The World in 2012
The search for new digital territory
Google adds to Google+
Jan 12th 2012, 18:15 by J.A.
CASSANDRA is a great admirer of Google. Indeed, his wife constantly berates him for not taking advantage of its IPO in 2004 (I claim it would have compromised my journalistic integrity). And, as The World in 2012 points out, this year is going to be a fascinating battlefield as Google and the other giants of the internet fight each other both for new territory and for each other’s territory. But I wonder whether Google, in seeking to invade the land of Facebook, is making some tactical errors.
Frankly, I find Google+ irrelevant—and so do many hundreds of millions
of others still committing far too much of their time to Facebook. But my real beef is with Google’s sudden integration with “personal results” of social media such as Facebook and LinkedIn into its search engine. When I put a name into Google’s search engine, I don’t necessarily want a top result to be their Facebook page, and I certainly don’t want it to be their Google+ page. Yet it is clearly Google+ that the geniuses of Mountain View are trying to boost…Still, enough of my displeasure (with its possible Luddite overtones). For a much better critique of the Google battle plan, I recommend that you read this diatribe from Slate’s excellent Farhad Manjoo (and don’t forget to Google him…).
This blog accompanies The World in 2012, our almanac of predictions for the year ahead. The blog is named after the mythological Cassandra, who was cursed by Apollo to make prophecies that were accurate, but disbelieved.
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- Politics and private equity: Bringing the Bain
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- India-China relations and the media: Blame the messenger
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
- Global Zero: Fewer nukes, more security
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
While I do feel feel that G+ is irrelevant at the moment, I'm perhaps a bit more cautious in writing it out as a failure. Google has such a range of service that if it can tie them all in a convenient way on a social network, there should be some added value somewhere.
I'm not sure if that value will appear as users browse these pages (I don't think they will), or through using Google's other services and ending up using one of G+ functions without being really aware. The way I see it they are going to knit google's service into G+ and the social network's value will become one and the same with that of the company's services.
Those who don't like social search can always opt-out (as Farhad Manjoo of Slate admitted in the linked article.) Alternatively, log out of Google+/Gmail.
I suspect that in future search will split into different types depending on the need of the user: Sometimes people will want "social" search for entertainment or fun; othertimes when they are at work or doing something serious, you will just turn "social search" off.
Of course the journalists who have reviewed this (like this Babbage and Farhad) are at work, so seeing their own social results in listings gets in their way when looking for original sources.
On the other hand if I search for music, seeing what my friends are listening to might be interesting.
Therefore, my prediction is that Google will move this feature to the tab, and at the end of 2012 you will see tab buttons to search "web" or "social".
Remember back when a primary "feature" of Google was its extremely austere and svelte search page? If you wanted to play games, chat, click through a page taxonomy, and so on, you went to Yahoo! If you just wanted to search quickly, you went to Google.
Y'know, like when if you wanted a smallish web browser to use in place of Internet Explorer, you downloaded Phoenix. I mean, Firebird. I mean, Firefox.
Tie this stuff into GPS and it should make it easier for gang hits and retaliations.
(CBS/AP) PHILADELPHIA - Police say a Philadelphia man killed three teenagers in an ambush initiated by a fight involving his stepsons.
Police say Barreto fired a dozen or more shots into a 1997 Toyota Corolla loaded with seven teenagers late Tuesday after the boys arrived for a confrontation with his stepsons. Authorities say the planned fight stemmed from an argument at school that spilled on to Facebook.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57357828-504083/pa-man-kills-3-te...
Regards
The day the policy was announced, I opted out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯