for. It would be a mechanism for specialization, so that one doesn’t get lost in the “big crowd”. Of course, this begs the question on how to establish and grow a particular Community, but at least it could provide a (perhaps) more accurate way to discuss these numbers.

  29. I’m talking about for us mere mortals, CircleCount. ;-).  Most of us wouldn’t know what to do with an API if it stood up and slapped us in the face. 

    You’re asking for the views number too, right? 

  30. Hehe Gideon Rosenblatt

    Maybe we should create a premium service: 1 cent per total count… 😉

    Regarding the view number: yep, that issue was already there: https://code.google.com/p/google-plus-platform/issues/detail?id=798

  31. CircleCount (side comment) Yes, reminds me of the Candid Camera show where airline check-in counter representatives informed passengers they would have to pay (over) charges based on passenger weight, not luggage;-)

  32. Hehe Daniel Schwabe, I see how mistakable I wrote my last comment 😉

    I meant to provide a service where someone can get the total count for any profile but your idea is also interesting 😉

  33. It’s a good point, Daniel Schwabe and something that didn’t get picked up on enough on Monday’s post. If I were starting off fresh here on Google+, I would concentrate on creating really great posts within the communities I’m most interested in – as a way to build targeted followers and community and to build views. Again, this is assuming that those two things are important, which they aren’t for everyone. 

    Some thoughts on communities that I had from 15 months ago, right as they were rolling out out. Not to be one of those guys, but I think I was pretty much on target:


  34. Gideon Rosenblatt   Yes, I remember that post. It occurred to me that the kinds of statistics we’ve been discussing could (should?) also be used to help one find that “sweet spot”, no? In the affirmative case, then of course the big question becomes, how? 🙂

  35. Hey CircleCount, I’m going to forget to tell you folks this later if I don’t say it now. But I’ve kind of gotten out of the habit of periodically going to my profile on your site and noting who’s added me to circles so that I can thank them. I think this is is very good practice and common courtesy. If you’re ever going to try to capture email addresses, that would be an awesome incentive for me to give my email to you and permission to email me: a notification of who’s added you to circles. Could be per circle add or a weekly compendium. Just a thought. 

    Oh, and maybe you’ll tell me it’s already there and I just haven’t found it yet. …

  36. Gideon Rosenblatt Thanks for remembering my campaign for G+ to roll out Content Channels. My original post, made back in July of 2011, can be found here: Content Channels For Filtering, Not Circles (https://plus.google.com/+JeffSayre/posts/bCJuCAMZcQM).

    Interestingly enough, Gideon, I am working on a long-form post (which I’ll post to my blog and link to in G+), on how I envision a redesigned G+ with integrated Content Channels would operate and look like . In particular, how it would function when someone visits your profile or when you receive notifications.

    I’m working on illustrations for the article, but I have not yet started writing it. It will not be ready for sometime. My book deadline is looming and the vast majority of my writing efforts are focused there.

    /cc Chris Welty 

  37. Cool. Let me know, Jeff Sayre. What are you writing a book about? I didn’t know that. 

  38. Gideon Rosenblatt Will do.  About my book, see What I’ve Been Up To This Summer (https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JeffSayre/posts/FwsvPtHtNr1). It’s the same project I mentioned in late summer 2012. It’s been a two-year process. Lots of field travel and study. Not much time for metaspace immersion.

  39. Gideon Rosenblatt it is already there, but…

    … not available yet. 😉

    It’s part of the premium package we are preparing and will be hopefully launched soon.

    That said: that’s a good idea!

  40. Figured you must already be on it, CircleCount. 

  41. Thank you for your reply Gideon Rosenblatt.

    May I jump on what you said to Daniel Schwabe even though it wasn’t addressed to me? I regularly see this advice « I would concentrate on creating really great posts within the communities I’m most interested in – as a way to build targeted followers » but I never experienced this to work! Apologies for sticking to my own experience but that’s the only one I have serious data about 😉

    I even questioned google “community managers” about it and they have no answer: my experience is that my posts have always been well received in the “Buddhism and Meditation” community, which is the same niche as the posts I have on my profile… Thanks to the alignment, I could expect (according to the above advice) to gather a substantial portion of the 36,000 members of the community as followers, but very few do follow me…

    They’re happy (according to plusses and engagement) to see the posts there, but that doesn’t make them follow me. There’s no risk though that my posts would pollute their stream, since their participation in the community indicates they’re interested by the sole topic I post about. So the relevant question might be: how interested are they, really?  As per the ‘taste’ conversation above, maybe they just want some access to spirituality “on demand”, when they “feel like it”, but not  on daily basis… But if this is the case, then the advice given above has to be modulated: for some communities, it might work, but for others, even being one of the ‘experts’ available, constantly engaging, regularly posting, etc. will not necessarily gather followers.

  42. Denis Wallez (also jumping in…) I am not surprised by what you report, though. When I mentioned Communities, I was thinking about ways to reach your intended audience, not necessarily gather followers. As long as they read/access what I publish, I don’t really care if they are actual followers or not!

    So I would argue that posting to the Community in your case does fulfill your goal as well – those who wish to be sure of reading what you say will become followers (although this doesn’t necessarily guarantee they’ll see your posts in their streams, which is controlled by Google, not us…); those who wish to consume on demand will access the communities. As you say, there are multiple levels of interest, and such a strategy would cover many. I don’t see any problem with this….

  43. I have the same experience from the Good Business community, Denis Wallez. It hasn’t done much for my following in terms of sheer numbers, but it has helped me to find, follow, and be followed by a small set of the right people. 

    I think that where we will see the communities start to kick in is on boosts to view counts. There are various factors to consider here, one of the biggest being what portion of the community has switched the notices to “on” so that posts actually show up in their stream. 

  44. After getting  air space from yesterday’s deluge of “authorities” weighing in on the new views count on profiles, I found this post including comments rational, well thought out and refreshing. 

    Gideon Rosenblatt is right. Views do matter; because Google shapes not only our behavior but who we get to interact with and what information is fed to us under the guise of making our lives simpler (and possibly our minds, also, by over narrowing our ability to interact through it’s platform), and yes, the really good commenters are punished as well as those that need to take time away from G+, it does feel a bit like high school some times with cliques and “good ole boys”

    But it is what it is and will keep shaping our access so we need to learn to co-exist within the platform. If anything, it is good practice dealing with uncertainty and nano-seconds.

  45. Thanks Deborah L Gabriel. “Good practice dealing with uncertainty and nano-seconds” is a great quote. Yes, I’ve a feeling this is like nursery school compared to what the next generation will experience – for good and bad. 

  46. Gideon Rosenblatt Thank you, you are kind:)

  47. Deborah L Gabriel

    But it is what it is and will keep shaping our access so we need to learn to co-exist within the platform.

    I have to disagree, as while I read above about Jeff Sayre imaginineering a better G+… all I could think was “Good God, man – it’s the internet!”

    How many people does it take to build a start up social network? Can we move towards independence from corporation dictator-tation?

    Then the cynicism kicks in, and I figure a re-imagined G+ will catch more eyeballs, plant more seeds and I see Jeff’s inherent wisdom.

  48. Grizwald Grim Ha ha!

    Speaking of a user-centric, non-corporate social InterWeb, see my articles on those topics.

    A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging (http://jeffsayre.com/2010/02/24/a-flock-of-twitters-decentralized-semantic-microblogging/ )

    It’s Time for Blogging to Evolve (http://jeffsayre.com/2011/03/05/its-time-for-blogging-to-evolve/ )

    How Many Streams Can You Kayak At Once? (http://jeffsayre.com/2011/03/30/how-many-streams-can-you-kayak-at-once/ )

  49. Second link broken, Jeff Sayre, due to the classic bug on g+ of sometimes adding the closing parenthesis in the link itself… (I wonder how much longer we’ll have to suffer this crap about links —and, no, the ‘security’ argument doesn’t work when re-routing via url-shorteners is allowed).

  50. Grizwald Grim Well, “it is what it is” is a saying I use with myself. I acquired this from a razor sharp “good ole by” attorney many years ago when I was still an indiscriminate idealist and thought I could “fix” everything.

    I have since conceded that the only only things I really have any sense of control over is my own responses to life (and some days that seems easier than others). When I get overly frustrated with being “online”, I get offline and do something that feeds my soul rather than robs it.

    And when I am ready, I come back for more:) 

  51. Thank you so much for enlightening Gideon Rosenblatt  I share your points of view in many ways!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up here for the latest articles. You can opt out at any time.

Subscribe by email:

Or subscribe by RSS:

%d bloggers like this: