Not sure where it says CEO's should use social networking.
I'm guessing none of them use Facefuck either.
Google+ – unlike Buzz and other failed Chocolate Factory experiments – may have graduated from the soon-to-be-defunct Labs wing of the ad broker's web estate, but questions remain about the company's plans to make it THE social network platform online. It doesn't help that many of the top bosses at Google are struggling to …
Indeed, in fact generally speaking talking about your work in open social media is a bad idea.
You never know, they may well share information between each other, and be +1'ing that comedy picture from the company BBQ, but no one would do that in public.
And frankly, that's what makes G+ so much better than its rivals, the built in privacy.
I've just worked on a social media policy for my employer, and highlighted the fact that a lot of what would be *very* sensitive data can be leaked out to anyone with a clue ... if employee X tweets that they're working double hard right now, and won't be able to go for a drink till next week, AND you know employee X is in the legal dept, looking after takeovers ... and employee Y tweets that they met up with an old mate from Uni, and you know from employee Ys Linkedin Profile who they went to Uni with is now working at a company that could be a takeover target ...
Time to buy shares in that company ....
Nobody at Google believes in or cares about Social (well maybe the odd 'Googler' who's bought into the cult).
This is simply a drive to get more traffic to Google owned properties (how long before the most prominent search for any brand, product or business points to the Google+ page - like Places pages and countless other "universal search results" now). It's also an attempt to gather yet more data about users and their friendships to sell more advertising.
I like this distribution, maybe this is how a proper sharing service should work. The reason I signed off of FB is that everyone and its dog were using it to post 99% of BS and 1% of interesting stuff, creeping on each other, stalking and gossiping.
With G+ I get much less info, but 80% is interesting and relevant to me, and I have all my friends and circles publicly hidden and nobody can tag me in a photo.
Quality doesn't equate quantity.
I use a pseudonymous name on Facebook, and therefore get to choose exactly who I add to my network. No social pressure to add people from family/work because I happen to know them IRL. Before the new 'close friends', subscriptions and newsfeed filtering options were introduced, on average 20-30% of my newsfeed messages were relevant to my interests. Now it's more like 80%. Not bashing your choice to use G+ here - I, too, found the Facebook newsfeed signal-to-noise ratio a bit high before, but more & more options for streamlining one's use of the site are being rolled out. It really depends on how you (choose to) use it.
Hmm, a free-to-join network where many of the members are sharing posts amongst their private circles rather than assuming everyone in the world is interested.
That sounds like a pretty good tool I could use.
If I wanted to share my every waking thought to everyone within a five mile radius I'd have a blog (or be cursed with telepathy)
Whole G+ is totally useless as it now is. People don't know my real name, only nickname, and that's pretty much same what I know about them.
I ain't gonna go on and start ask real name of people to see if they use G+, nor I will give my real name for them to add in G+ circles.
I've been online and using web since mid 90's and I've always used just nicks, even family and closest friends use my nickname only, so whole stupid "real name" only nonsense made G+ useless. Kinda sad because otherwise G+ looked promising.
The people who actually made Google+ though - they are the ones using it (and other Googlers)...
https://plus.google.com/111499908439497508351 (Punit Soni)
https://plus.google.com/113127438179392830442 (Paul Irish)
https://plus.google.com/112599748506977857728 (Andy Rubin)
https://plus.google.com/104380091028556940918 (Nicolas Maurette)
https://plus.google.com/115695578304416858659 (Melissa Daniels)
https://plus.google.com/105006381068870463173 (Colleen Henry)
https://plus.google.com/108159551615224338529 (Kelly Ellis)
https://plus.google.com/110563351377427897709 (David Glazer)
https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863 (Vic Gundotra)
https://plus.google.com/102991700177087923792 (Vanessa Schneider)
https://plus.google.com/109895887909967698705 (Natalie Villalobos)
https://plus.google.com/113686253941057080055 (Brian Rose)
https://plus.google.com/106792630639449031994 (Frances Haugen)
https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202 (Matt Cutts)
https://plus.google.com/115863474911002159675 (Brad Fitzpatrick)
https://plus.google.com/113882113745075873153 (Dave Besbris)
.....and plenty more..... these people (above) all posted within the last 2 days.
I logged into Google+ once. I was underwhelmed.
Here's the kicker: until my family, friends, and the few friends from high school I still keep in touch with are there there's no reason for me to be there. Since they're all on Facebook and many of them fear change (at least computer related change) I won't be spending much time on Google+. I believe that's a pretty common stance, and therein lies the problem with starting a new social network. I'm not sure how Facebook prompted us all to abandon MySpace, but it's a trick Google's going to need to replicate if they want people on Google+.
Facebook appears to be designed to encourage you to share everything with everyone (and their dog).
Google+ appears to be designed to encourage you to share everything with selected people (those in your circles), so just because someone doesn't post much publicly (you'll only find a handful of public posts written by me), they may be very active in their own circles.
Perhaps an optional feature Google could add is the ability to display the number of posts / comments you've made across all circles - not the content, just the aggregated total. That way, if you were checking someone out, you could see that they weren't very engaged with the world at large, but were very active in their own social circles.
And maybe, just maybe, it will gain a few extra converts when Facebook roll out their timeline...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019