≡ Menu

Yesterday, Google released the overhaul of its feedreader, Reader, which features increased integration with Google’s relatively new answer to Facebook, Google+. If you like auto-spamming your Facebook or Google+ timeline with links to articles minus context or, in general, do not think of the internet as a space in which to share information in a thoughtful and meaningful way, stop reading now. If you are tired of another company’s sorry attempt at imitating Facebook in the absence of a proper platform and especially don’t want it interfering with great features that work for you and your community of friends, colleagues and readers, keep going. Even better, if you work at Google or know someone who does*, there are a few suggestions below that I would like implemented to make the internet a happy and safe place for information sharing once again.

I use Reader to:

– quickly access and read the latest blog posts and online magazine articles from feeds that I have bookmarked in the reader,

– organize these feeds into the folders of Geology, Geophysics, New Orleans, Science, Science Blogs, Technology and Visualization; share links to individual folders (bundles) with interested parties;

– share specific blog posts or articles either on Shared Items or by publishing them to this blog inside the Recommended Reading sidebar widget (simple list of hyperlinked titles of shared items) ALL IN ONE CLICK and

– share and DISCUSS items inside Reader with a specific group of WILLING followers who can passively join my Followers list and I theirs.

Now:

– access is really slow with increased load times; furthermore, the feed refreshes and displays the latest set of posts while you’re still reading previous ones,

– folders are still there and users can still create and share bundles,

– you +1 (instead of share) a post which then goes to a +1 page on your Google+ profile (complete with a Buzz tab that we are warned will be going away in a few weeks). Note that you not only have to create a non-pseudonymous Google+ profile in order to share Reader items, but also have to point your friends, colleagues and readers to the location of the +1 page, and

– once you’ve publicly +1ed the Reader item of interest, you have the option (which works on a PC desktop, works for crap on a PC laptop and not at all on an iPad) to create a post on Google+ to let your Circles know that you, Google+ user, have shared yet another article which is going to take up more of their screen real estate than is really warranted.

This, i.e. what used to be feedreader + Twitter + del.icio.us + publishable outside of Google space + all self-contained in terms of size and community,

has become this for archival:

along with this for sharing and discussion:

Instead of going from my blog to the article, the pathway has now become my blog –> my Google+ +1 list –> the article or my blog –> my Google+ stream –> the article. Archival? That’s right out the window.

Because all we need are more gates and gatekeepers between us and the information.

The Official Google Reader Blog explains these changes: “Integrating with Google+ also helps us streamline Reader overall. So starting today we’ll be turning off friending, following, shared items and comments in favor of similar Google+ functionality.”

I don’t understand why Google has to cancel one set of features in favor of another, unless it is to force users into Google+. Some argue that the social integration with G+ is something that they look forward to, which is great, but why not host a +1 button for G+ users as well as a Share button for those who do not want to utilize Google products socially?

Which brings us to the fundamental difference between the two: signal to noise. As I said on a G+ post this morning to which not a soul responded (probably because it drowned in the sea of re-re-re-re-re-shares of Rick Perry’s “drunk” speech – QED):

Along with the tremendous amount of white space, the signal-to-noise ratio of content is already very low at Google+ which is why I also don’t hang out at Facebook much other than to comment on other folks’ posts (when I find them in the noise there) or to make short throwaway posts myself. Now, folks sharing their Reader items here without context makes it even more noisy and unreadable.

Congratulations, Google, you have succeeded in sacrificing internet meaning – content in context – for more internet clutter in a silly attempt to reproduce Facebook, and in the process really pissed off a bunch of scientists, bloggers and internet users who, until yesterday, happily utilized Reader as a staple of simple, one-click, high signal-to-noise sharing and discussion. You just can’t have this in Plus.

Garrett Guillotte sums up for me:

Even if every Reader feature made it to Plus — and shit no they haven’t, and it doesn’t look like they will — the entire concept, culture and process is completely different. You can’t remotely replicate the closed, tight, context- and content-first communities of Reader in Plus. You can’t efficiently or effectively share, excerpt, annotate or discuss a 3,500-word longform news article on Plus alone without opening at least two other tabs.

Some suggestions for Google:

1) Please help us publish our +1s outside of Google+ via a “shared feed.” All you have to do is build a “Share This On Your Blog” embed utility into the +1 page.

2) Please replace the “Note In Reader” bookmarklet with a +1 bookmarklet. What if I want to +1 an article published on a website that doesn’t use +1 buttons? And, no, they’re all not going to add the +1 button to their websites/pages, just like they didn’t “Facebook This” or “Tweet This.” Give it up.

3) Can we go back to refreshing feeds as we did two days ago? I would really appreciate the page not cutting to all white and then repopulating itself with new material, all while I am in the middle of reading something.

4) Please don’t let this become your version of what Yahoo! did to GeoCities.

Functionality over mediocrity. Tremendous usefulness over killing useful features. These should be internet mantras. Ultimately, there is just no need for another Facebook, which is itself far from perfect (and, in fact, on the quest to completely confuse the hell out of its users). But, a utility that can be Facebook, feedreader, Twitter and Pinboard/delicious to many and in the doses that they want? Now THERE is a gamechanger.

Who do you want to be, Google? Figure that out first.

==
* The guy who engineered the Google+ Circles model and I went to the same high school years apart. And what am I going to say? “Hey, fix this or I’ll stuff you in your locker.” We were a bunch of nerds who would have all been stuffed in lockers in a normal high school and we didn’t even lock our lockers.

***

Related:

Brian Shih | Reader redesign: Terrible decision, or worst decision? “The closest analogue might be if Twitter made it so that 3rd party clients could use the Retweet functionality to push Retweets to a user’s stream — but only allowed you to consume Retweets on twitter.com.”

4 comments

Happy Halloween!

Pinned to the wall outside my office today and likely to stay up there until the cross-plots I’m generating behave.

(From Kristina Killgrove on Google+)

0 comments

The 2011 Science Bloggers for Students online charity challenge was once again a smashing success thanks to all of you who donated. The overall drive brought in more than $51,000 from 698 people. Ocean and Geobloggers brought in around $3100 of that money to which you guys contributed $585 $645!

In order of donation date, thanks and high-fives go to:

  1. The Donors Choose team
  2. Anne J.
  3. Anita C.
  4. Julie H.
  5. Anonymous Donor Fairy (who gave $100 – yeah!)
  6. Janet S.
  7. Chris R.
  8. my very own D
  9. Craig C.
  10. Rusty H.
  11. Anne J. (again!)
  12. Elizabeth B.
  13. Lynn C. and
  14. Cynthia D.

The fourteen of you reached 519 students, got four earth science classroom projects fully funded and helped four others get started! I want to take this opportunity to thank Janet Stemwedel as well, for once again organizing us science bloggers into doing something tremendously useful.

A note to those of you who donated during the last three days of the drive: Gift codes will arive via e-mail. How the match is calculated and issued to you is detailed here. As gerty-z says, “THIS IS FREE MONEY, folks. Let’s make sure the kids see every last penny.” Just because the Science Bloggers drive is over doesn’t mean individual classroom projects have expired as well. I highly encourage you to donate to one or more of these four projects:

An interesting observation about the projects that did get fully funded before October 22nd: They all have ROCK in the title. Keep On ROCKing In The Free World, Rock Stars, Rock Out and Science ROCKS! Tuck that idea away for next year, earth science teachers.

Thanks again to all of you who gave. I’m making *sparkly eyes* at you.

1 comment

Before you read on, consider this: Much like with patients and doctors in the case of the healthcare debate, neither folks who have to live in the filth nor those who actually work in the energy industry get a say in the policymaking. In other words, this conversation is held at all the wrong levels.

Shikha Dalmia at Reason:

… the part that has liberals really foaming at the mouth is [Rick Perry’s] suggestion to severely check the power of the EPA and give states more leeway to set their own environmental regulations. The standard criticism of such rollbacks is that states, released from Uncle Sam“s iron fist, will engage in a race to the bottom and gut environmental standards to attract business. But states have a far greater incentive than distant bureaucrats to look for ways to protect their natural resources with minimal sacrifice of economic and other priorities.

A state government is no less reckless and capricious than its federal counterpart. Are we sure states truly have the wellbeing of all of their people as well as the required long-range thinking to hold themselves up to such high standards? Ask and the Louisiana news will answer.

The Gambit | Landry, Vitter Meet With Oil Regulators On Drilling

“The purpose of this meeting is to make sure the information given to us in Washington is the same going on here as well,” Landry said. “And how we as legislators can help to address the lack of permitting going on in the Gulf of Mexico since the Deepwater Horizon incident. We hope it’s a step in the right direction to getting the Gulf back up and running and people back to work.”

… “These are great American jobs we need to preserve and build here,” Vitter said. “As these two charts illustrate, it’s major revenue for the federal government to help with lessening deficit and debt. (It’s the) second biggest source of revenue (for) the federal government after only federal income tax.”

What about the tourism and fisheries jobs and protecting the natural environment for our descendants along with responsibly drilling for oil? But wait, let’s look at how many of those great American jobs we will preserve here. Dalmia again, from the same article as above:

[Job] projections are notoriously difficult to make accurately, and there is every reason to believe that Perry“s claims, largely lifted from oil industry studies, are way off. Michael Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, estimates that Perry“s plan will create 620,000 jobs at best [vs. 1.2 million as predicted]. If Levi is right, Perry has needlessly opened himself up to attack by using inflated numbers. And for what? The main point of energy liberalization is not to create jobs. It’s to make cheap and reliable energy available to individuals and businesses. That’s the message that Perry should be hammering.

Cheap, reliable, fast. You pick two. Anyway, I’ll leave you with that.

0 comments

ATTENTION SCIENCE LOVERS OF EARTH Today is the FINAL day to donate to the DonorsChoose Science Bloggers For Students online charity challenge that helps high-poverty science and mathematics classrooms in need. Please donate via my giving page. Science rocks! Don’t take it for granite! Regular posts continue below.

0 comments