[nfais-l] NFAIS Enotes, August 2011

[Jill O'Neill]

NFAIS Enotes, August 2011

Written and compiled by Jill O’Neill

 

Small Group Interactions: Google+ as a Platform with Purpose

Last year Forrester Research expanded on its “ladder of participation”
diagram that broke out the various types of engagement on social platforms
as individual ladder rungs. When the ladder was initially published back in
2006, the rungs were labeled as creator, critic, collector, joiner,
spectator and inactive. In 2010, Forrester added a new rung, very near the
top of the ladder. Those participating at this level are conversationalists
-- those who update their status on any social networking site or similarly
post brief items to Twitter (see:
http://blog.360i.com/social-media/forrester-new-segment-social-technographic
s-conversationalists).  

What’s important to remember about the Forrester diagram is that an
individual generally will fall into more than one of the available types
with regard to their interactions on social sites. One can be a creator, a
conversationalist, a collector, and a spectator at different times -  all
within the confines of a single site. It’s less about the platform used and
more about the nature of the interaction. Most of us have a range of
behaviors for exchanges with our family, friends, colleagues and
acquaintances. We use different vocabularies, different technologies, even
different forms of messaging.   The problem with current social networking
platforms is that the underlying architecture isn’t as flexible as our
behaviors. 


The main stream media have positioned the launch of Google+
(http://plus.google.com <http://plus.google.com/> ) as being the launch of
another yet social network.  From a design perspective, the site does indeed
appear to be an updated version of several other social media sites --
Twitter, Friendfeed, and Facebook.  But where Facebook was engineered to
ease social connections among college students, and Twitter was engineered
to facilitate brief communiqués on personal mobile devices, Google+ has been
engineered with an eye to meeting the practical communication needs of the
vast majority of today’s working adults.

In 2010, Paul Adams, a researcher in the field of user experience who was
then working for Google, gave a presentation on what Google’s research had
unearthed about social networks and how users interacted and *wanted* to
interact with others in their social networks. Their research showed that on
average:

 

*	Most of us have 4-6 groups of “friends” or co-workers with whom we
interact most frequently.
*	Each of those groups has between 2-10 individuals in it.
*	Those groups do not necessarily overlap
*	Those groups do not necessarily need to see the same information


Google+ (much of which is based on Paul Adams’ work) is not intended to be
for use in building a “following” for purposes of broadcasting a message. It
is intended to support the quotidian needs of the small groups noted above
(see: http://www.slideshare.net/padday/the-real-life-social-network-v2).

 

For more on the development of Google+, I strongly recommend reading the
lengthy coverage from Wired Magazine. The Google+ system has been in use
internally at Google for an extended period and the article expands on the
early user reception and experience (see:
(http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/06/inside-google-plus-social/all/1).   

If I study the verbs used in the Forrester diagram, I see activities that
are part of a normal business collaborative workflow -- update, upload,
maintain, comment, read, listen, watch, add, use. Google+ supports those
kinds of activities that most office workers find familiar in dealing with
their organization’s intranet.  On those grounds, it seems fairly clear to
me that Google’s latest launch is intended as an enterprise tool, something
to further bolster Google’s competitive position with Microsoft’s most
recent version of Office or alternatively, something like Tibbr, another
social enterprise suite of apps (http://www.tibbr.com/index.html)
<about:blank> .  Google+ is analogous to Sharepoint, particularly when you
understand where Google engineers placed emphasis in developing the site.
According to the interview with one of the designers, their problem-solving
was focused more on enhancing or eliminating issues related to currently
existing social networks -- organization of contacts, privacy, file uploads,
and video-chat (Hang Out’s) ( see:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1664523/google-designer-the-4-problems-in-social
-networking-that-we-fixed).  

 

At least at launch, there were tighter than usual constraints in opening the
system up to users. ZDNet quoted Vic Gundotra, Google’s SVP of Social and
leader of the Plus team, as saying, ”We chose the initial seed very
carefully. We wanted a lot of diversity, so we have people that represent
over 42 of the world’s languages
 We’re trying to really test the product,
make sure that we meet people’s privacy expectations, that the systems are
working, [and] that we can scale. We’ll slowly grow that initial seed as
we’re ready (see:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/is-google-about-to-transform-the-web/52004?tag
=mantle_skin;content).  More on that privacy bit a little later.

 

Nicholas Carr of Rough Type and author of last year’s bestselling title, The
Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brain, wrote of Google+ this
month that “Its early core membership seems dominated by what might be
called the new media axis - a combination of techies and media types who
love to talk shop. These folks aren't generally too keen on Facebook (too
conversational, too intrusive, too untrustworthy), and while they tend to be
heavy Twitter users, many of them have become frustrated by Twitter's
limitations. Google+ provides a compelling blog/tweet hybrid
” (see:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2011/08/the_g_spot.php).  Based on my own
experience, Google+ has attracted many key information industry analysts as
well as cutting edge members of the library community.  

 

Google+ is not a massive step forward in terms of technological innovation,
but it is quite useful as a unified communication platform.  The user can
post brief essays, engage in a threaded discussion, gather in small groups
in the “Hang-Out” mode (think video conferencing) or simply lurk in the hope
of learning something new.  It is the predictable outcome of much of what
Google’s been trying to do for the past five years. For more, see my article
for Online Magazine entitled Communication Google Style (see:
http://www.infotoday.com/online/jan11/ONeill.shtml).

 

The Google+ launch included introductory videos about the site’s sections
and functionalities, but they were in fact quite shallow and gave few hints
as to how users might best get started. The argument in favor of their
launch approach is that the various technologies brought together on this
platform are fairly commonplace. For a tech-savvy crowd, this is how one
routinely communicates in the 21st century. Google’s usual lack of platform
documentation has meant that the best manual on how to best use Google+ is
the one that users themselves have created

(see:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cUjZ_7rlAmKRDVB6GXId73h_eUdXGKdjtSff0svb
az0/preview). 

 

For those of you who did not click through on that interview with the
Google+ site designer, I’d like to focus on a particular pull quote: "We
want to appeal to the mainstream user who has a low tolerance for
complexity," Hertzfeld says, "and at the same time we have to respect
privacy as strongly as possible. So every feature has privacy implications
that we thought out. We would have done that anyway, but the Buzz experience
elevated it."

 

Controlled dissemination works well in Google+.  Every time the user
“shares” something, that user must make a decision as to which of the
Circles holding that user’s contacts should be able to view the content.
When I find something in my Google Reader, I can choose to share it with my
Circle of information industry professionals or share as well with my Circle
of information professionals or both.  There is an option to post publicly
to everyone as well as an option to send to a single individual (by putting
a plus sign just in front of that person’s name).  In the past six weeks,
I’ve only misdirected a single message and that was due to my own failure to
read brief hints that Google offers in pop-up windows to guide users in
appropriate sharing.  It was because of this care that I could see in the
design that I was taken aback when Google got into trouble regarding privacy
and the use of pseudonyms on this platform.

 

In being invited to join Google+, one did not just sign in with a Gmail
address. Those of us who received invitations to the limited field trial
were asked to click on a link in the email message that took us to a
registration form that was unusual for Google. Google walked the user
through the registration using a number of screens, one of which asked for a
Real Name. That designation was bolded to the user, just as I have bolded it
here, and was explained as being the name that most people knew you by. To
me, that conveyed a simple message that Google did not want you to use a
cutesy screen name. You were also told during the registration process that
you would have to create a Google profile (albeit a minimal one) and that
all Google profiles would be made public as of July 31. This insistence on
real names is not a universal policy across all Google platforms (see
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-be-who-you-want-to
-be.html), but in this case, Google was seeking participants who were
willing to be identifiable.  

 

In the context of a tool designed for the enterprise, the use of real names
is unremarkable. In an enterprise, your colleagues want to be able to reach
you as George or Mary. The use of nicknames is understood (only HR needs to
know your legal name for purposes of paperwork), but to use a pseudonym or
screen name would be counterproductive.  

 

However, there were those invited into Google’s limited closed trial who
assumed that they were not forbidden from using their standard online
pseudonym, in particular, a working scientist and active blogger named
GrrlScientist who had built up a significant online following under that
pseudonym and who had used that pseudonym for registering to use other
Google products.  As the month of July went on, Google algorithmically
monitored participants who might be using false identities on Google+ and
subsequently shut them out of the service.  As an example, at one point,
television actor William Shatner was booted out of the system because
Google’s algorithm thought his was one of the fake accounts.  But where
William Shatner’s account was deleted and then subsequently restored when he
complained, GrrlScientist had a more problematic experience. She was shut
out of the Google+ platform and all of the other Google services she used,
including Google Reader, Buzz and YouTube.  When she complained, she was
neither immediately recognized as an authentic person nor was she restored.
She had to go without access to those other services for a full week. Her
July 25th posting in the Guardian newspaper (for whom she blogs
professionally under the GrrlScientist pseudonym) was virulent over her
treatment (see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/25/1).
GrrlScientist maintains a public profile at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/user/GrrlScientist. 

 

It is also relevant to note that over the past decade, Grrl Scientist has
given public lectures using her pseudonym, signed contracts using the
pseudonym, and even introduced herself at cocktail parties using that name..
When after a second appeal for reinstatement, Google had still not restored
her access to the Google+ platform, the angry scientist and blogger posted
another entry (see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/28/google-
open-letter-google).  To her, the issue is that Google’s policy regarding
names (real and pseudonymous) is poorly formulated and yet another indicator
that the organization does not properly understand the importance of privacy
in an online environment. 

 

When challenged as to why this particular closed platform had to permit
pseudonyms and screen names, one participant wrote, “I feel that Google+ has
the potential to become the defacto "law" for online discourse, and I think
that it is critical that the "law" reflect how democratic societies have
always worked.” 

 

(Additional coverage of the issue surrounding authentic names and profiles –
including statements from Google staff --  may be found at:
http://bentrem.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/sidebar-googles-plus-suspensions/). 

 

The Google+ platform is sufficiently robust in design that the user base
wants to expand it to uses outside of its original design.  Perhaps that’s
the reason why so many industry analysts have viewed Google+ as a huge
success.  Clearly aimed at the enterprise, users are already pushing to make
it more serviceable in a far broader context (see:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-plus-the-top-10-missing-features/52654?
tag=nl.e539).

 

Within days after the platform’s launch, Jonathan Allen of Search Engine
Watch wrote that “if we let go of the broadcast purpose, and return to the
way in which we actually network in real-life, Google+ starts to look more
like a set of collaborative workflow tools that can be put to any purpose.”
A little further on in that same column, he writes, “the Google+ platform
brings with it the promise of being in step with real-life rather than the
promise of fame. To get the best out of it, we will have to step beyond the
notion of 'engagement' much touted by social media gurus and solely focus on
'purpose'.” His commentary is quite good and worth reading in full (see:
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2083466/Google-Must-Focus-on-Sharing-Wi
th-Purpose-Not-Privacy).

 

The most recent comScore numbers for Google+ (along with analysis of its
potential impact on other social networks) are available via the
presentation on Slideshare from the Google+ Industry Expert Call (see:
http://www.slideshare.net/loukerner/google-pluscall-20110802). One insight
from that presentation is that while the United States leads in Google+
participation, India follows close behind. 

 

Want to learn more about Google+? NFAIS will be offering a 90-minute webinar
on the topic of Google+ on September 9, 2011, at 11:00am EDST, featuring
John Blossom of Shore Communications and author of Content Nation.  For more
information and to register for this event, go to:
http://www.nfais.org/page/352-googleplus-webinar-sept-9-2011

 

 

2011 SPONSORS

 

Access Innovations, Inc.

Accessible Archives, Inc.

American Psychological Association/PsycINFO

American Theological Library Association

CAS

CrossRef

Data Conversion Laboratory

Defense Technical Information Center

Elsevier

Getty Research Institute

H. W. Wilson

Information Today, Inc.

International Food Information Services

Philosopher’s Information Center

ProQuest

Really Strategies, Inc.

TEMIS, Inc.

Thomson Reuters IP & Science

Unlimited Priorities Corporation

 

 

 

Jill O'Neill

Director, Planning & Communication

NFAIS

(v) 215-893-1561

(email) jilloneill at nfais.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lyralists.lyrasis.org/pipermail/nfais-l/attachments/20110808/dccdd9d2/attachment.html>