In a new post over at Media Tapper Grace O’Malley poses some interesting questions:

Is a social network, or other closed forum, bound to become self-serving to the point where its participants resent having to follow external links and is this hurting conversation? She asks if it has reached the point where we should not even bother posting those links as people will not follow the call to action. In essence, have we forgotten how to be social?

Is social becoming a paradox where our behaviour is affected to the point that we can no longer truly converse? Are we suffering because the more social we are the less time we have?

Killing conversation

I had a similar thought in my post “Is social killing conversation” in respect to the move away from commenting on blogs to social networks. I argued that we had seen a fundamental shift in the way we behave online as it is generally quicker and easier to drop in a quick comment or a virtual thumbs up rather than expend the time and effort to continue the conversation by writing your own post. Grace questions if we have even gone beyond this point.

People are often like lightning: occasional flashes of brilliance but mostly taking the path of least resistance. They will click a Like or +1 button rather than make the effort to contribute something more meaningful but with so many social signals being thrust upon us is it any wonder.

Times have changed

In the early days there was an overwhelming sense of needing to keep up, to read everything and have your finger firmly on the pulse. Back then, when it was only early adopters, there was a limited amount of information and a lot of the discussions paved the way to how we use social today. It was possible to absorb a greater proportion of what came in to your feed but we knew it was almost all important as we were on the cusp of Social revolution.

Today we do not have that luxury so must pick our moments more carefully. Unfortunately, not everyone’s moments coincide so a useful link will fall by the wayside without the discussion it deserves. We are all busy and a sense of TL;DR (too long; didn’t read) is all too common.

There is no denying that, with suggested user lists and influence scores, social is very much a popularity contest. We hate to admit it but we are all caught up in the rat race. Do we need to gain an ever-increasing number of followers or is it counter-productive?

Relationships

When I posted that relationships were the real social currency I said that on our own we aren’t that interesting but “where our paths cross is a different matter; those intersections, the relationships between us, are the interesting bits”. We gather in communities of like-minded individuals so would assume conversation is a given but the very global nature of the internet, undoubtedly its strength, can also be a great weakness as we sit in different time zones.

In order to facilitate an active discussion there is a need, however, to gather a reasonably sized social circle so that more of our individual ”moments” will coincide. The more followers you have then the greater probability that someone amongst them will have the time to click on that link, read the item and make the effort to join the conversation.

The larger following the more will be able to participate thus building a conversation which, in turn, may persuade others to reevaluate their priorities as they may now see it as something of value. We also seek divergent points of view rather than a small echo chamber of a few frequent commenters; as much as we appreciate their thoughts it is good to have a variety of opinion.

This is part of why we follow the popular and the social media superstars: we are more likely to see a meaningful discourse because of sheer volumes – if we want to be involved we must go to the conversation which, unfortunately, is a self-perpetuating cycle.

Regardless of all this we should never stop sharing, we will all be at a loss if we do. Perhaps there could be a better way to facilitate more views of the target item - maybe some form of light box for pages to avoid having to leave your social network – but something has to be done which is why we see more services offering curated and personalised news.

Is it really groupthink?

Following the herd is not necessarily groupthink or the end of individuality but, perhaps, a necessary evil in achieving our goals.

Social is a tough mistress and we have to work out for ourselves what we want from her.

Image by Martin Deustch

Now that all the pieces are in place and we know when the new privacy policy takes effect do we have a time-scale for the building of the Google+ social layer and, with it, Google’s beautiful new world?

As has been reported, Google is seeking to create “services that people in the world will use twice a day just like a toothbrush” and “make those services beautiful, simple and easy to use”

I posted earlier that the new Google+ naming policy allowing pseudonyms and Google’s single privacy policy were tying up the loose ends with regards to enabling full integration of Plus with other Google services via the social layer.

Much has been made of the uncharacteristic use of ”beautiful” and even the email notification to Google users advising of changes to the privacy policy extoled the virtues of ”one beautifully simple and intuitive experience”.

Parallels

Even before Google+ I have spoken about the obvious parallels between Google and Facebook, as much as many don’t like to admit it, with both offering a range of services but the latter simply housing them all within a walled garden. With the social layer and a single privacy policy Google is becoming one unified company rather than a collection of data silos – the parallels are getting even stronger.

Within Facebook we may use different features or applications and be able to determine who sees what via privacy controls but the profile  (and consequently Facebook itself) has access to everything from everywhere allowing a much better picture of who we are.

With unified accounts Google is doing the same – one profile, one set of information. We can, again, control visibility by utilising our Circles but the profile will links that data to all services so it can be used to better shape our experience right across the ecosystem.

That ecosystem may not be walled-in but Google hopes you don’t really need to leave. Rather than being a means to jump elsewhere on the web the company is finally becoming that all important destination I argued it had to find to compete on the social web.

The missing link

One criticism remained, as I mentioned in a post at Media Tapper, that Plus was still set apart by not allowing teens to use the service. Now that a single privacy policy was in place and teens could use Google’s other offerings this seemed a bit of a contradiction.

As Google is sunsetting a number of applications and, in many cases, replacing them with functionality inside its social network it appeared that the company might risk alienating a large section of its user base by removing useful tools without providing access to the alternatives.

We need not have worried.

Bradley Horowitz has announced that, as of now, teens and young adults will be sign up to Google+ to share and communicate with their friends in just the same ways that the adults have since launch. Not content with just opening the doors to teens, however, Google is playing the concerned parent with a slew of security features designed to protect them whilst online, and they should be applauded for it.

Whose house?

Any of these recent announcements in isolation would be news enough news but with all three combined we could arguably say that Google+ is no longer a beta product.

Google is now ready to convince you that “your world” is actually “it’s world“.

The stage is truly set for greater advances in integration now that all the pieces are in play. As the new single privacy policy kicks in on March 1st I would expect some major developments around this time but will Google fall foul of complaints that it is abusing its search monopoly to unfairly promote all its other services?

Now that all applications are to be merely aspects of the whole we will be constantly reminded of what we can achieve in Google’s beautiful new world.

Image by pareeerica

The integration of the Google+ “social layer” with other services has been slow but the recent policy changes could indicate we are in for some significant changes.

You might also like to read the follow-up post Building Google’s beautiful new world.

When Google+ launched its real names policy caused a stir but, as Google is vying to become an identity service, this was not unexpected. The key to identity is trust and Google would not have wanted to be involved with users creating “throwaway accounts” and hiding behind the anonymity they afford.

Social on its own does not make money which is why the likes of Facebook and Twitter are focusing ever more closely on advertising but, for advertising to work effectively, a service needs to be able to correctly match ads to people based on our interests and connections. As I have said, relationships are the real social currency and our these can be best established and tracked using some form of consistent identity.

The social layer

Google+ is unique amongst social networks in that it is just a component of a larger organisation rather than being the company itself; Google is keen to establish social relevance then use this to bolster its other services hence the creation of the social layer that will sit across all applications within the Google ecosystem.

In October it was announced that the company planned to support pseudonyms once the complexities of managing the three levels of authentication supported throughout Google products (anonymous, pseudonymous & identified) could be overcome.

The varying levels of authentication across the stable of services offered by the company poses a challenge which has meant full integration could not occur immediately but Google appear to be on the road to overcoming these issues following the announcement by Bradley Horowitz in a Plus post that nicknames and pseudonyms (in certain circumstances) will be supported.

As is so often the case, the news has been welcomed by some but derided as too little, too late with comments such as “6 months for this” being thrown as various Googlers seeking to explain the decision. Horowitz admits this is a first step on the road to a more inclusive identity policy so we may see further movement in this area in future.

Who are you?

The distinction between a nickname and pseudonym is clear: a nickname is something you might be called by sits alongside your real name whereas a pseudonym replaces your public identity. Google will allow those with established pseudonyms (who have a following elsewhere under that name) to use them on Plus but will not allow the ad hoc creation of alternate identities – makes sense.

Still, for some, the new names policy doesn’t go far enough as they argue other people need the protection that a pseudonym affords for personal or political reasons – perhaps their life may be endangered if using their real name. Interestingly, Google employee Yonatan Zunger replied in the comments on Bradley’s announcement:

Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don’t look like “your” name, but for things which don’t look like names, period. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is “your” name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this.

So, it would seem there is nothing to stop someone creating an account in a completely different name (thus remaining anonymous) as long as it looks like a genuine name. If that is then the identity used across Google services (even if false) then so be it – Google just wants it to be consistent.

Missing the point

As welcome as this announcement is the primary focus has been purely on identity, as probably expected, but when you consider that it has been made alongside that of Google’s new single privacy policy then we can start to look behind the announcement and see what’s coming.

The single privacy policy ties together over 60 individual policies into one creating a seemless experience across almost the whole ecosystem where data from one service can be utilised by another to offer better personalisation – a true “one Google” ethos. Account handling, identity and privacy were the issues holding Google back from full integration of Google+ with other services right across the board but now there is no reason they can’t continue.

Make no mistake, these policy changes are not isolated events but part of the larger plan to facilitate the social layer.

A prime candidate for deeper integration with Google+ is Blogger (see my earlier post). Until now the Plus effect has been minimal despite being able to link your Blogger account to your G+ profile. Authors have been automatically prompted to share posts to their Circles and now +1 data has been built in to the dashboard but this is a far cry from what could be achieved.

Many blog pseudonymously so, until now, could not link Blogger to Plus for fear of being exposed due to the real names requirements of the latter. I would expect this to be a perfect scenario where Google would permit the use of a pseudonym within their social network thus allowing the author to share their content and converse with a much wider audience whilst retaining the virtual anonymity they desire.

A matter of time

With the pieces now in place I feel it is just a matter of time before we start seeing much deeper integration between G+ and other Google applications with a better flow of content and comments in both directions. A single identity with the ability to interaction from anywhere is, in my opinion, the holy grail of a true social layer and will really differentiate Google+ from other social networks.

Images by myself and psd

People Will Overlook Google Plus In Favour Of Other Networks.

Shortly after Google+ launched as an invite only beta, I asked if Google+ met the expectations set for it after months and months of speculation as to what Google’s next social offering would be.

This new post at Media Tapper follows on from this now that the service has been up and running for more than 6 months.

Great expectations

Our expectations were initially formed from our time using the existing social networks at the time – Facebook and Twitter taught us how these services should run so we combined this experience with what limited information was coming from Google. Expectations change over time as the functionality alters and we hear more of Google’s plans, but are these expectations being met and, if not, effectively managed?

Google+ has already come a long way and is a well established product. While technically still in beta phase, you would not know it if you were new to the service and didn’t know its history. However, Google can automatically add as many people as it wants to its social network but, without a compelling reason to use it and sufficient end-user education, people are going to overlook Plus in favor of other networks.

Read the full post here: People Will Overlook Google Plus In Favour Of Other Networks.

Now that Google+ is gaining popularity is there a conflict of interest between the social network and search? Is Google right to focus on promoting its own content?

Just when you thought the furore over Search Plus was abating pending the antitrust investigation by the FTC then we get engineers from Facebook, Twitter and MySpace providing a proof of concept bookmarklet which reworks Google’s personalised results to include sources other than Google+ in an attempt to better “Focus on the user“.

By way of debate, Jon Mitchell throws an interesting argument in to the pot saying “It’s Not Wrong for Google to Focus on Its Own Users“.

We are dealing with a whole can of semantics here.

On the one hand we have the distinction between search plus “Your World” and search plus “The World” with the former predominantly equating to our connections as a G+ user and the latter incorporating all our social engagement equally. On the other, we have the phrase “Focus on the user” – those outside of Google are referring to a generic user looking to get a cross-section of results whereas, obviously, Google are focusing on a user with a Plus account and all that it entails.

Playing favourites

Jon asks (somewhat tongue in cheek) if it is right for Google to favour results from its own social network in results as, for those searching when logged in, Google+ pages and profiles “are the better results”. While this can be true in some circumstances it will not always be so depending on the search term, type of results required and the value of the items returned.

When searching for a particular restaurant I might be looking for a menu, prices, opening times and a phone number to book a reservation but personalised search could, instead, return a post from a friend saying that he had a good time and the steak was to die for – admittedly handy to know but not what I am after.

If I wanted to search for Dave Winer I would get no value from being shown his Google+ profile as he doesn’t use Plus and never has yet is still presented to me as a suggested user.

Examples such as these are why I say that personalised results should enhance search results and not replace them. Yes, tell me that my friend had a good time and recommends the steak but not at the expense of the restaurant listing itself – his post should come as a sub-item of the restaurant listing and serve to boost its position in the rankings.

Social search should make things easier to find and then present the related stories and opinions of our contacts. If you think of the way Techmeme presents a lead and then all related discussion you get an idea of how I feel social search should operate. Public posts on G+ are considered pages for search results but, when searching outside of the social network, are they actually more relevant than the item to which they relate?

The world according to Google

Jon ponders that the “best solution to social search would be one that lets the search user decide what network(s) to prefer. To the extent that a social search engine doesn’t prefer the user’s own networks, it’s not social search; it’s just search.”

We are again caught in the semantics of “our world”. We are often social on more than one network so, while Google doesn’t need to know our relationships with others, perhaps it could take a cue from the accounts linked to our Plus profile; if I haven’t listed any other services on my profile then maybe it _is_ reasonable to only return profiles and pages from G+ but if I have explicitly indicated my presence on Twitter or Facebook then should search not take this in to consideration and return results from these locations?

Duality

We are entering into new territory where G+ is not just a social network, it is instead a core component of the Google ecosystem and will link in to all services causing the edges to blur. This creates a dichotomy of Google the search engine and Google the service provider and some believe it cannot adequately, or fairly, be both simultaneously.

It is easy to see why Search Plus is so closely linked to Plus and why Google would want to do this. It is also easy to see why Google would argue that they do not have access to content within other networks but, as I have said before, this is not needed to present meaningful results due to public data that Google has indexed along with the related accounts we place in our profiles.

In fact, the demo at focusontheuser.org is achieved only with information “from Google itself, and all of the ranking decisions are made by Google’s own algorithms. No other services or APIs are accessed”. If it is this easy, why couldn’t or didn’t google do it? The answer is that Google is keen to promote its own network and we now have a conflict of interest between the two sides of the company’s operations.

Changing the social graph

Google is deprecating the social graph API so, perhaps, would argue that relationships garnered by these means are no longer relevant and is instead reliant on our G+ profiles to establish these relationships – we add linked profiles, accounts and sites but these do not appear to be prioritised.

Google is now in competition with the likes of Facebook so is keen to promote Plus at every opportunity and in doing so is, out of necessity, prioritising its users. Jon says: “But Google and its fans have two other use cases to consider. People who would rather have their personal website, Twitter or Facebook profile appear above Google+ are not well-served by Google anymore, nor are people whose social graphs exist on networks other than Google+ … Google has no obligation to these users.”

This would be true if Google were just a service provider a la Facebook but not while it is still positioning itself as the premier search engine returning, according to its original promise, unbiased results to search queries. Google obviously has an obligation to all its users but the question is: does being a Google+ user change the nature of that obligation? Just because we have a G+ account does it imply that we are better served by our “Google world”?

Ask your friends, not the web

Google has increased the integration with search by adding the option to “ask your friends” on Google+ – personally, I think this is great approach to social search: crowd-sourcing a solution if you can’t find what you’re looking for in the normal results. The cynic in me, however, wonders if this is a deliberate ploy: users complain that social search results don’t always give us what we’re after so are we now inclined to ask our Circles and, thus, do Google a favour by further populating its social network with more signal?

When prompted to ask a question in this manner we will format our query as a proper question. We will then receive answers from our Circles by way of comments which may receive +1s and, as such, create an answer rating system – the most +1s equating to the best answer.

It has long been speculated that Google would introduce a competitor to Quora – Matt Mastracci even discovered “Google Experts” within the Plus source code – and this integration is another potential example of how Google could look after its own and influence search results by having ready-made answers within the social network instead of having to resort to the normal web.

A destination

I stated that Google needed to become a destination rather than a stepping stone in order to succeed in social Google+ has very much become that destination but is its integration into the core of Google’s business taking this too far and risking just as must as it promises?