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

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

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

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.

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?

The unofficial Google Operating System blog has pointed out that all new Google accounts created – regardless of the reason – will now also automatically require GMail and be Google+ accounts.

Larry Page announced in the Google quarterly report that Plus has now passed the 90 million user mark – no small achievement in itself – and Google are obviously keen for the service to expand as much and as quickly as possible.

Doing evil?

It is being suggested that Google will come under fire with regards to this especially after the complaints around Search Plus seeming to heavily favour Google+ in SERPs (search engine results pages).

The GOS blog post does not indicate when this change occurred – it would actually make sense to have been introduced at the same times as Search Plus but maybe gone unreported. Irrespective of this, perhaps the timing could have been handled a little more delicately considering the outcry over Search Plus, the move was always inevitable.

Greg Finn at Marketing Land says that this is surprising considering that Google+ is still essentially a beta but it has come an exceedingly long way since being opened up to the public being a fully fleshed out product which is more than ready for prime time.

Google+ is Google

It was originally explained that Plus would become part of the entire Google ecosystem acting as a social layer as well as a social network meaning that, regardless of which Google service you use, you are hooked into the network’s social features.

What surprises me, however, is that people are acting as though they could never see this coming. I wrote back in October:

“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.”

If all Google services are linked via Plus then it follows that all Google users would, therefore, need a Plus account to enable the personalisation (via circles) and other social features. Like it or not it is a natural progression; it’s just a question of whether you visit the actual network directly or share via another service.

A push too far?

Is it unreasonable for Google to force its social network upon users like this? While the vision is that Plus will be a central component of the Google experience it is presumptuous to assume that all users need or want the social connectivity that Plus affords. Just as we can turn off personalised search then should this extent to the whole social element?

Now that Plus and its hook in to search are to be considered as part of the FTCs (Federal Trade Commission) anti-trust probe into Google it would not be unexpected that the company be forced to offer a “Google Lite” option providing the ability to opt out of all personalisation: a disconnection of the Google+ element.

This would not necessarily be a complete loss for Google – social functionality would instead become opt-in – as search results, recommendations etc. could still be customised by locale and regional trends even though there would be no direct social influence.

I stated that some “will no doubt cry foul if all Google accounts are automatically enabled for Plus” so there must be choice but whether that choice is a complete opt out or, as I described previously, a need to explicitly enable the Plus portion of the account is up for debate.

Brave new world

It is a bold step to bet the future of the whole company on its ability to compete, via Google+, in social and this is reflected in the oft quoted decision to have bonuses for all staff linked to the success of that future. Google has the talent to achieve its goal but must not become over zealous. The social landscape is full of promise and reward, whilst no fool, the company must not rush in unguarded.

After all, there is a reason angels fear to tread here.

Image by Miso Susanowa

Twitter has a mixed record when it comes to acquisitions:

Summize: Twitter acquired the excellent search company after announcing they were a “perfect match“. At the time Twitter said on its blog:

“There is an undeniable need to search, filter, and otherwise interact with the volumes of news and information being transmitted to Twitter every second. We will be adding search and its related features to the core offering of Twitter in the very near future.”

Ironically Twitter search has generally gotten worse ever since with the age of tweets you can return being reduced to a matter of days (sometimes even less).

TweetDeck: It is widely accepted that Twitter only bought TweetDeck in order to prevent UberMedia getting hold of it as the company would then have held too strong a position within the Twitter ecosystem. UberMedia was rumoured to being launching its own network and Chime.in (an attempt at an interest-based network) eventually arrived but, without the popular Tweetdeck on board its influence was reduced.

Since acquisition TweetDeck has been reworked to fall more in line with the core Twitter image and functionality which many are unhappy about as they claim Twitter has removed some of the best features.

Tweetie: The popular client for Mac and iPhone, is probably Twitters most visible success story although it was initially greeted with caution from some quarters.

Trendly: Twitter bought Smallthought Systems, the analytics company behind Trendly, and were due to be offering real-time analysis which never seemed to appear.

Twitter acquires Summify

It has now been announced that Twitter has acquired Summify – a service which produces a summary of key news from your social circle and presenting it in a more elegant fashion – just as it was starting to really take off. On the face of it, this seems like another perfect match for Twitter but it remains to be seen exactly how the network with utilise this new resource. Talent acquisition? No doubt. Technology acquisition? Hopefully.

I said in April last year:

“It is widely accepted that Twitter is not for everyone but this may be a limitation of the timeline format. Perhaps it is time for a bit of a shake-up.”

That shake-up finally arrived towards the end of last year with the arrival of #newnewtwitter – a complete redesign and unification of the UI across the different means of access – and I stated that “the new view on the #discovery tab would appear to be the first step“.

Summify’s ability to filter your feed and pull out the salient items would be an ideal way of enhancing the #discover tab by presenting more personalised news based on your own network rather than a generic list from trending topics.

Summify has immediately shut down a number of features including profile pages and the ability to make summaries public (all summaries will now be private until the service stops supplying them) and, obviously, disabling new user registration everyone will hook in directly via Twitter.

Business is business

In a way it is a shame to lose the social elements of Summify but Twitter is out to make itself a better service in order to attract and retain more users.

Summify provides value for many but this value is gained from Twitter’s content outside of Twitter’s control. It is, therefore, in the network’s interest to have this functionality in-house and force us to come to its own site where it can regain that control and serve related “promoted content” based on the topics the summary presents.

The acquisition is another example of Twitter wanting to reassert itself on its ecosystem; it is easier to acquire than to build but make no mistake, if Summify had not sold Twitter would no doubt have further developed #discovery with its solution.

Around 18 months ago I questioned if social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter would “become the next Microsoft” by which I meant that they could grow so large as to be virtual monopolies with all the associated risks for potential abuse of that position.

Since then we have had continued efforts from Twitter to reclaim its ecosystem by incorporating functionality made popular by third-party tools and clients. The company has even purchased TweetDeck, the most popular third-party client around, seemingly just as a way of preventing UberMedia from getting their hands on it.

Facebook is ever controversial and continually uncoils its tentacles, extending them further into the ‘normal web’.

Facebook Connect and Comments allowed us to use one identity in myriad locations enabling the social network to learn our habits and the relationships between who we know, what we do and where we go. The open graph will now permit us to ‘watch’ and ‘eat’ rather than just Like and it will all feed back to the mothership just like our listening habits from Spotify and our reading habits from publications such as the Washington Post.

Anti-competitive

In my previous post I asked:

“Can we envisage a time when a social platform is large enough to attract the attention of the authorities for anti-competitive behaviour?

Will we see complaints from one service against another or will complaints come from outside the social web as other areas start to feel threatened as social platforms look for new areas to expand to beyond their traditional domains?”

It looks as though that time has arrived.

All the time social networks stayed firmly pigeon-holed the rest of the web was fine with these upstarts gobbling up the spare time of web users; going beyond this remit, however, meant problems were bound to occur sooner or later.

Taking action

Facebook is now huge but, being largely self-contained, has mainly had to contend with privacy issues until recently when the site Timelines.com decided to sue the social behemoth (whether rightly or not) over the use of the name “Timeline” for its new look profile.

The Timelines action could well be the first of many as social networks seek to continue their growth the trend will be towards offering more widespread functionality in an attempt to attract new sign ups and retain existing users – without them advertisers will not be willing to pile in the funds required to keep services alive.

As well as an actual threat does size carry the risk of perceived threat? Even if a particular network or feature is not actually a threat  how many instances might we see where another service is sufficiently threatened that they the need for a pre-emptive strike to reduce an unproven risk?

A phoenix from the flames

Google has had a number of failed forays into the social space but long recognised the need to get involved or get left behind. People are getting more of their information from social networks thus reducing the need for traditional search; why Google something and spend time going through the results when you can have your friends do the work for you. There are always some in a rush to please in the great online popularity contest that is social media.

Google+ is a success, that cannot be argued, and the burgeoning user numbers suggest that it may soon catch Twitter. The approach to link the social network into all aspects of the Google ecosystem is an obvious ploy to increase the rate at which people sign up. On its own this appears not to have caused concern amongst competitors – presumably as it is linking in to Google’s own offerings. The problems began when Google+ was combined with search by “Search Plus Your World” causing anti-competitive objections to be raised from a competitor (Twitter) and beyond.

It has been conjectured that, as Google will have an awareness of exactly what it can expect to get away with, Search+ could be a calculated risk designed to force the FTC’s hand and prompt an investigation into Facebook’s practices of locking down data. By a logical extension, however, it would not be such a huge leap for this to pave the way for a full investigation into all social networks and how they operate?

• Could Twitter be forced to no longer favour its own URL shortener and image upload service?
• Could Google be forced to re-work it’s algorithms to show search results more fairly? Or will it be instructed to make social search separate as Bing currently does?
• Could Facebook be forced to open up the open graph?

A new era for the web

Image by Tom Morris

My new post at Media Tapper.

Controversy aside, social search is here to stay so it is better to embrace it early rather than get left behind. 

“Since going live, Google+ has been hailed by some as a replacement for blogging – a view not universally countenanced but the argument for creating content directly in the social stream where most interaction occurs is quite strong. Now, with the integration of these social signals in to Search+ some are, perhaps, getting ahead of themselves proclaiming the combination as the future of the web.”

Search+ has created a huge ripple, even if only by notoriety, but is a long way from changing the search paradigm.

Read the full post here: How Google’s Search Plus Will Impact SEO And Why It Matters.

I have long been an advocate of social search and called on Google to integrate it into normal search back in August 2010. I also wrote that there were 3 ways Google could use search to have an impact in social:

Recommendations

Using likes, shares, tweets etc. to influence search results and use this to help provide a global real-time trending solution.

At the time, Facebook was driving 13% of all traffic compared to 7% from Google – no doubt due to the social element. It wasn’t a worrying statistic for Google but I said:

“with their own social network, they could get their hands on some of those referrals and build it into their recommendations“.

Related Content

By integrating social into search I envisaged the provision of additional related content – some kind of “you may also like” arrangement but wasn’t sure if it could be successfully pulled off in real-time.

The heavy integration Plus into search has made this easier than I thought (although not as wide-ranging) and the first elements of related content are Google+ user profiles and pages associated with that particular topic.

Statistics

Here I mentioned the possibility for real-time stats and integrating tools such as Google Analytics. As we know, Analytics has since incorporated both social interactions and real-time results into its reports.

More recently I stated that Google Ripples could form the “basis for some kind of analytic offering, especially for Brand Pages when they arrive.” The combination of real-time & social statistics combined with effective visual utilities would be a game changing toolset for brands to have within the social network they are using.

There may be trouble ahead

So Search Plus, at its root, is quite similar to how I expected it might be – it ticks a lot of the boxes but still suffers from issues the impact of which could have been reduced with better execution.

The biggest, and most obvious, issue which has been the subject of countless online column inches (here and beyond) is the overwhelming amount of Google+ data compared to other sources. Search results do return other sources (Live Journal, FriendFeed, WordPress etc.) but the sheer volume of data creates an imbalance and it is easy to see why the likes of Twitter are so incensed.

Secondly, and quite infuriatingly, is the continued idea of “suggested users” based on popularity. The “related people” returned by searching for certain topics suffers from the same problems that caused Robert Scoble to ask to be removed from the Google+ suggested users list.

We are presented with a link advising how we too could appear in that list but the answer is that it is just another self-perpetuating popularity contest:

“The more quality content you create and the more people that engage with you, the more prominent your profile will become”.

And so we have the vicious circle; the most popular will be shown and by default get more followers by being on the list meaning their place is assured in future. Rather than just generic “related people” lists there must be a way to make it more dynamic thus preventing us from always being shown the same “elite” users.

Finally, people get angry when they feel things are being thrust upon them. My previous thoughts that Google could be better served by not making social search the default or, perhaps, prompting you when using it for the first time (maybe also every now and then afterwards) to actually choose your method of search might have lessened the impact.

Perception

As with Google+ itself Search Plus is suffering from the perception that it goes against Google’s do no evil mantra. If we ignore the playground “he said, she said” shenanigans between Google and Twitter the overwhelming quantity of Google+ items in search results gives the impression that the social network is being hugely favoured (even if that isn’t Google’s intention).

Looking back at the original social search (when results were shown in a different section) we can see a different approach. Social results then would contain:

• Websites, blogs, public profiles, and other content linked from your friends’ Google profiles
• Web content, such as status updates, tweets, and reviews, from links that appear in the Google profiles of your friends and contacts
• Images posted publicly from members of your social circle on Picasa Web and from websites that appear on their Google profiles
• Relevant articles from your Google Reader subscriptions

A lot of this had been superseded by Google+ but the second item is really worth looking at again: Web content, such as status updates, tweets, and reviews, from links that appear in the Google profiles of your friends and contacts. In fact, each of the first three items refer to links the on users profiles.

We all furnish our Google+ profiles with other accounts, our recommended links and sites to which we contribute in order for Google to extend its knowledge of who we are but that knowledge seems forgotten once we perform a search.

With Search+ we appear to have taken a backwards step with the data Google intends to show us.

Taking stock

Providing a better balance of content based on the knowledge Google has about its users would be an obvious step in combating some of the criticisms of a Plus-heavy system. Combining with a less aggressive approach to forcing the changes on to its users could have made Search Plus a successful launch but, as is too often the case, it has been marred by controversy.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but previous experience is an equally effective teacher, we just have to learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately, it seems that Google sometimes doesn’t.

Image by Jeffery Beall

Within a few short hours of Google announcing the new “plus your world“ search offering Twitter released an official statement claiming that it was bad for the internet as Google was unfairly promoting Plus content over other networks.

The full statement from Twitter reads as follows:

For years, people have relied on Google to deliver the most relevant results anytime they wanted to find something on the Internet.

Often, they want to know more about world events and breaking news. Twitter has emerged as a vital source of this real-time information, with more than 100 million users sending 250 million Tweets every day on virtually every topic. As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter; as a result, Twitter accounts and Tweets are often the most relevant results.

We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone. We think that’s bad for people, publishers, news organizations and Twitter users.

Could we, perhaps, argue that Twitter is being a bit hypocritical criticising Google’s social search when its own search has been so lacking? It is ironic that search on the “information network” has been in decline ever since it acquired the excellent tool Summize.

Failed deals and competition

A while ago, Google real-time search was dominated by tweets but the agreement between Google and Twitter expired and real-time search was canceled. It appears there was a bit of a Mexican standoff between the two companies with regards to the relationship at the time; what actually happened was a case for conjecture.

Services are getting ever more precious about their sovereignty of data and it is unsurprising when you hear that x service has denied access to y for whatever reason – Twitter gave away too much of its data for free in the early days and Facebook has always been largely self-contained except the agreement with Bing (which doesn’t amount to much in real terms).

Is Google utilising its largely monopolistic search position to unfairly promote its own network? Or, is it merely displaying what it can?

In our defence…

Google immediately defended itself by saying that it would like to include more networks in personalised search results but isn’t given access to the data and that it is not always clear on the privacy implications because of this.

It is hard to argue that there are any privacy issues with public tweets but it does not appear that they are being presented in search – a quick test of the full text of specific tweets found popular people in my Circles resulted references to in at muckrack.com but not from Twitter.

I asked last night on plus if Google was able to index Twitter public tweets and deliberately not showing them? Is Google showing them but considers them such a low priority that I simply haven’t gone deep enough? Or is Google now not able to index them at all? (Although, if muckrack can get them this seems unlikely).

Allow me to demonstrate

After the agreement with Twitter ended Google stated:

While we will not have access to this special feed from Twitter, information on Twitter that’s publicly available to our crawlers will still be searchable and discoverable on Google.

The search giant also stated that any new version of real-time search would not be limited to just results from Google+.

Matt Cutts has posted to demonstrate how Search+ can return items shared at other sources, such as Quora and Live Journal but, as search is personalised and only returns people from Plus, it is not clear if these results are only presented if a user in your Circles has linked these other sites with their Google+ profile.

Interestingly, Matt’s examples did not include one for returning data from Twitter.

Surprise

It didn’t take long for Google to offer a response to Twitter’s comments; a post on the company’s official Google+ profile announced that it was actually Twitter who refused to renew the deal giving access to its full feed and, as such, was surprised by the critical response.

As neither party has previously explained why the deal ended it could be, somewhat cynically, suggested that Google was saving this nugget for a time when it might be needed – it seems that time is now.

It is fairly obvious that certain parties would be aggrieved at a social search offering which seemed to favour Google’s own network – despite the protestations that this is not the case – so it would seem naive if Google honestly couldn’t see a backlash coming in response to this.

We are connected

As Danny Sullivan indicates in his post at Marketingland Google has indexed a huge amount of public Twitter content – including profiles and tweets.

Google knows who we are and, whether by explicitly linking it as an additional profile on Plus or by other means, knows our Twitter profiles. Given these two pieces of information it would be relatively easy to return related tweets in a search from those in our Circles who have Twitter accounts.

The argument that Google cannot know our relationships on other services is not necessarily a preclusion to returning specific data in a social search. It could also be viewed as reinforcing the comments that Search+ is not interested in all of your world, only a subset of it.

Even if it is not being used the search engine’s social graph still exists and knows our relationships but Google counters that it is merely respecting the rel=nofollow markup on Twitter but the network never seems concerned that others are not so considerate.

Waiting for the dust to settle

I have no doubt that Search+ is here to stay and its reach will extend ever further.

Will Google make algorithm changes to boost data from our other connected accounts? Will Twitter change its nofollow policy or reevaluate its position on allowing Google access to its data?

While personalisation only occurs when we are logged in, and we can choose to view results without it, it could be prudent for Google to either not make it the default option automatically or to prompt you for your preference. This might aid in appeasing those who argue that Plus is being forced upon us but the real issue of competition (and whether Google could be at risk of antitrust action) will rumble on.

Would you like to see data from a wider range of sources given a higher priority in your personalised results?

Images derived from Phillie Casablanca and by SaZeOd

Last week I wrote that the direction Google seemed to be taking with the integration of social search could potentially backfire. At the time it seemed as though the social elements were over-powering normal search results making it even harder to find what you need.

I asked:

Should we have the option of choice? Do we want to see social results or unaffected results? If we choose social results how far do we want the social influence to affect them? Should we be forced to accept weighting based on the entire population of Google+ or only our closest “friends”?

As is mentioned on the Official Google Blog: “With a single click, you can see a non-personalized view of search results” which is exactly what I said was required. Letting users set the state of this toggle by default is also recognition from the search provider that not everyone will want to use social search or even find it useful.

This is the introduction to my first contribution over at Media Tapper

Google+ is growing both in users and visits but, as the new kid on the social block, is still seeking to establish itself and aims to do so by extending beyond the normal realm of the social network. But, is the move going too far and does Google indeed risk messing up the internet?

Jon Mitchell over at ReadWriteWeb stirred up a hornet’s nest and potentially committed what amounts to Google+ suicide by speaking out against the direction the social rising star is taking. Chief amongst Jon’s complaints is that:

“…as Google ships “the Google part” of its new Google+ identity, it’s breaking the Web it once helped build.”

Read the full post here: Google’s Direction With Plus Could Be Self Destructive.

To take this one stage further I have decided to start an email newsletter (an idea I have been toying with for a while) to go beyond the normal post writing process and look at things in a different way and, perhaps, from a different angle.

The newsletter will supplement both the blog and activities on social networks. There will be the obligatory round-ups of what’s been happening but I plan to throw in a lot more conversationalist stuff: ideas, thoughts for possible posts, perhaps some links to items I’ve found interesting recently – whatever seems to fit at the time.

I have been running the Colin’s Thoughts blogette (is that a word? it is now) over at Posterous for a while but will most likely move my thoughts away from there to the newsletter.

It’s all about you!

As ever, I want you to tell me what you want. Got questions to ask? Go for it! Want to know my opinion on something? Ask away. Want some clarification or explanantion on a post? Let me know and I’ll see what I can do.

If you sign up I want to make sure you get what YOU want and that it’s not just all about me. I hope you get some value from this – if not TELL ME!

You can subscribe using the form at the top right of any page.

Every time someone posts an estimate of the number of Google+ users the tech media explodes with a glut of stories and posts proclaiming the service to be either a failure or proving its success depending on the point of view or prejudice of the author. Now is no exception.

Using the recent figures showing that there are 625,000 new sign-ups every day it has been suggested that Google+ could hit 400 million users by the end of 2012. To be honest, the idea seems a bit preposterous.

Sign-ups v active users

No doubt a lot of the “users” have come from people rushing to buy a new Galaxy Nexus – the flagship Android ICS device which includes the Google+ application and signs you up by default. But how many of these users will actually be active in a social context?

The current rate of increase in Android activations cannot continue forever and Google cannot rely on this solely for number generation, so we have to wonder when the market will hit saturation point.

I stated before that it is probably wrong to focus on the Google+ user numbers in the same way that we do with Twitter or Facebook as Google+ is designed to be as much as social layer and identity service as a social network. Rather than repeat myself ad nauseam I would recommend reading that post as the comments still hold true.

When theoretically every Google user is a potential Plus user Google don’t have any issues attracting raw numbers – the challenge is to encourage those people to use at least some of the social functionality on offer

Android users may have auto-upload turned on but unless they are fully educated in exactly what this does and how you then manage your photo albums online Google will just end up with a huge volume of pictures doing nothing but take up storage space. Also, if users do not see the benefit they will simply disable auto-upload in order to save on their monthly data allowances.

A working layer

As I have mentioned, the challenge is in fully developing the social layer so that people “use” Plus even when they are utilising another service and may not be fully aware that they are doing so.

We must keep returning to the quote “Google+ is Google”. Ultimately, the goal is that everything we do within the Google ecosystem will contribute to, or be influenced by Plus, in some way. They may have built the “Plus” and now need to build the Google part but it seems that the bulk of development is still with the Plus aspect rather than fleshing out the social layer.

There is currently one way traffic out of Plus with Google using the content we provide to modify search results in an aim to make them more relevant (a free crowd sourced filter) and all we have flowing in the other direction are items shared using the +1 button – hardly breaking any new ground yet.

Admittedly, Plus is only 6 months old (at least for those of us outside the Googleplex) but Google are making promises of the service that are so far-reaching in nature that they could take an exceptionally long time to see the light of day. Plus, therefore, runs the risk of being a casualty of its own hype if it takes too long for the layer functionality to fully materialise.

I have said previously that we “must allow the service to develop, improve and grow” and “afford it the opportunity to fulfill its potential” but our patience must not be tested.

Perception

Despite what Google have been saying we still have an issue with perception. They are quick to release the small changes but we need to start seeing the meat to flesh out the bones.

Why not discuss this post on Google+?

Image by stacyjclinton

2011 has been a busy year for the social web with all the major players having something to bring to the table. The pace of change is increasing and will only continue doing so over the next 12 months but let’s have a quick glance at the main events:

Google

Most notably we saw the launch of Google+ – the search giant’s last-ditch attempt to actually get social right after the false starts of Buzz, Wave and Orkut.

Going back as far as August last year I stated that Google had to get social incorporated into search in order to stay relevant – they finally came good in February.

Amidst rumours of either a full-blown social network (the google.me name did the rounds) or a social layer it seemed as though Google might cop-out and just enhance their search product but including recommendations from friends and the launch of the +1 button were merely precursors, laying down some of the foundations for what was to follow.

In reality Google+ is both a network and a social layer combined but it is early days and the latter element still needs a lot of work in order to be the game changer that it has potential to become.

It also surprises me that Google have not opted to wrap all links with the goo.gl URL shortener in order to gather even more stats but they seem to be doing well with the +1 button so maybe this isn’t needed.

Twitter

2011 has seen a lot of change at Twitter from personnel changes and reports of staff unrest to the recent #newnewtwitter redesign.

The company has been on the defensive and fighting battles to regain control over its ecosystem to the point where it was virtually forced to buy TweetDeck to prevent UberMedia acquiring it and having too much power.

There have been calls for Twitter to extend beyond 140 characters and provide ever more complex functionality (I even proposed an idea for channels) but as I also said back in February:

“The joy of Twitter is in its simplicity and this is what resonates with the public.”

Twitter agreed and sought to simplify and unify the experience across all platforms with its latest look. While #newnewtwitter may not have been universally acclaimed – some even accuse it of just being a case of the emperor’s new clothes – it did at least unify the different points of access for the first time.

Identity

The launch of Google+ ignited a huge debate over the role of identity in the social web. Google’s insistence on a real name policy was a major flash point and led to what is known as the “nymwars” (from pseudonym).

There was a massive problem with the public perception of Google+ with many treating it as though it were just another social network but, due to the social layer, it is also an identity service. In order for Plus to be taken seriously as an identity service then there needed to be one key ingredient: trust. Without being able to trust a service there is no way people or third-party companies are going to recognize it, a rigidly enforced real names policy, therefore, became a necessary factor in establishing this.

Google has three levels of authentication: anonymous, pseudonymous and authenticated and the problem is that different apps across their stable employ these three levels with no cohesion or consistency. While Google had said that Plus will support pseudonymous authentication in future the hardest task Google will have in 2012 will be finding a way to successfully link Plus with the various other services via the social layer whilst retaining current levels of privacy – an undertaking of Herculean proportions.

Facebook

After the launch of Google+ we started to see a number of changes which many argued were a response to the Google threat but nothing could have been further from the truth. While the timescale for some minor changes may have been brought forward they were, in fact, just setting the scene for the big ones to follow.

Changes to the news feed, the ticker, timelines and the extensions to the open graph are all massive undertakings and will have been in the planning stages for some time rather than cobbled together in response to any perceived threat from Google+.

Facebook has continued to push the boundaries with regards how far social can intrude on our lives and what we will share with others even though Frictionless sharing is not a sure-fire hit with everyone.

The problem Facebook has is also its strength. The company is very much the vision of Zuckerberg who knows exactly where he wants to travel on social path it’s just that a lot of us riding his bus wanted to be dropped off a couple of stops ago. Designing a product to achieve the goals of an individual is sometimes dangerous and can backfire when the public doesn’t agree. Still, perhaps it is better to push the envelope and make some mistakes than to not try at all; someone has to take a leap of faith for things to progress. At least Facebook, and Zuckerberg specifically, put their hands up and admit when they are wrong.

Location, location, location

This year saw the first steps in a transition away from the traditional check-in as the means to use location in social. Facebook announced it was moving away from the check-in and instead tying location into everything it does, every status update. Google+ allows for the same thing from the application on mobile.

A check-in on its own is very limited - location really provides value when it has additional context so enabling users to post updates with multiple types of information is now a must in order to succeed.

Facebook further signalled its intent with the talent acquisition of Gowalla (which is shutting down) in an attempt to utilise the synergies between the location startup and the new concept for Facebook Places.

The journey continues

I have already outlined a few ideas of what could happen in 2012 (perhaps they are more of a wish list than actual predictions) but, beyond staying the virtually obvious, it is almost impossible to predict what comes next in social as the rate of change is extraordinary.

As always, I look forward to the journey even if I don’t know where I’m going.

Why not discuss the original version of this post over at Google+

Image by jaxxon

True to their word they have released a slew of new features for the holidays including the much touted fine-grained controls to manage your Stream.

Facebook manages your feed for you; it shows you what it thinks is important based, in part, on whose posts you interact with and the popularity of content such as multiple friends listening to the same song on Spotify.

Plus’ “Circle equalizer” lets us place a weighting on each of our Circles and is intended to put control in the hands of the user rather than the algorithm.

It has been suggested that organising our feeds using algorithms causes casual acquaintances – who may not interact frequently – to lose touch as their items are relegated within the feed; Google’s system of allowing us to assign a priority to each circle aims to solve this problem.

The argument is that you may not +1 or comment on all items from a particular group (such as family members) but you don’t want their posts to drift off into obscurity. A higher weighting on their Circle will ensure that those items will be prevalent in your stream.

Contradiction

Users have been clamouring for ways to organise and filter the Plus stream but does applying a weighting actually indicate that people aren’t using Circles correctly or, perhaps even, at all?

We were sold Circles as a revelation in online sharing and organisation: why have everyone lumped in together when you can easily divide them into groups by relationship, topic, location and then work with those groups accordingly.

Circles enable us to consume content from these specific groups and target them effectively so that the right content is shared with the right people. Don’t want to miss a post from a close friend or family member? Put them in a specific circle and view it on its own.

It is good to be able to manage your stream but, by enabling us to assign priorities to specific Circles, is Google admitting that people are only viewing their primary Stream? Have Circles not been the resounding success we expected?

Lists

Lists never caught on at Twitter and have now been virtually relegated to the feature graveyard. Facebook groups were also slow to gain traction, partly because they were tucked away within the depths of the interface, until their recent reinvention with smart lists.

Circles are designed as the ultimate list but – with Google needing users to populate Plus with content – the emphasis is very much on sharing rather than consumption.

Has our time spent on “linear” social networks caused us to become so conditioned to having a single timeline? Has the Circles experiment failed to convert us to thinking in groups?

Redundant?

Fine tuning the Stream has been universally praised but I can’t help but feel it flies contrary to the very reason Circles were employed.

If we are using our Circles as intended then the focus of stream organisation should surely be on filtering out that which we don’t want to see rather than trying to catch that which we do.

Why not discuss this post on Google+?

Image by Wysz

Some of my posts are already partly predictive in nature as I will, from time to time, outline what I think could/should happen with regards to certain services. Sometimes I’m right, sometimes I’m wide of the mark but, even when wrong, I believe the thought process and discussion the idea creates is just as valuable.

So let’s have a look:

Twitter

I have already suggested that the new #discover tab will iterate relatively quickly in order to better facilitate the discovery of content and people – it is all an extension of “follow your interests” that was introduced with the last redesign, #newtwitter. So, where it is heading?

1. Twitter is seeking to convert consumer into producers so must get them tweeting. The #discover tab is the ideal opportunity so will surely make it easier to respond to a “topic” rather than individual people or tweets. I envisage normal tweeting functionality (replies, retweets, etc.) Will appear more prominently on content within the #discover tab.
2. Personalisation has been an increasing trend in 2011 and with Facebook continually tweaking their algorithms to display more relevant content in the news feed looks set to be here to stay. I do not doubt that Twitter will introduce behavioural analytics of their own so that #discover can filter information for us. We will, therefore, be provided with a selection of relevant content based on our interests as well as the “popular” items we already receive.
3. Twitter keeps joining force with new partners (the latest being WordPress) to enable the display of external content inline within the stream. I suggest there is the possibility that #discover could evolve into a more Flipboard style UI containing embedded media (rather than just links) making “commenting” more obvious, instant and simple.

Google+

Google+ will obviously continue to slowly seep into all aspects of the Google ecosystem but in order to be taken seriously the “social layer” must get greater exposure and emphasis.

There must be a move to enable interaction in situ at the source service instead of needing to jump back to Plus. Comments will become bidirectional – syncing and appearing at both the source and the stream regardless of where they are made.

Only then will it be truly a social layer and not just a collection of, exceedingly functional, share buttons.

The social web

I can’t help but think that the social web will become less network dependent over the next year. The existence of tools like engag.io will take us away from relying on specific social networks per se - instead we will just connect to people regardless of where they are and what the method.

A perfect illustration of this in an early form is Apple’s iMessage: one application which chooses the most appropriate method of connection for the particular contact.

It is, perhaps, a bold statement but the “unified social inbox” will become a big part of how we work.

Over to you

What features do you feel will help to shape the social landscape in the next 12 months?

Why not discuss this post at Google+?

Image by shaza mahmoud1

Last week, Twitter came good on the promise to simplify and unify the service by providing a re-imagining of the interface across the various points of access.

The new design incorporates features we have seen before, but sometimes only as part of a restricted test, which aim to improve the flow of information. The concept of specific aspects to the site (Home, Connect, Discover, Me) is obviously designed to help us know which interactions happen where thus making it easier to keep track of our activity.

Consistency

As I wrote in October, the aim of the redesigned features seemed to target making the interface more consistent:

“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.

This aim has largely been achieved and can surely be intended, in some part, to negate the need for third-party clients thus increasing Twitter’s control over the ecosystem.

It was only a matter of time but the mobile applications have followed the main site in changing the default media upload service to Twitter’s own. You are graciously warned of this when upgrading – no doubt to avoid criticisms of options changing without our knowledge or consent – but how many users will actually take the time to change it back to their previously preferred service? This could be a bad time for the likes of TwitPic and yfrog.

Discovery

As Dave Winer mentions much of the new site is a largely cosmetic affair which re-uses elements from before. He argues that the tech press has been sucked in by Twitter’s smoke and mirrors and that none have explained how the new look actually helps and makes life simpler.

I believe we should be looking at the potential and that this is a first step in a new approach linking users to both information and other users. Unifying the points of access creates an element of simplicity in itself; identical behaviour means we are not wasting time on locating features.

With regards to discovery we have shared items presented as stories: social objects (no doubt taken from popular links) which combine the item itself with tweets from relevant users discussing that content – a dual purpose enabling us to widen our scope rather than staying within the safety of our streams.

Back in April I said that it is “widely accepted that Twitter is not for everyone but this may be a limitation of the timeline format. Perhaps it is time for a bit of a shakeup” - the new view on the #discovery tab would appear to be the first step in doing just this. Presenting links as stories also re-emphasises that Twitter is positioning itself as an information network rather than a social one much like how Facebook treats the news feed.

Identity crisis?

It is quite interesting to see how things have developed over time. Twitter was the original simple status update service, known and referred to by all as a social network; its whole raison d’être was to post tweets. Then something changed.

Twitter decided it was not a social network and, in doing so, recognised the need for easier information discovery by those who only consumed without submitting any tweets of their own.

Ryan Sarver, Director of Platform, stated at the LeWeb conference that #discover will be “one of the main features of Twitter and one of the main areas Twitter as a company will focus on in the next year or so.”

At the same time, however, the company is looking at transitioning users from consuming content to actually posting status updates. As I said before, a logged-in tweeting user is of much greater value; just as with any social network, Twitter relies on user-generated content. Currently a small percentage of users generate the lion’s share of tweets but, in order to be both more effective and attractive as an advertising platform, the network needs more users actively engaged so that they can be better targeted.

We are, therefore, coming full circle with Twitter needing to get us back in the habit of actually tweeting.

A new approach

By placing an emphasis on content over people Twitter is making moves in a new direction which could encourage users to tweet and I feel that we will see the #discover tab iterate relatively quickly to facilitate this.

As social objects are intended to get us talking one possible avenue would be to give users the opportunity to “have their say”. Enabling people to comment on stories rather than reply to individual users or tweets Twitter may be able to kick-start the transition from being just consumers.

Perhaps, by couching tweets as replies to the topic, users may feel more comfortable and willing to contribute.

How far can Twitter travel this path whilst retaining the simplicity it desires?

Why not discuss this post at Google+?

Image by d!zzy

The move from Facebook Places to built-in location being attached to every status heralded a very definite change in direction as far as the use of location was concerned.

I wrote back in August that the transition away from traditional check-ins was potentially huge and that the likes of Foursquare and Gowalla should be concerned rather than celebrate.

Now that the players in the market for traditional check-ins is going to be minus a service perhaps it is time to be more worried than ever.

Context is key

It is interesting to read Josh Williams’ comments on the Gowalla blog that the service was formed after a realisation that he wanted to share a moment by more than just a text message or status update, but by something with a bit of weight behind it, i.e some meaningful context.

A check-in on its own is an isolated experience without context and I argued that Facebook’s move to integrate location was a way for everyone to provide the context required to make it more meaningful.

The acquisition of Gowalla’s talent should serve to take this concept much further. While the user base and technology are not part of the deal there is no doubt that a lot of what makes Gowalla will find a new home within Facebook’s walls; just look at the influence FriendFeed had on the news feed after being purchased.

Better facility within a status update to link content to a location (what I referred to as multi-purpose posts) will sit perfectly with the Timeline once it is finally launched.

The Timeline itself is designed as a history of who you are and what you have done so adding where you did it us a perfect extension of the principal.

Expertise

Location has gone slightly by the wayside while the rest of the recent changes have been, quite justifiably, taking centre stage. Places still exist but are currently in a state of limbo with confused functionality around their creation and use (especially for brands) that the help files don’t assist in making any clearer.

Considering the timescales involved (as mentioned in Josh’s post) it would seem that Facebook always had plans for location but maybe had neither the time nor expertise to build what was required. The apparent similarity between Josh’s description of Gowalla and the vision of location within Facebook make the two a perfect fit.

Our digital scrapbook

After revealing the Timeline at F8 Facebook’s failure to launch has come in for some criticism and comment. An apparent “softly, softly” approach combined with some concerns over privacy seemed to be the cause but could Facebook also have been waiting for confirmation that a location aspect inspired by the Gowalla acquisition would become a reality?

Irrespective of this, the court case with site timelines.com, which alleges that the launch of the timeline feature will destroy its business, means that we are unlikely to see a launch for some time to come. It, therefore, remains to be seen if the impact of the Gowalla talent acquisition is felt separately or if we will have to wait for the arrival of Timelines whatever they may become.

Why not discuss this post on Google+?