Google+ versus Facebook: So What's New?

Discussion in 'News in Nigeria' started by Slimderek, Oct 7, 2011.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)

    • GL Senior Member
    • GL Legend
    • Guru Member
    • Retired Moderator

    Slimderek Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Message Count:
    Likes Received:
    Sponsored Links:
    [img width=400 height=280][/img] Google+ opened up with a lot of mixed reviews. Some
    enthusiasts loved it and made the switchover from
    Facebook, but their dropping stats indicate that the average
    social networker isn't about to make the switchover to
    Google+ just yet. So in the countless Google+ versus
    Facebook opinions out there, it doesn't really matter what
    the "experts" prefer, when it comes to the numbers, in my
    opinion, all variables remaining constant, Facebook will still
    be number one. Take a look at what Google+ has to offer
    that's in a number of ways, not exactly what Facebook
    offers. Circles, Huddles and Hangouts and Sparks. Circles is a
    very visually friendly way of organizing contacts. Once you
    add someone to a circle, you automatically share your
    information with them. Huddles is a way to group text chat
    and Hangouts is a way to group video chat. Sparks is like a
    mini Zite within a social network where users can get the
    latest news and opinions on subjects they like. None of
    these are actual social networking tools. Think about it.
    Circles lets you organize contacts, however, doesn't allow
    you to share information with contacts in a new way. Add to
    that, Facebook has lists, which, agreed, is not as user
    friendly, but the same job gets done. Hangouts is a very cool
    feature that both Facebook and Skype are missing (you can
    only group video chat on Skype if you have a premium
    account) however, both Huddles and Hangouts are "stay in
    touch" tools, not really "sharing information tools". Sparks,
    well, that's the obvious one. When Twitter came out, it
    launched a distinctly new way of sharing information, so
    much so, that it made Facebook go back to the drawing
    board and incorporate the "What's On Your Mind Feature". As
    a sharing tool, Google+ really does not offer anything new.
    So why should your average user whose stuff is already on
    Facebook make the switch? Take a look at other features of
    both the social networks. The big one is Privacy. Both
    networks have Privacy issues. I personally like the add as a
    friend feature on Facebook because that gives me the option
    of saying "no". Additionally, when someone adds me on
    Google+, they automatically start sharing their stuff with me.
    What if I don't want to read their statuses? I'd like the option
    to say "no" from the get go. The two way street of sharing
    on Facebook when you confirm a friend, is a lot more
    protective of my privacy, in my opinion. With both the
    networks, you do have to sift through the Privacy settings
    and change everything around from what's set as default if
    you want more privacy. Facebook's method is a little clearer
    and here's the obvious part: most people already have their
    privacy settings set on Facebook. Going over to Google+
    means round two of doing the same thing. What's the point?
    Another common feature is Locations and Places. Sure, it's
    easier to geo- social network from Google because
    Locations is integrated into your status update, however,
    we're still talking about the average user. Your average user
    does not care to geo-tag their statuses, if anything they will
    still go to Places on Facebook because it's an interface
    they're more familiar with. This is just one of the many
    examples that indicate that just because Google + offers
    most of the same features as Facebook but they do it
    slightly better, that's not enough for them to come out on
    top. Finally, to add a little snarky-ness from someone who
    treats originality with a lot of respect. What was Facebook's
    motive when it first launched? To develop a new way of
    sharing information and staying in touch with friends. It
    wasn't to take down MySpace (and MySpace's Tom Anderson
    admits that the fall of MySpace wasn't because of Facebook).
    Even if Google+'s original intention was to create a new and
    better organized social network, that motive hasn't seemed
    to come to fruition. Ultimately people can use two different
    social networks if they're different enough. Most people
    already use both Facebook and Twitter simultaneously.
    Google+ might be uncomfortably similar to Facebook for
    most users. Facebook is already ubiquitous. When it came
    out, it was new and exciting and it offered an innovative and
    easy way for people to stay in touch and share information.
    Friends were telling each other to get on Facebook.
    Everyone who wants their pictures up online has already put
    them up on Facebook. Google+ has already been out at least
    three weeks (for most of my contacts) and none of them
    have an actual photo album online. Maybe the odd mobile
    upload. Games are coming for Google+ but everyone already
    has their Farmville high scores up on Facebook. The UI of
    both the websites, to your average user is pretty much the
    same. So here's the million dollar question, what new
    information-sharing- and-staying-in-touch method does
    Google+ offer, that will make you transfer over? The answer
    is, nothing.

    DAvIt0 Member

    Member Since:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Message Count:
    Likes Received:
    Tanx for the shared info @derek

    although its all good but not up to facebook

Share This Page