Google Communities: Now, That's More Like It

   If you are among the few who have read my first posting about Google+, you are aware with how unimpressed I was with it. I am not really concerned with the opinions of celebrities, even if they are the most generic and upbeat messages. I don't care to follow or +1 any businesses as I consider it a lazy way of telling them that I enjoy their products (to the various companies with pages, I support your products with my money, asking for them by name if necessary). The suggested "interesting" people were just not posting anything remotely interesting to me. Then I got informed (I think it was probably an email or post from Google) that Google+ had new "communities" to explore.
   At first, the suggestions were the same safe, bland topics that I was dreading seeing whenever I went "exploring". However, when I realized that I could search for communities that matched my interests, well, that made all the difference. This is also why I am only checking in at Facebook, not really actively doing much while I am there.
   FB keeps suggesting "friends" (I have 1 so far, my choice), some are friends of a friend and others...I don't where they get them. Perhaps it's because of my "friending" (I certainly don't do enough to create the impression that these "friends" imply however exciting they seem to be) or maybe it is my activity on here and other websites that does it. It matters not at this time, because I haven't quite decided just what in the world I could post that would be interesting and I just don't know these people well enough to embarrass myself and subject them to the fact that I read yet another newspaper article.
   But, back at Google+, I found it easy to find a few communities that might match my tastes. That's when the algorithms kicked in and started telling me about even more that might be worth joining. Although they are all new, some have really picked up steam and are filled with postings. Stuff I want to read and comment on or even add a post to myself. I am certainly glad that I did not know about my Google+ account until recently, because if I had started back in '11, I would have never come back after the first few looks.
   As to the writer who commented about posts suddenly vanishing, track down those "missing in action" from your circles and find out where they went and tell them that you miss them. Or change your settings and get your stream in a different way. Sure, it's changed from the way you were used to it appearing, but change is always happening and I think that this is for the better.
   If you haven't looked into the communities yet, just type in a few of your own ideas for groups to search for and I am sure that you will find something interesting. Some are invitation only, but most will allow you to look at the stream and get an idea of what that is going on in the same way that you can look at someone's public postings.
   I am not "rah-rahhing" Google+ (their own postings seem to be a little too much like commercials for my tastes), but it does seem to finally have a reason for me to actually use the site. If you have felt like that too, explore and you might have your mind changed like I did.

Facebook, I Don't Play Video Games

   Facebook wants me to play a game. They really do. Any game. They keep suggesting games for me to play even though I click them off the screen, they keep coming back like whack-a-moles.
   I don't like to play video games, they are really repetitive. Even though plenty of them have all kinds of side adventures to engage in to keep you playing longer, they are just basically the same few storylines endlessly recycled that all boil down to quest stories. And I don't like quest stories (never read LOTR, never will; took everything in me to see the movies; did it because of all the great reviews; they were right; not reading it, ever).
   What is it about the games? Do they get money for suggesting them? Are they really ads? Do people just spend a lot of time playing games on Facebook and this is always a newbie suggestion?
   Outside of searching for friends endlessly, there isn't that much actually on Facebook, it's all apps. And if you don't add some apps, and you don't have friends right away, there is nothing to do on Facebook.
   Except maybe to play a game. Hmm.

Google: You May Want Me to Have It All, But I Don't Want All of It

   I am fairly pleased with the Google products I have been using so far. But I have one big complaint: I can't opt out of the products that I don't want. All of these products became activated when I clicked on the name on the tool bar (or More setting). My dashboard is filled with stuff I don't need: calendar, play, talk, voice, etc. I had clicked on these hoping to get some introductory information before signing up for the product. Instead, I have a bunch of useless (to me) products that I can't disconnect. It is really annoying because I had to go in and change each of the individual settings on some of these to privatize them because, as usual, Google's default settings are always public. That's fine if you are in sharing mood (like Google+), but not so fine if you you don't care to share. I stopped clicking a little too late, but my lesson is learned: Google the info before you click.

   BTW: if anyone knows how to get rid of unwanted add-ons, I would appreciate the help, especially with the calendar.

YouTube Is My Friend

   I love YouTube. I really do. Oh, it has its faults, but far more than any other social media, this is my favorite. But why? you say. I'll tell you.
   YouTube is the only social media that doesn't require you to be social.
   On YouTube, you can browse and search and watch to your hearts content, and though you will leave a trace if you watch, you can block your feed (the record of what you do) from everyone else. There are also only two options for your uploads and playlists: public or private. You can share your channel address with whom you like and they can watch the private uploads/playlists, but the public is closed to it.
   There is a lot of material available, from homemade to professional, webcams to complete theatrical releases. Of course, there are lots of copyright violations, too.
   Lots of people are uploading movies, TV shows, music videos and audio recordings that are illegal, but it is this material that I like to watch more than any other because it is a chance to watch stuff that has no official version in print or ever released at all in any format (videotape, Laserdisc, DVD). I've had a chance to finally see some things that I've been waiting a long time to see. The downside is that if you don't watch it quickly, it may be removed, either by the channel owner or YouTube itself including removing the entire channel, too.
   Of course, not all is under threat of copyright violation.
   Type in a subject and a list comes up of videos, sometimes hundreds, all homemade. The usual suspects are there: America's Funniest Home Videos-style humor, webcam video blogs, vacations and family documentation. But also movie, TV and game reviews, school projects and displays of talent, great and poor.
   Lots of professional videos are uploaded like the Funny or Die and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, an award-winning series of videos. News items are also uploaded and even live-streamed, such as the just-past presidential debates. Just about every broadcast and cable channel has a YouTube channel with often exclusive material available only online. Of course, that is only a supplement to their actual owned websites. Lots a companies do the same: Marvel has a weekly showcase for upcoming projects called the Watcher that has its own host. They also post trailers for projects and even older TV shows that you can compile for yourself.
   Even the movie companies are posting fee-based entries as movie rental downloads (haven't done one of those yet, still lots to see for free).
   There are browsing choices based on channels, topics and trends, such as popularity.
   There are all kinds of developer tools to help spread/advertise your videos.
   If you are video-oriented, this is the place to be.
   Are there negatives involving YouTube? Yes there are.
   The biggest, I feel, is in the playback itself. The controls are really old school. No speed control. No reverse control. No frame by frame. No ability to enter a specific time to jump ahead. Sure, you can arrow around on the timeline, but the control depends on your controller. I use a laptop with a built-in touch pad and I am still not its master 100%, so sometimes a short video will end before I can find my spot on the line.
   I don't like all of the ads that appear on screen. There is a telltale yellow to indicate when the popups will start, but others just start when the video connection is made. Luckily, mute is always an option when you can't skip it.
   The algorithms that make the side recommendations could really use some tweaking. If I just watched a video, there it is wasting valuable space that could be offering something else. And if I have a video already in a playlist, why does it not get knocked out of the recommends, too? Perhaps it is a function of protecting our privacy, but it sure is annoying to page down a list and find nothing but videos you previously compiled.
   Finally, this is one of the few social media sites that lets you hide your identity from the public. It's just that so many of the names are silly or nonsensical. I know, a quibble, really, but still too many that don't explain your channel or video choices. And sometimes the likes and favorites are at odds with what is uploaded. Keep with a theme, folks.
   In conclusion, YouTube is the best out there even if it could be better in some ways.

Twitter, the Social Media Baby

   Twitter is the baby of social media, not in that it is the youngest (don't know that answer), but in that it is the cute one that everybody talks about and shows off the latest thing that it's done. It is also the one that is most likely to say #@*%! in front of company.

   Twitter seems to be the most trimmed down social expression that we currently have: it appears that it is just posts with or without photos, very abbreviated near to the point of needing a code breaker to understand what is being said.

   It's spontaneous and proven itself when crises have arisen as a fast way to get information across quickly to many people at once.

   It is also prone to snap judgments, misinformation and foot-in-mouth disease.

   Gilbert Gottfried lost his job with Aflac for making a joke about the Japanese tsunami. Donald Trump had to backpedal and delete a series of posts after the recent election. Kim Kardashian said something rude...again.

   This is one social media I will not touch. Besides a few clever people who make a point of writing funny or smart posts on a regular basis, very few have much to really say that is at all interesting. I've read plenty on the dullness of some celebrity posts and witlessness of other, unknown posters (yes, I, too, am moving to the Australia where the president is a christian. I often visit alternate Earths).

   If you think you are smart, interesting, funny, witty or clever, you probably aren't. 'Cause we read your Twitter feed and can tell you otherwise.

   If you think that people shouldn't miss a moment of your life, you are wrong. That you just bought a latte or dropped off your dry cleaning is far, far away from interesting.

   So, keep posting your feeds, squealing when HE tells you that he ate a cookie and scratching your head when someone says "undrstd M. M 4vr!" Not me, I own a front loading washer and the sock show is coming up soon.

Google+ is the Jan Brady of Social Media

   Ok, maybe a not very original assessment, but an apt one nonetheless. I got Google+ a while back when I first signed on to Google. I really wasn't aware that a page existed with my name on it until very recently. I was a bit alarmed because I like my privacy. But I found that if I cancel my account, it could disrupt my Google services, like YouTube. Quite annoying, that prospect. So, I looked at what they have to offer.
   This is where my analogy comes into play. When looking over the "interesting" people and such, uh, they really weren't. It's like that misnomer of a title, "Dancing With the Stars". B-listers and wannabes aren't what I would consider stars. Same goes with the choices on Google+. Yes, they have Lady Gaga, but the rest? Far dimmer than her light (well, George Takai is funny). So goes with Jan Brady. Outshone by the accomplishments of her older sister (Facebook), and not as cute as her little sister (Twitter), Jan must resign herself to being overshadowed at times and learn she has her own talents. Which in Google+'s case are not very much.
   The various suggested posts are not very interesting, mainly a couple of lines followed by a picture. Lots of nice, safe, bland entries. I don't know what their reasons are for supposing these to be the best entries, but far from exciting, rather like enduring Aunt Verna and Uncle Milton's vacation slides to the self-pick apple orchard. A few photos would suffice, but how many rolls did you take?
   I must admit, it seems fairly easy to understand and use, if I find a use for it. The settings pages are visually clear, as are the directions. The incessant use of the word "circles" can drive you nuts, though. Perhaps I shall put those I want to share with in an oval or octagon ( I must be me).
   Post a photo and you have an automatic Picassa account with your photos reproduced in albums just like your Google+ entries. No option in, just done for you. I guess that it can be a nice way of getting separate access to your photos without all of the bother of having to collect them yourself, but now you have to go and fiddle with all of that site's settings (also, clear and easy to understand, but redundant if you first set up your Google+ page).
   I've seen that advertisement where the dad and daughter who are now two alone (can you say depressing?), keep in contact using the chat aspects that are available, which seems like the old-fashioned picturephone has returned to life. Could be nice, if I had someone to chat with who also had Google+. But that seems unlikely, given how Facebook is far and away more popular.
   The +1 stuff just seems too...familiar. An outright steal, if you will, of Facebook's "liking" buttons. I'm sorry, but no matter how many +1's something gets, it's not going to sway me to be interested enough to look, let alone +1 it myself. Apparently, your +1's post to your page so that you can keep track what your preferences are and that others may see them, too (if you allow it). I have yet to find much of anything that gets me that excited on the internet. And, I have a pretty good memory for what I like, too. I guess it is the "sharing" part I don't understand. A sort of lazy advice that goes out to whomever you wish no matter how many, without much personalization to it ("Hey, everybody! Guess what I "Like"?) Some people "like" creamed corn and others "like" denigrating judges on TV, but I will pass, thank you.
   There seems to be some more sophisticated apps for use with Google+, but as I am a bit of a neophyte at all of this, I'll take their word for it and hope they are having a good time doing it.
   I'm sure if I look hard enough, I can find someone with interests that match mine and we can post or even chat about them, but until I take up this more proactive stance, I'll just say that Google+ is a bit of a bore just as it presents itself.