Geeky gimmick or the start of analytics for brand pages? Google+ is making ripples and this new feature could be the start of something big.

Yesterday was a good day for Google+ with a slew of new features but, rather than the announcement of Hot Posts (just don’t call them trending topics) or that Google Apps users could now connect to Plus, the real star of the show was Ripples – the new way of visually tracking the spread of an item via reshares.

Ripples has captured the imagination and will no doubt appeal to our inner geek but will there be a limited life - used just a few times until the novelty factor wears off?

Just the beginning?

I can’t help but feel that this is the start of something big. There is massive potential in Ripples and I can envisage it being the basis for some kind of analytics offering, especially for Brand Pages when they arrive.

While the general public may only check a ripple once in a while out of curiosity there are a number of groups who would find Google+ analytics very useful, for example:

• bloggers wanting to check the popularity of their posts
• brands looking to see who are the most influential people sharing their content
• media organisations looking to track reactions to news stories
• marketers looking to target influencers

What we get

The size of the “ripples” lets us easily see who is generating the most secondary interactions and, therefore, is potentially most influential in relation to that post.

At each “node” of the Ripple we are presented with a list of the reshares at that point which not only show us what has been said but actually gives us a direct link to the share, unlike the normal post UI – very handy for interacting with the various threads of conversation around our content.

Ripples also enables us to track the life of an item over time and easily see the days or even times of day when content generates the most response – a marketers’ dream.

Where next?

Whether Google leaves Ripples as it is or chooses to expand its functionality remains to be seen but there is a good deal of scope in this area.

Two ways in which Ripples could be easily extended to provide greater depth would be to report on a larger set of posts and to integrate interactions other than shares. These features would be, obviously, only for the account holder rather than a single Ripple being public information.

More data

Assessing a range of posts (perhaps the last 10 or posts from the last month) could provide cumulative statistics and allow us to perform elementary trend analysis.

Average reshares per person over time would give a better reflection of their influence, as it relates to our content, than figures obtained from an individual item. We could also better assess the results of any posting strategy with regards to when content is submitted and the effect this has on the response.

Who said what

If a Ripple could be made to report back on comments and +1s this would provide us with an additional wealth of information. An individual share may not get many reshares but might receive hundreds of comments; there is sometimes a reluctance to repost something that we know is already shared by multiple people in our circles.

Sentiment analysis on the content of share posts and their comments could give a more accurate reflection of how an item was received – it’s no good just getting a huge chain of reshares if the reaction is all negative. We could also do a comparison to the tone of comments on any given share based on the way the original share took place: does the tone of a share directly influence the sentiment within its comments?

As it stands, a Ripple gives a good indication of spread but this alone might be misleading, analysis of the feelings around that shared content will give brands an excellent insight into what they may be doing right or wrong.

Over to you Google

Unlike ranking systems such as PeerIndex and Klout (which has taken a lot of flak just lately) Ripples offers a simple, visual examination of exactly what happened with regards to particular content – no messing about, no mysterious algorithm, no attempt to categorise anyone and, most importantly, no battle of egos.

What has started life as a bit of a gimmick, albeit a particularly impressive one, could grow into one of the easiest, most user-friendly and accurate analytics tools available.

Lead image by Bill Gracey

A new UI confirms Twitter’s move to simplify and unify the way we use the service but is that really all it does?

As I have previously mentioned, Twitter’s plan to simplify the feed and unify the experience across multiple platforms will be its core differentiator while other services become ever more complex and all-encompassing.

Before #newtwitter the service had a simple one column display but all shared content links forced you to jump out to the relevant source. For any service that relies on being a destination the ability to limit the need to leave your site is paramount; it was, therefore, no surprise that linked items such as images and videos would be displayed in situ.

Reducing this need to click away would have had its advantages but doing so by the use of the “media-pane” creates a disparity with other avenues of access which does not fit with the vision of a unified experience.

So, what’s new?

Patrick Bisch over at Pinglio posted that Twitter appears to be rolling out a new simplified timeline (and TechCrunch advise us that Twitter has confirmed this is only a small test) after receiving a new UI when using the web site.

Key amongst the changes is that tweets will now display media and related items in-line rather than in the right hand column. Clicking on an open/close toggle (where the arrow to break out the item to the media pane usually sits) will show linked images or videos from Twitter’s media partners, the conversation thread or even a list of people who may have retweeted the original item.

While these changes lead to a more streamlined experience in their own right I belive the intention is to enable a view from the web that can be more easily replicated on a smaller screen or even within a mobile application thus presenting the same face regardless of how you use the service.

Keeping it simple

This new UI – which Twitter should roll out as soon as possible in my opinion - seems to be the first step in the direction indicated by CEO Dick Costolo and unifying the user experience will make the service more compelling. Also, as I have posted before, we are unlikely to see anything with regards to metadata as this will just further complicate the issue.

Twitter has been seeking to take control of the client experience for a while and advising developers that they should not be building new ways to tweet but ways to interact with the data. A new UI that displays media and conversations in-line will have the added advantage of matching the existing behaviour of some other third-party clients; having your mobile application function in the same way as the primary web interface will reduce the need for users (especially new ones) to look elsewhere.

Rather than force users away a new simplified approach will most likely give Twitter greater control over its ecosystem that might have been imagined.

Image via Patrick Bisch at Pinglio

Permitting pseudonymous access on Google+ may seem a dramatic about-face but is a necessary step in the next stage of the evolution of the service.

The announcement that Google+ will support pseudonyms, once the technicalities can be resolved, was equally unexpected and welcomed but not without a note of caution. It also changed the direction this post has taken having been started prior to the announcement.

Google+ has been maintaining the need for a “real names” policy because of the principles of trust required by an identity service as I have previously outlined. It is understandable that the company should want to err on the side of caution while creating a framework that could support multiple identity models and avoid some of the potential risks associated with anonymous content.

Some Google+ users have been echoing this call for caution in the hope that a relaxation of the rules on identity will not lead to an increase in spam posts, comments and other undesirable content.

Attacks

Chris Poole AKA moot – the founder of notorious online forum 4chan – has been particularly vocal with regards to identity and stoked the fires further at this years Web 2.0 Summit where he compared our multifaceted, real-life personalities to a diamond rather than the simple mirror of the “fast-food version of identity” being imposed by the likes of Facebook and Google+.

Facebook was built on a specific premise and is therefore reliant on real names – without them it is worthless; Google+, however, is becoming more of an amalgam – as the social layer grows to incorporate additional Google services it makes sense that Google might have to relax their stance as other services can support Google’s three means of use: unidentified (anonymous), pseudonymous and identified.

Vic Gundotra stated that the aim of Plus is to “activate the users of existing Google services” but the users may not feel comfortable being forced into exposing their real details when they have not previously been required to do so.

As is apparent from the announcements regarding both iGoogle and Reader, existing social functionality on any given service is being phased out and replaced by the Plus equivalent (if one exists) – Google, therefore, face a dilemma and presumably cannot run the risk of a user backlash should they lose the ability to communicate and be social without providing a real identity.

Google has a logistical challenge on its hands to manage this multi-tiered identification system and, as has been suggested, you wonder if there will still be a requirement to provide real details at the account level but with the ability to present a pseudonym to the public enabling Google to retain an element of control while still respecting the wishes of those who do not wish to reveal their true identity, for whatever reason, with the rest of the world. Any such system could finally make use of the Google+ nickname field.

Playing it safe

It is understandable that Google should want to launch Plus without pseudonymity. While not wishing to stereotype any specific group, the company would want to take reasonable steps to prevent the potential pitfalls of undesirable behaviour by those who may hide behind an alternative identity; building a stable, trustworthy base on which to build is imperative.

To use Poole’s own argument against him, he would not interact as a son, spouse or parent in the same forum as that in which he operates as the “rabble-rousing hacker” moot so you can’t blame Google for trying to make a distinction.

Now that Plus is established Google can take the next step of designing the framework upon which multiple identities can exist within the same service without impacting the experience or behaviour of the user regardless of the means of identification chosen.

With the social web becoming ever more complex with services becoming more demanding of our time do we really need a new destination to provide us with the illusive interest graph or would we be better served by enhanced functionality within existing services?

The biggest failing (if you can call it that) of existing social networks is that there is little emphasis on the interest graph: the organisation of your interactions around any given topic.

Twitter has its hashtags but, in the absence of a meaningful search experience, this only amounts to real-time trend identification rather than any true focus on a particular topic. Facebook has pages but these tend to be focused around a particular entity and there are lists but these are under-used.

Google+ has tried to address the issue with Circles thus enabling you to divide your contacts into discrete groups which can be topic specific but even this requires you to find people (often more by luck than judgment) and then try to fit them to a suitable circle. There is also no guarantee that you will only see items related to your reason for Circling someone.

In addition, Plus now has a decent search engine (as you would expect from a major search provider) and supports clickable hashtags but, while these searches can be saved or even shared, there is no notification system.

Chiming in

The new “interest network” from UberMedia, chime.in, is aiming to tackle the issue of the interest graph by focusing on the topic rather than the person and doing away with the shortcomings of those existing services.

It must be asked, however, whether the interest graph would be better served by enhancing the functionality of the services we already use rather than introducing yet another destination in an already crowded market.

People are entrenched within their network of choice and will normally find ways to bypass any service inadequacies in order to locate content that interests them so is the effort of managing another network worth it?

People or passions?

It is claimed that chime.in “wasn’t designed to replace any networks, but to enhance the social media experience with a platform tailored to a clear, specific need” – a convoluted way of saying it offers something others don’t. Regardless of this bold claim there is a doubt in my mind as to whether the service is truly convinced of its own intentions.

Bill Gross, UberMedia CEO, argues that chime.in is different because you only follow part of a person, the part that interests you, but why are we following people at all? Since signing up my inbox has been bombarded by notifications of people following me which, while good for the ego, seems to be contrary to the whole idea.

We set up our profiles and specify our interests which determines what we see in our “Chimeline” then, when we post, we decide on the topics related to our content. By following an interest we will, therefore, see all items from others that are relevant so we shouldn’t need to follow a part of a person (their updates to specific topics).

Despite being focused on the “interest” it seems that the network can’t drag itself away from the follower model; perhaps it is feared that following a subject rather than those contributing to it is too unusual and we must be given a more traditional option in order to feel more at home.

Going native

Our mainstay social networks are hugely focused on the people so a change of emphasis to the topic could provide a refreshing new experience so, rather than resorting to an additional destination, how could existing services provide an interest graph within their current frameworks?

Anyone will tell you that Twitter needs to greatly improve its search as this has been sorely lacking for too long. While there may have been capacity issues in the past which meant that maintaining a large search index was an overhead they couldn’t afford Twitter has put a lot of effort into improving reliability so there is really no longer an excuse.

A meaningful search experience is the first step in any attempt to build an interest graph.

Back in March I suggested a way that Twitter could go “beyond the hashtag” and employ a means of better tracking tweets related to a specific topic or event. After seeing the recent changes to the Facebook interface I have also wondered if Twitter could make use of a “ticker” of their own to facilitate the following of a particular topic, keyword or hashtag. Such a ticker could be housed in the media pane enabling the user to monitor a live stream without having to move away from the main feed much as you would watch a search feed in an extra column in TweetDeck (in fact this is the only reason time when I do use TweetDeck).

The continuing noises that Twitter is looking to simplify the service and unify the usage experience across different platforms could, however, put paid to any ideas along these lines.

Algorithms

Facebook have been expanding on the use of lists but these still focus on the individual. What is more promising is the recent news that the service utilizes keyword algorithms to group similar items in your news feed.

These algorithms could be easily applied to searches and, therefore, be able to identify content you may be interested in rather than people and notify you accordingly. Now that we can subscribe to the public posts of anyone who permits us these publicly shared items could help us on forming the basis of an interest graph.

Google+ has possibly the easiest task due to the existing search mechanism enabling us to save and share searches but, with the power of Google behind it, these saved searches could be set to crawl public data on our behalf. If Google Alerts can be used to monitor the entire Google database then, surely, a similar tool could be used to alert us to relevant content from within the confines of Plus.

Negating the need

With varying degrees of effort our main networks could provide a means for us to build the basis of an interest graph thus negating the need for an additional network to provide it. With our time and attention at a premium, the ability to perform all our tasks in one place is preferable to relying on multiple destinations; chime.in may be facing a difficult future.

Image by russelldavies

Sides are being taken in the argument over Google+ usage but do the numbers involved really matter at this stage? Not as much as you’d think.

A lot is being made of Google+ user numbers and traffic fluctuations with obvious comparisons being made to the social behemoth that is Facebook.

It is an achievement that the service has passed 40 million accounts in such a short space of time but naysayers are pointing out that these are just sign-ups and not active users; still, even if only a percentage of sign-ups are active this doesn’t actually matter at this point and still exhibits a reasonably healthy interest in the service.

Why is this?

“we’ve shipped the +, and now we’re going to ship the Google part.”

Once the social layer has been integrated into other Google services we have a huge potential catchment – anyone who uses a Google Service and has a Google account is a potential Google+ user.

Privacy

There was a large potential user base for Buzz (anyone who used Gmail) but the privacy fiasco and failure to market the service effectively ruined any chance it had from the very outset. It was a nice idea to have a captive audience but, ultimately, the fact that Buzz was solely contained within Gmail was a major failing.

Some lessons have been learnt from Buzz - our existing contacts are suggested to us for inclusion in Circles rather than being automatically added - but it remains to be seen if Google accounts will automatically convert or – as is the case with YouTube at present – an account needs to be linked to, or permissioned for, Plus.

Privacy advocates will no doubt cry foul if all Google accounts are automatically enabled for Plus but if you haven’t set up your profile and added anyone to circles then there should be no issue as long as items from your existing services don’t go public by default. Even so, accounts will mostly likely need to be enabled manually to avoid any potential privacy arguments.

Persuading the masses

After launching the social layer Google’s problem will be convincing the masses that they should use the social aspects the service provides. There will have to be sufficient marketing and adequate communication in simple terms that the average user can understand – the benefits should be well outlined.

Back in April I suggested that our Google profile should have both a public and a private view - the private view could be our destination and include private data. Google+ user Marcin Cisewicz suggested that perhaps iGoogle could be dropped in favour of a new Plus landing page displayed for each logged in user: your services at a glance and an ideal opportunity to advertise the service. I like the idea but perhaps it is more likely the current page would be redesigned to make use of the social layer rather than being replaced.

If the process of getting users to enable Plus is handled correctly then numbers will not be an issue. Google does not have to persuade people to use a social network it just has to extol the virtues of sharing your content and interacting with the shared items of others; many people already share things with their friends and family by email and even more go to another social service - they just need to be convinced that sharing directly from the source is easier. Users may not access Plus directly but will still be taking advantage of its social capabilities. 

Android may well be a key factor in the push for Plus; just as iOS5 now boasts Twitter integration so Android needs to have full Google+ integration to make life easy. We already have instant upload for images but if you can simply share with just a couple of taps there is little need to go elsewhere.

What do you think?

How will Google best encourage the masses to use the social layer?

Image by eye/see