Google+ could have been something. In fact, it was gonna be a big thing. When it was launched for testing in June of 2011, the hype was epic. Everyone was trying to figure out how to get an invite to the limited release. Google+ was finally supposed to be a legitimate challenger to Facebook.
And now, this. By all accounts, Google+ has struggled somewhat since its release. Actually quantifying how many people use Google+ is (admittedly) difficult to do, but most sources agree that Google's fledgling social network is clearly way behind to the almighty Facebook. Some reports say that Google+ has over 400 million registered users compared to Facebook's 900 million registered users, not bad for a relatively young service. However, according to Nielsen, the average social media user spends about 6 minutes 47 seconds on Google+ monthly, compared to 6 hours 44 minutes on Facebook. In general, Facebook dominates Google+ in every meaningful category measured by analysts.
So what's the problem? Google+ is actually a very well designed website, has a very good mobile app and features a cool 'Hangout' feature which allows where a maximum of 10 people can video chat. Using Google+ is generally a very similar experience to using Facebook. Plus, surfing Google+ is a nearly ad-free experience, as Google (unlike Facebook) doesn't rely on ads to stay operating (although they have been hinted at in the future).
If we had to pick one design problem, its probably the way Google+ organizes its users. Google+ organizes your connections in 'Circles' for different groups of friends, as opposed to one giant 'friends list.' Instead of just adding someone as a 'friend,' you drag and drop folks into handy groupings like 'close friends,' 'family,' 'coworkers,' etc. so you can control the content of one's 'Stream' (IE Newsfeed). Unlike Facebook, just because you add someone to one of your circles doesn't mean they have to add or reject your request. This system simulates, to an extent, actual shifting friend groups.
But socializing online is often not actually about fluid interaction that mimics real life socializing. Sure, everyone uses Facebook to stay updated with close companions, but most of what's on people's Facebook news feeds at any given time isn't from good friends at all. When you become friends with a stranger on Facebook, you will (bar manually changing some privacy settings or blocking them from your feed) see as much from them as you would your best friend.
Facebook works a lot like a high school yearbook. Both are somewhat arbitrary: with a little effort, we could remember and keep up with our closer friends without them. But some part of us wants to see (or in Facebook's case, check up on) what's going on with our grade school crush, our middle school dance partner and that random cute dude from that one party. Just like how a yearbook has photos of everyone, Facebook's equalizing friend system allows us to check in with (okay, stalk) random people you barely know but are Facebook friends with just as much as people you actually know well. Wrapped into Google+'s design is simulation of smaller social circles, which, while cleaner and perhaps more sensible, just doesn't allow the same (incredibly popular) user experience as Facebook. I mean, isn't it a more cool feeling to get a like or comment on a post from someone you don't know as well compared to a good friend who always likes your posts?
Taking a step back, though, a number of other popular social media sites have grouping systems and allow following without being followed back, but still garner plenty of Internet traffic. In these cases, however, these designs choices function well because they work with these network's niches. Twitter, for instance, is used by many as a news source, and you will get your news from the Huffington Post or NPR's Twitter whether or not they follow your Twitter back (which, chances are, they do not.) Similarly, on Instagram and Tumblr many people have accounts to follow people but seldom post themselves, because these sites are more centered on following than posting. Contrarily, Facebook and Google+ rely on two-way interactions: that's why Facebook has so many ways to interact with other people's content (like, comment, share, like someone's comment, comment with a photo, etc.)
A larger problem with Google+ is that it doesn't really fit in the spectrum of Internet networks. There's Instagram and Flickr for pictures, Twitter for microblogging, LinkedIn for business (or so my Mom tells me), Tumblr for memes and artsy stuff, and Pinterest for... well, actually I have no idea what Pinterest is for. The point is, the internet is so inundated with niche social networks that even Facebook is beginning to seem redundant, leaving little room for a second, all-encompassing, Facebook-esque site like Google+.
For now, Facebook is the king of the social media land and looks to remain so unless Facebook itself trips up. With the entire Google empire behind it, Google+ won't be going anywhere anytime soon, but right now it still seems to have this sort of vibe surrounding it.
Tidak ada komentar :
Posting Komentar