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.
No comments:
Post a Comment