The post-Google+ world: A Facebook Developer’s Perspective

Where is the +1 button on this site? Nice read.

I’m very interested to see how much they open up Google+ to 3rd party apps. I don’t want to be attacked by neighbors pigs in Farmville on Google+. Honestly! 3rd party apps kind of made me block most people who used them on FB.    What I do want, is the ability to add interesting business and B2C apps in the Hangout feature. I see a lot of room for an interesting and easy collaborative experience from within that feature. 

Good stuff.  Happy to find your blog. 

Where is the +1 button on this site? Nice read.

I’m very interested to see how much they open up Google+ to 3rd party apps. I don’t want to be attacked by neighbors pigs in Farmville on Google+. Honestly! 3rd party apps kind of made me block most people who used them on FB.    What I do want, is the ability to add interesting business and B2C apps in the Hangout feature. I see a lot of room for an interesting and easy collaborative experience from within that feature. 

Good stuff.  Happy to find your blog. 

I’ll be honest; I’m really, really hoping they don’t open up Google+ to apps as well.  I completely agree with cojackso.  I don’t want to know about your Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc.  I’m on Facebook to keep up with my friend’s lives.  I’ve heard a lot of talk from other G+ users (and I agree) about using Facebook strictly for games, and G+ for real networking.  

Good thoughts, though.  Hope Facebook treats you guys better!

I’ll be honest; I’m really, really hoping they don’t open up Google+ to apps as well.  I completely agree with cojackso.  I don’t want to know about your Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc.  I’m on Facebook to keep up with my friend’s lives.  I’ve heard a lot of talk from other G+ users (and I agree) about using Facebook strictly for games, and G+ for real networking.  

Good thoughts, though.  Hope Facebook treats you guys better!

Due to the lack of niche distribution on Facebook, the apps that have become popular are these “low brow” sort of things like “My BFFs”, farm games, dating, etc… A lot of people have been left out, and are annoyed by social apps on Facebook. Lets hope Hangouts/Circles make things different.

Due to the lack of niche distribution on Facebook, the apps that have become popular are these “low brow” sort of things like “My BFFs”, farm games, dating, etc… A lot of people have been left out, and are annoyed by social apps on Facebook. Lets hope Hangouts/Circles make things different.

> “The big question is if Google+ will be able to spread content from Circle to Circle?”

Sure. For one thing, you can put any given G+ user into as many Circles as you like…just place them in one Circle, then drag their avatar into any other Circle. Repeat as needed.

And I’m told Google plans to add more such editorial tools, at or near the public rollout. The stuff they’re planning for business profiles should prove especially interesting to devs.

My G+ profile:
https://plus.google.com/108294644843012118879

> “The big question is if Google+ will be able to spread content from Circle to Circle?”

Sure. For one thing, you can put any given G+ user into as many Circles as you like…just place them in one Circle, then drag their avatar into any other Circle. Repeat as needed.

And I’m told Google plans to add more such editorial tools, at or near the public rollout. The stuff they’re planning for business profiles should prove especially interesting to devs.

My G+ profile:
https://plus.google.com/108294644843012118879

Ha!

I was just going to say the same.

Ha!

I was just going to say the same.

Noted and done!

Noted and done!

Nice post! It’s hard to say if Google+ is going to get their platform right — looking back at their last attempts, OpenSocial specifically, causes me to not have high hopes.

It’s pretty easy to get niche distribution with the Facebook Platform (Circle of Moms?). As a developer you can surface groups of friends of the logged in user based on simple FQL searches and ask the user to share with these friends. (eg: find all friends who have children and have been tagged in photos of the logged in user)

Nice post! It’s hard to say if Google+ is going to get their platform right — looking back at their last attempts, OpenSocial specifically, causes me to not have high hopes.

It’s pretty easy to get niche distribution with the Facebook Platform (Circle of Moms?). As a developer you can surface groups of friends of the logged in user based on simple FQL searches and ask the user to share with these friends. (eg: find all friends who have children and have been tagged in photos of the logged in user)

Facebook is a massive walled garden in the finest tradition of AOL.  Garden walls grow very nice flora, but the fauna, almost immediately, begins digging out.

Facebook is a massive walled garden in the finest tradition of AOL.  Garden walls grow very nice flora, but the fauna, almost immediately, begins digging out.

Agreed, it is definitely not a guarantee that Google will get the platform right.

WRT niche distribution. Circle of Moms is a good example, but I think it is more an exception than the rule. Interest/niche based connections aren’t something that have been defined well on Facebook, and user aren’t expecting to receive interest/niche content via Facebook channels. Motherhood is highly emotional, fairly common, and defined via Facebook demographic data.

The new developments with the Send Button and Groups should allow for more niche distribution, but will these features feel tacked on while the primary user behavior of FB remains simple emotional content?

I don’t particularly care which service figures out niche distribution first, but I do know there are a lot of businesses waiting for it to happen.

Soooo let me rephrase:

#1 ” I’m going to go with the platform that allows me to be the most ‘spammy’? “  This is exactly why I stopped using Facebook.

#2 ” I’m unhappy about not being able to leach more data/send spam? ” And this is why I don’t use social services, I don’t trust Facebook to protect my interests from that of developers.

#3 Nothing snarky to say here, this point is spot on.

Agreed, it is definitely not a guarantee that Google will get the platform right.

WRT niche distribution. Circle of Moms is a good example, but I think it is more an exception than the rule. Interest/niche based connections aren’t something that have been defined well on Facebook, and users aren’t expecting to receive interest/niche content via Facebook channels. Motherhood is highly emotional, fairly common, and defined via Facebook demographic data.

The new developments with the Send Button and Groups should allow for more niche distribution, but will these features feel tacked on while the primary user behavior of FB remains simple emotional content?

I don’t particularly care which service figures out niche distribution first, but I do know there are a lot of businesses waiting for it to happen.

Soooo let me rephrase:

#1 ” I’m going to go with the platform that allows me to be the most ‘spammy’? “  This is exactly why I stopped using Facebook.

#2 ” I’m unhappy about not being able to leach more data/send spam? ” And this is why I don’t use social services, I don’t trust Facebook to protect my interests from that of developers.

#3 Nothing snarky to say here, this point is spot on.

I’d say there are two types of spam on Facebook:

#1 Communications created by misleading apps that actually violate Facebook Platform Policy and overly noisy Facebook communication channels
examples: daily posting apps, passive publishing, app notifications (no longer exist)

#2 Communications that are more compelling to a user than to their friends.
examples: Farmville requests, “Please support my Cause” requests

The first should not exist, and I hope Facebook spam controls will fight against this type spam. It lowers respect and trust of Facebook and the Facebook platform. 

The second should not exist, but it is a problem of the architecture of a social network as I describe in the 3rd point.

I’d say there are two types of spam on Facebook:

#1 Communications created by misleading apps that actually violate Facebook Platform Policy and overly noisy Facebook communication channels
examples: daily posting apps, passive publishing, app notifications (no longer exist)

#2 Communications that are more compelling to a user than to their friends.
examples: Farmville requests, “Please support my Cause” requests

The first should not exist, and I hope Facebook spam controls will fight against this type spam. It lowers respect and trust of Facebook and the Facebook platform. 

The second should not exist, but it is a problem of the architecture of a social network as I describe in the 3rd point.

PLEASE SEND ME AN INVITE!!!! I HATE FACEBOOK nameshock (@) gmail

PLEASE SEND ME AN INVITE!!!! I HATE FACEBOOK nameshock (@) gmail

bonjour et bienvenu bonne soirée

bonjour et bienvenu bonne soirée

The ability to re-share items with your own circles is, I think, exactly what makes niche sharing so powerful. You share something about Tennis, and I’m in your tennis circle. I find it interesting, so I’ll re-share it with my tennis circle, because it’s very likely we won’t have exactly the same circles. 

A personal example of this would be LGBT related news; since I have friends in that community from my teenage years until now, there’s very little overlap between my circle and that of a friend from a local community group I just joined.

The ability to re-share items with your own circles is, I think, exactly what makes niche sharing so powerful. You share something about Tennis, and I’m in your tennis circle. I find it interesting, so I’ll re-share it with my tennis circle, because it’s very likely we won’t have exactly the same circles. 

A personal example of this would be LGBT related news; since I have friends in that community from my teenage years until now, there’s very little overlap between my circle and that of a friend from a local community group I just joined.

I don’t mind if they open it up. The beauty of circles is that I don’t have to put people in my circles who play those games, and even if I do, I’m sure there will be ways to block “app notifications” based on category. Google is very, very good when it comes to that kind of thing (see: Gmail). 

I don’t mind if they open it up. The beauty of circles is that I don’t have to put people in my circles who play those games, and even if I do, I’m sure there will be ways to block “app notifications” based on category. Google is very, very good when it comes to that kind of thing (see: Gmail). 

nearly as many +1′s s Shares…interesting…

nearly as many +1′s s Shares…interesting…

I hope you stay on Facebook and your business die out. I don’t need no virus to infect me. My biggest annoyance with Facebook is being unable to just block all apps from @$%!&#ers like you.

Yeah, ‘viral’ is great for you in terms of program distribution, I guess.  For me, as a user, less-viral is a GOOD thing.

Yeah, ‘viral’ is great for you in terms of program distribution, I guess.  For me, as a user, less-viral is a GOOD thing.

[...] Chris Turitzinは、もし彼が [...]

All this…..and you don’t have a Google+ button on your posts. Add it so I can +1 this post!!!!

All this…..and you don’t have a Google+ button on your posts. Add it so I can +1 this post!!!!

It is there. 198 people have clicked it so far

It is there. 198 people have clicked it so far

Our newly launched social network platform, Tusulog, tries to solve distribution issue and others. Our intention is to find a balance betwen Twitter and Facebook. Social platform providers mostly go for presenting biggest audience and it seems like G+ does too. It’s valid, of course, but fundementally flawed that they’ll soon become hit-driven platforms supported by few but very big development houses. However, we think that when you empower small groups (and devs) with right tools you’ll have happier users and bigger number of developers earning money. One example: on our site a user can ReShare a content from one private group to another private group, but not to public. It’s natural and conscious distribution. Furthermore, when users have less posts on their feed and less distraction overall, they’ll become more perceptive to other messages.

We’ve just started and will release more features and, eventually, a dev platform. Finally, FYI, site may seem similar to G+ but it’s 4 months of work without knowing what what G+ was.
 

Our newly launched social network platform, Tusulog, tries to solve distribution issue and others. Our intention is to find a balance betwen Twitter and Facebook. Social platform providers mostly go for presenting biggest audience and it seems like G+ does too. It’s valid, of course, but fundementally flawed that they’ll soon become hit-driven platforms supported by few but very big development houses. However, we think that when you empower small groups (and devs) with right tools you’ll have happier users and bigger number of developers earning money. One example: on our site a user can ReShare a content from one private group to another private group, but not to public. It’s natural and conscious distribution. Furthermore, when users have less posts on their feed and less distraction overall, they’ll become more perceptive to other messages.

We’ve just started and will release more features and, eventually, a dev platform. Finally, FYI, site may seem similar to G+ but it’s 4 months of work without knowing what what G+ was.
 

[...] The post-Google+ world: A Facebook Developer’s Perspective : Momentus Media about social virality and niche distribution on social networks… (tags: plus google facebook social viral content online time) Posted by Ogo No Comments yet, your thoughts are welcome » [...]

Great post. It’s interesting to hear from a strictly social meda app developer about G+. Your observations about emotional, interest and professional resonance as each of the respective social platform’s niches is spot on. It appears the Google has recognized this too and is trying for an all-in grab for (at least initially) the first two.

I think what other commenters here fail to recognize (the ones who distrust anything that may be spammy or spreads virally) is that the difference between spam and ham (tasty communications), and between bad viral (the like-bait epidemic) and good viral (memes, undiscovered talent, social change, or anything else that catches you interest and causes you to delve deeper into something you might not have otherwise and are captivated enough to pass on) is the context of the passing. Who is sharing with you? What does it mean that they are sharing it with you? In the Facebook world there is only one context: the friend. In the Twitterverse they have the follow. You share too much useless stuff and my Bezian filter tunes you out. And eventually so does everyone else.

They have tried to provide more context with ‘Top News’ and lists and groups, but all of these feel tacked-on and like bandaids. G+ did it right by building the context of the relationship and therefore the inherent utility of the information into the distribution of the information. This provides a basis of categorization of utility. Take your tennis circle for example. Would you necessarily friend someone on Facebook who you interact with once a week in a very limited capacity? Probably not. Might you still like to connect with them regarding tennis-related things? For sure. You might follow them on Twitter because they talk about tennis-related themes. Do you want to have everything they share clogging up your Twitter timeline? Not likely. G+ has captured the essence of defining the granularity of social context that provides meaning to the noise.

What does this mean for developers? We can’t be sure until Google plays their cards. But knowing them, and their track record with the development community at large, it could be a very cool indeed to build something that interacts with G+. And I see huge bridges of trust being spanned between app publishers and end users because of this proliferation of context.

(By the way, sorry about the length of this comment. If it wasn’t so late, I might have split it off as its own post and sent it to you. Thanks for getting my thought-juices flowing though.)

Great post. It’s interesting to hear from a strictly social meda app developer about G+. Your observations about emotional, interest and professional resonance as each of the respective social platform’s niches is spot on. It appears the Google has recognized this too and is trying for an all-in grab for (at least initially) the first two.

I think what other commenters here fail to recognize (the ones who distrust anything that may be spammy or spreads virally) is that the difference between spam and ham (tasty communications), and between bad viral (the like-bait epidemic) and good viral (memes, undiscovered talent, social change, or anything else that catches you interest and causes you to delve deeper into something you might not have otherwise and are captivated enough to pass on) is the context of the passing. Who is sharing with you? What does it mean that they are sharing it with you? In the Facebook world there is only one context: the friend. In the Twitterverse they have the follow. You share too much useless stuff and my Bezian filter tunes you out. And eventually so does everyone else.

They have tried to provide more context with ‘Top News’ and lists and groups, but all of these feel tacked-on and like bandaids. G+ did it right by building the context of the relationship and therefore the inherent utility of the information into the distribution of the information. This provides a basis of categorization of utility. Take your tennis circle for example. Would you necessarily friend someone on Facebook who you interact with once a week in a very limited capacity? Probably not. Might you still like to connect with them regarding tennis-related things? For sure. You might follow them on Twitter because they talk about tennis-related themes. Do you want to have everything they share clogging up your Twitter timeline? Not likely. G+ has captured the essence of defining the granularity of social context that provides meaning to the noise.

What does this mean for developers? We can’t be sure until Google plays their cards. But knowing them, and their track record with the development community at large, it could be a very cool indeed to build something that interacts with G+. And I see huge bridges of trust being spanned between app publishers and end users because of this proliferation of context.

(By the way, sorry about the length of this comment. If it wasn’t so late, I might have split it off as its own post and sent it to you. Thanks for getting my thought-juices flowing though.)

bonjour ,bienvenu a toute et a tous, je vous souhaite une bonne et agréable journée

bonjour ,bienvenu a toute et a tous, je vous souhaite une bonne et agréable journée

Wow. Thanks for the great analysis. 

Wow. Thanks for the great analysis. 

And I just thought of another thing, especially for developing and design apps for this new, more granular ecosystem: niche targeting. Because there can now be a lot more context to things going viral in G+, how do you encourage people to spread something to their appropriate circles? Just like branding and marketing, the right message sent to the wrong audience is a failure.

And I just thought of another thing, especially for developing and design apps for this new, more granular ecosystem: niche targeting. Because there can now be a lot more context to things going viral in G+, how do you encourage people to spread something to their appropriate circles? Just like branding and marketing, the right message sent to the wrong audience is a failure.

Love that you can write a piece that resonates with non-techies. Your explanation of the different types of “platform glue” gave me a clear and concise reason for why content is not liked or shared as much as people would like on FB. I’m looking forward to google +. Now, if I can only get an invite.

Love that you can write a piece that resonates with non-techies. Your explanation of the different types of “platform glue” gave me a clear and concise reason for why content is not liked or shared as much as people would like on FB. I’m looking forward to google +. Now, if I can only get an invite.

I find it interesting, if I understand, how you state, “For true viral distribution, that tip will need to spread from Tennis circle to Tennis circle to Tennis circle.”  This seems to suggest an automatic passing of the post/link/feed from one to the other. 

To me this means technology is making the “thing” viral, an this type of automatic blasting is the type of stuff that people consider “spammy” and tend to ignore.

On the other hand, no automation forces the person who starts the post/feed/stream to attempt to be creative/interesting/thoughtful.  It puts the onus on the poster to do all these things in order for others to say, “Hey this is cool.   I am going to share it also, with my Tennis circle.”   Hopefully, one tennis person after another will do this, which is what truly makes a “thing” viral.

I find it interesting, if I understand, how you state, “For true viral distribution, that tip will need to spread from Tennis circle to Tennis circle to Tennis circle.”  This seems to suggest an automatic passing of the post/link/feed from one to the other. 

To me this means technology is making the “thing” viral, an this type of automatic blasting is the type of stuff that people consider “spammy” and tend to ignore.

On the other hand, no automation forces the person who starts the post/feed/stream to attempt to be creative/interesting/thoughtful.  It puts the onus on the poster to do all these things in order for others to say, “Hey this is cool.   I am going to share it also, with my Tennis circle.”   Hopefully, one tennis person after another will do this, which is what truly makes a “thing” viral.

Talking about going viral: At the end of your post you say ‘Add me on Google+’. But when I look at your profile….there are zero posts. There isn’t even 1 word on your about page. 

Talking about going viral: At the end of your post you say ‘Add me on Google+’. But when I look at your profile….there are zero posts. There isn’t even 1 word on your about page. 

My favorite part about this article is it currently has more +1′s than Facebook likes.

My favorite part about this article is it currently has more +1′s than Facebook likes.

I don’t mean to sound spammy, but my partner and I are developing a social networking platform that at some point will be very open to developers. Yet very different than the facebook approach and I assume the G+ approach. But if we are right in our estimation, it will be even more powerful for developers, opening up a whole new world.

So we shall see.  

I don’t mean to sound spammy, but my partner and I are developing a social networking platform that at some point will be very open to developers. Yet very different than the facebook approach and I assume the G+ approach. But if we are right in our estimation, it will be even more powerful for developers, opening up a whole new world.

So we shall see.  

Thanks for sharing your views. I haven’t yet plunged into the Google + world. I stay pretty busy in my Facebook world. But you never know!

Thanks for sharing your views. I haven’t yet plunged into the Google + world. I stay pretty busy in my Facebook world. But you never know!

You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.

thanks
Business Videos

You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.

thanks
Business Videos