Interest networks, duplicate content and more.

# Google Plus LogoRather than rewrite full posts, here are a few recent items that have been posted on Google+ and generated some good discussion:

Google+? You're doing it wrong.

Google+ has a perception problem but is there really a wrong way to use it? Vic Gundotra thinks so.

Dealing with duplicate content.

Twitter and Facebook have been taking different approaches to the problem of duplicate content. How could we learn from these attempts and possibly apply similar principles to Google+?

K.I.S.S. or, Be careful what you wish for.

We must be careful when requesting ever more complex functionality for our social networks. By making services fit the needs of the early adopter we risk losing wide-ranging appeal so must be careful what we wish for.

3 minutes.

Figures indicate that users are spending less time on Google+. Are the figures accurate or are they measuring the wrong thing? Should Google be worried? Is it just a question of averages and what can be done to boost time on the service?

Do we need a shift to interest based social networking?

Do we gain the most benefit from following "people" or do we need to think about subscribing to topics? Why do we use social networks and are they actually suited to interest based discussion?

Join in

If you haven't already done so, check them out and have your say.

  1. Kristjan says: #
    Duplicate content is a huge problem not only on G+ but on everywhere on the Internet. Thanks to programs like Adsense and Bidvertiser, everybody now wants to have a website about something. But not everybody has ideas for writing original content or time and will to research and write in depth posts, so they just copy content from other sites and paste it on their own. Usually those people at least have the decency to change few words, but not all. The other day I was researching color psychology for an article I was working on and I found 3 copies of one article. Madness, ah?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.