News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

dimbirol

>[...] Twitter is the acquisition target of two separate companies, possibly Google and Facebook.

What's Google going to do with Twitter? If you want to comment on a youtube-video you'll then have to tweet? But with your real name and with some added characters at the end of your twitter-handle, because the algorithm says so.

Facebook has Instagram, which is way way way more popular and relevant than twitter.

I don't quite get how anybody still thinks that twitter can grow the same way as other social networks do?

Twitter has found its niche users: somehow web developers, designers and indie game developers seem to love it.

But if you have to explain to non tech-savy people more than 5 minutes why they should use it, then it's clear that it's not for everyone.

Celebrities have moved to instagram and once you've lost a user it's very unlikely that they'll come back.

Re:Twitter’s stock falls toward IPO-level prices on Monday August 03, 2015 @03:42PM (#9999236)
multi-level threaded discussions would ruin twitter.

you have reddit for that kind of discussions.

twitter is just really for 1:n-communication, to give your followers an update. don't try to change the way a social network works, just use another one which suits your needs.

Re:Twitter’s stock falls toward IPO-level prices on Monday August 03, 2015 @03:30PM (#9999159)
One thing I've noticed with celebrity accounts: an increasing amount of tweets is just a link to a new instagram post.

A tweet gets maybe a few likes and retweets, but the linked instagram post has 500 likes & 25 comments within 30 minutes. That's quite alarming!

e.g: https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/626084866631667712 18k likes on twitter, 866k likes on instagram.

let these numbers do the talking.

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ on Sunday August 02, 2015 @02:25PM (#9991731)
There's no Google+ landing page.

If you want to participate and create a g+-account you'll automatically sign up for google search, gmail, google drive, youtube, google maps, play store, google maps with no option to opt out.

Now who thought this was a good idea?

But even if someone wanted all that, if you signed up for your business to have a youtube channel and a g+ page, you don't get your custom vanity URLs with the chosen account-name. That's remarkably bad UX.

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ on Sunday August 02, 2015 @01:54PM (#9991565)
Have a look at Google+ and you'll understand why people say that they are an ad company and not a tech company anymore.
Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ on Sunday August 02, 2015 @01:47PM (#9991534)
The integration of all google products was a big problem as well.

I didn't want to be logged into google search when checking my email or having a youtube-account when signing up for g+.

Re:Inside the sad, expensive failure of Google+ on Sunday August 02, 2015 @01:42PM (#9991509)
G+'s timing was very good. It was the time were people still wanted to use social media but grew tired of facebook. Now there's a social media fatigue, people can't be arsed to sign up for something new. They'll log in to facebook once every few weeks and for the daily conversation they'll use WhatsApp.
Re:Using Google without a Google+ profile on Monday July 27, 2015 @02:22PM (#9957003)
Why is this not a Google+-post?! Why should we use it if even google isn't using it?

But maybe they tried signing up but failed getting a custom G+-url. We see that you registered [email protected], but we can't let you use google.com/+google, why don't you use google.com/+google1425 and youtube.com/c/12868126nvesfz1761, which you can change to youtube.com/c/google6823_xw once you reach 500 subscribers.

Re:Using Google without a Google+ profile on Monday July 27, 2015 @01:43PM (#9956738)
Using the google sign-up process was one of the most infuriating things and definitely one of my worst UI/UX experiences.

In order to create a consistent online profile, it's ideal to choose a name which is available on all major social networks.

Google is just not capable of offering a service like that:

You can't check in advance if a given g+ or youtube name is available. If you sign up for a gmail-account, the new account [email protected] doesn't mean you get youtube.com/newname or plus.google.com/+newname.

A custom youtube name oddly gets created at /c/username and not youtube.com/username and I somehow had to switch profiles (I think between my youtube account, for which I signed up using my gmail-account and my g+-profile which was created when signing up for gmail?!) while logged in into youtube to make changes which was extremely confusing.

Getting a custom g+url is even more difficult, as google adds some patronizing and suggests a name, which can not be edited.

Why is it not possible to register a consistent name accross all google products with 1 signup process: a gmail-account, a youtube username, a g+ account? Creating a new page or signing up at any other social media site maybe takes 5 minutes, the "Google experience" took 1 afternoon (!) with not the desired result.