It's an interesting way of arranging a link aggregator, in that the links are already present. That said, I don't see this taking off. People compartmentalize their life based on functionality. Some will see google only as a search tool, digg/reddit/hn/slashdot/etc as their social news site, gmail/hotmail/etc as their mailing client - and wont use those products for anything other than their mentally compartmentalized purpose.
The other issue that I see here is the culture that is present. Think of everyone that uses google - do you want all of their votes to influence the content that you see? I don't want to see the eggplant tofurduken recipe that Aunt Millie +1'd. Sure, you can limit the influence to just your circle of friends, but that doesn't bring much new to the table. Reddit has done well because it allows for this context of culture to be one of it's primary features (via subreddits). Even HN has this driving niche focus sitewide.
All that said, while I dont expect this to take off, I do expect to see a "+1 THIS!" button next to the "tweet this!"/"digg this!"/"reddit this!" button on every blogspam post out there.
If this will be the final product of "+1", I'd agree with you that it probably won't take off.
Google, however, has been taking it methodically slow on social (and geo-location too). This is probably just a small piece of what they envision it to be. This is in contrast to the big, complicated launch of Google Wave.
I'm holding my judgement for now. I'm excited to see what Google comes up with next.
> I don't want to see the eggplant tofurduken recipe that Aunt Millie +1'd.
I agree with you mostly, but I think you're slightly missing the point in this bit. Suppose you had searched for "eggplant tofurduken recipe" and the result that Aunt Millie +1'd happened to be shown - would you appreciate knowing that she had looked at the same page and approved it? I know I would.
I think people are reading a bit too much into this as if it's now going to have a huge influence on Google's search results, taking precedence over the actual search terms. I think it's actually going to be far more incremental than that.
I agree 1000% that people compartmentalize based on functionality, which is why Google shouldn't be afraid of Facebook on search (that and Facebook not having search and search being difficult).
> All that said, while I dont expect this to take off, I do expect to see a "+1 THIS!" button next to the "tweet this!"/"digg this!"/"reddit this!" button on every blogspam post out there.
Agreeing with you here, not to mention I would typically +1 something after clicking on the link and reading it. This current UX has me either knowing something is worthy of a +1 before reading it or reading it, pressing the back button, then clicking the +1. A +1 THIS next to tweet/digg/like makes sense.
Beautifully said, especially about Aunt Millie. Limiting the influence to your contacts should be the default setting. If some people are more adventurous, then they can jump in.
The obvious: I'm sure it won't be long before Google creates an embeddable +1 button, for you to include in your site/blog/webapp. Because right now I don't see why I would run a search, click the result, go 'whoah, good article' and then hit back to the results page to '+1' aforementioned article.
What I really like about this, though, is that it sounds so good.
I see hundreds of thousands of billable hours of mechanical turk and dungeon grade Indian and Chinese IT Services time spent +1ing SEO spam farm links.
As PageRank is a trust metric, and their entire system is based around that, I'd imagine they would perform similar calculations for +1 results. Especially as +1s contain no implicit content, as they are merely flags, I find it unlikely to suffer from SEO like search does - trust metrics are practically designed to handle farming.
Agree, though reputation rank may mitigate some of this behavior when implemented. The urls +1 profile distribution may end up looking like a typical back link profile and something most SEOs should try and balance.
Google actually played around with a voting feature awhile back. When you searched for a term, there was an up arrow on the results, so it moved those results to the top every time you searched for those terms. This was incredible useful for me, because for example I was too lazy to bookmark api documentation and just search for example rails api, and the links I voted up were automatically at the top. If this works like this I will be happy, the social aspect I don't care for, but can see how it will be relevant if enough people are voting for good content.. thats associated with specific search terms.
If the website you are visiting also integrates +1, then there is no need to go back and +1.
But yeah, going back to the Google search results page is a pain and I doubt very many people would actually take that action, unless they are really impressed by the site and are familiar with the +1 feature.
4chan already regularly troll google search results by mass-searching for a specific, disturbing sentence. This seems like another tool in their arsenal.
Not saying Google should let bullies dictate their behaviour, but this _could_ be abused.
It can have a nerdy connotation, but +1 is pretty well known. The average person probably sees it in the party invite/club culture context where you vouch for one person, much like you'll be vouching for sites.
Probably not better than Like, but definitely not worse than Tweet.
I'll agree that 'Like' is more natural than +1, but 'Tweet'?!?
Not only does 'Tweet' not have the natural connotation of 'Like' or '+1', but it sounds positively dorky to say.
But of course 'Tweeting' is incredibly popular, which I guess just goes to show that sometimes it's better to use a weird word that initially sounds like nonsense. :-)
Maybe ++ would be engineer-ish, but I think that "+1" gives a better connotation of contributing to a greater social whole rather than seeming like just another bookmarked page.
I'd rather see a "-1"; so when I go back to the results because the result didn't match my need, I could indicate it (w/o a full ban). I'm not likely to ever return for a +1 result, since, almost by definition, I'm done searching at that point.
I got a few downvotes last week saying google needed exactly this to fend off Facebook constructing a search engine based on it's like button data.
This goes a long way but the problem I see here is that I want to be able to +1 on the page itself, not have to click back to the search results, find the result again, and then press +1.
They do seem to be adding a little too much to the search engine itself. I just noticed that they've finally hidden "realtime results" behind a link you have to click, instead of shoving random idiotic Twitter crap in your face when you search for current topics.
There's an idea that had some potential, but seems to have made no progress since its debut. It's still no better than a simple Twitter search.
Google seems a little too eager to adopt random crazy ideas (SearchWiki) and a little too willing to kill off good ideas that don't take off quickly enough (Wave). I can't think of a recent new feature or product that was a big success, which is disappointing.
This seems like a defensive move on Google's part. I imagine there are talks inside Facebook to either develop their own search or work with another search provider to integrate Facebook into the results. I am not sure how widely this feature will be used but, in my opinion, it is definitely the right move.
I don't find this very useful. My friends often like things that I don't like. They're not my friends because they like the bands or movies or web sites that I do. Recommendations from my friends carry no more weight than they would from anyone else.
The only difference between a friend and a stranger is that I might engage a friend in a conversation with specific questions about something they've used or seen that I haven't, but the value of that conversation comes from the detail of the exchange and targeted or objective questions I'd ask, it's not expressible as a boolean like/+1 or a 1-10 rating.
This might sound dumb, but it's not really obvious how I add people I know to my google profile as a "friend". With facebook, it's dead simple and it makes sense why you would do that.
The searchengineland article explains it: http://searchengineland.com/meet-1-googles-answer-to-the-fac...
As far as I understand, things from connected accounts is the social connection. The friends are your buzz friends (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong).
To jumpstart user identities in googles take on social google could buy communities like github, photo.net and import user identities from there. Of course the privacy and the UX of such a move will dictate whether users go "wow this is great" or "oh my god now the whole internet knows about my tinfoil hat". In the meanwhile they could try to integrate identities from services that google already owns - youtube, picasa, google reader etc.
[+] [-] jjcm|15 years ago|reply
The other issue that I see here is the culture that is present. Think of everyone that uses google - do you want all of their votes to influence the content that you see? I don't want to see the eggplant tofurduken recipe that Aunt Millie +1'd. Sure, you can limit the influence to just your circle of friends, but that doesn't bring much new to the table. Reddit has done well because it allows for this context of culture to be one of it's primary features (via subreddits). Even HN has this driving niche focus sitewide.
All that said, while I dont expect this to take off, I do expect to see a "+1 THIS!" button next to the "tweet this!"/"digg this!"/"reddit this!" button on every blogspam post out there.
[+] [-] dannyr|15 years ago|reply
Google, however, has been taking it methodically slow on social (and geo-location too). This is probably just a small piece of what they envision it to be. This is in contrast to the big, complicated launch of Google Wave.
I'm holding my judgement for now. I'm excited to see what Google comes up with next.
[+] [-] zmmmmm|15 years ago|reply
I agree with you mostly, but I think you're slightly missing the point in this bit. Suppose you had searched for "eggplant tofurduken recipe" and the result that Aunt Millie +1'd happened to be shown - would you appreciate knowing that she had looked at the same page and approved it? I know I would.
I think people are reading a bit too much into this as if it's now going to have a huge influence on Google's search results, taking precedence over the actual search terms. I think it's actually going to be far more incremental than that.
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kin|15 years ago|reply
Agreeing with you here, not to mention I would typically +1 something after clicking on the link and reading it. This current UX has me either knowing something is worthy of a +1 before reading it or reading it, pressing the back button, then clicking the +1. A +1 THIS next to tweet/digg/like makes sense.
[+] [-] currywurst|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markkat|15 years ago|reply
A web for the rest of us!
[+] [-] shadowsun7|15 years ago|reply
What I really like about this, though, is that it sounds so good.
"I'd +1 that."
"Have you +1ed?"
"Where's the essay? Uh, it's in my +1s"
[+] [-] cyanbane|15 years ago|reply
I agree with the branding of it. I doubt I will use it much, but it is catchy.
[+] [-] metageek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] herval|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Groxx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eurokc98|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minalecs|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rexf|15 years ago|reply
Google's usage comes from leaving Google's site as fast as possible (search for a term, then leave Google to visit the result).
This looks like you would do a search, visit the resulting site, and then remember to go back to the Google results page to click the +1.
[+] [-] sahaj|15 years ago|reply
But yeah, going back to the Google search results page is a pain and I doubt very many people would actually take that action, unless they are really impressed by the site and are familiar with the +1 feature.
[+] [-] MrJagil|15 years ago|reply
Not saying Google should let bullies dictate their behaviour, but this _could_ be abused.
[+] [-] OstiaAntica|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sahaj|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pathik|15 years ago|reply
I, for one, prefer it to 'Like' or 'Tweet'.
[+] [-] Kylekramer|15 years ago|reply
Probably not better than Like, but definitely not worse than Tweet.
Edit: And the ultimate arbitrator of slang agrees: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plus%20one
[+] [-] theBobMcCormick|15 years ago|reply
Not only does 'Tweet' not have the natural connotation of 'Like' or '+1', but it sounds positively dorky to say.
But of course 'Tweeting' is incredibly popular, which I guess just goes to show that sometimes it's better to use a weird word that initially sounds like nonsense. :-)
[+] [-] richbradshaw|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mduvall|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Matt_Cutts|15 years ago|reply
- Install the Personal Blocklist extension in Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nolijncfnkgaikbjbd...
- Click on a search result, then click back, and you'll see a "block example.com" for that snippet.
The first option is easy and always shows block links; the second option is server-side, so the blocks work on different browsers.
[+] [-] brown9-2|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s3graham|15 years ago|reply
Maybe you could pretend it's a microtransaction gift to the receiver, which it probably is in some vague way.
[+] [-] nevinera|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hominem|15 years ago|reply
This goes a long way but the problem I see here is that I want to be able to +1 on the page itself, not have to click back to the search results, find the result again, and then press +1.
[+] [-] bretthopper|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kjhughes|15 years ago|reply
Search Engine Land does a good job of relating this announcement to prior Google social projects and rumors: http://searchengineland.com/meet-1-googles-answer-to-the-fac...
You can join Google's +1 experiment here: http://www.google.com/experimental/
[+] [-] revorad|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erik_p|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magicalist|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|15 years ago|reply
http://web.archive.org/web/19961017235908/http://www2.yahoo....
And then in 2006:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060101035628/http://www.yahoo.c...
? Google has featuritis.
[+] [-] TillE|15 years ago|reply
There's an idea that had some potential, but seems to have made no progress since its debut. It's still no better than a simple Twitter search.
Google seems a little too eager to adopt random crazy ideas (SearchWiki) and a little too willing to kill off good ideas that don't take off quickly enough (Wave). I can't think of a recent new feature or product that was a big success, which is disappointing.
[+] [-] sahaj|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdulli|15 years ago|reply
The only difference between a friend and a stranger is that I might engage a friend in a conversation with specific questions about something they've used or seen that I haven't, but the value of that conversation comes from the detail of the exchange and targeted or objective questions I'd ask, it's not expressible as a boolean like/+1 or a 1-10 rating.
[+] [-] numbchuckskills|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] otherwise|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] random42|15 years ago|reply
Lets see how well they do with it.
[+] [-] yesimahuman|15 years ago|reply
I assume I have to connect an account here: https://profiles.google.com/connectedaccounts
But then don't my friends have to do that as well? I don't really see why they would.
[+] [-] tonfa|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dman|15 years ago|reply