StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Google Buzz?

Submitted by Pat on Sun, 02/14/2010 - 2:03am

So Google has started a new social networking site called "Google Buzz," which they tied directly with their Gmail service. Uncharacteristically for Google, they really screwed the pooch coming out of the gate on this one. They more or less automatically assumed that you would want people you contact regularly to be automatically put on a list to "follow" you, and they buried a number of privacy settings, making it hard to tell what you were or were not posting publicly. In fact, when I briefly clicked over to "Buzz" in my Gmail account, I spotted a public conversation between my brother and my sister, in which they both wondered whether others could see the conversation.

I've since discovered the link at the bottom of Gmail which lets you turn Buzz off, and did so immediately. I've got Facebook and the blog to meet my social networking needs. Google's got little to add, in my opinion.

Here's where I think they really messed up. People use e-mail for fundamentally private communication. You directly control, in each and every message, who receives it. Indeed, you have no choice but to specify, in every message, who is to receive it. It makes little sense to build a social networking on top of a medium used primarily for private communication.

Facebook is a fundamentally public place (you assume everything you're doing is going to be public to the world, unless you take some specific steps to restrict access to something). You can send a private message, but doing so is the exception, not the rule; going to send a personal private message takes extra steps, steps which allow you to see and understand that this particular communication will be private.

By contrast, though, the built-in assumption is that e-mail is private. By building a public social networking site on top of it, Google is making its core e-mail users suddenly mistrust that their e-mails will stay private. Even assuming that people are clamoring for yet another general social networking service, Google should have kept it separate entirely from Gmail. Google thinks it can salvage the service with prompt changes to make options clearer, make it much more opt-in than opt-out, and likely some other forthcoming tweaks.

I think they will have to reconsider even further. They should either ditch the service or entirely sever it from Gmail, immediately. They have too much at stake. If users mistrust the confidentiality of their e-mail, they'll start using one of the MANY readily available alternatives. Moreover, the failure of the Buzz team to anticipate the vehement objections which surfaced immediately indicates that the leaders of the new Google service have some fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of the Gmail service and their customers for that service. Who knows, then, what other flaws are lurking beneath the surface, waiting to explode. Google should yank the service, put some new leadership on the team, reconfigure it fundamentally, and then relaunch it, NOT tied to Gmail.

But maybe I'm missing something? Anybody else tried it? I saw in my brief look that our long-lost guest blogger Fern had tried it out a bit. If she still reads us, perhaps she'll give us her impression.

Update: Imagine you woke up one day and found out that somebody had created a Facebook account for you, and created a list of people they thought were your friends, and made that list of friends publicly available. How pissed would you be? Well, that's exactly what Google did.

Update: Here's a graphic description of one female bloggers privacy issues caused my Google's MASSIVE screw-up. I predict that within 2 days, maybe 1, they will have done as I suggested and completely yanked the service, and it will set them back a year or more in their expansion plans. They've destroyed a LOT of trust here... and they just may have created themselves some legal liability, too.

Update: The man responsible for all this appears to be Todd Jackson, director of the Gmail service. The Gmail service is phenomenal, but this really should result in Jackson being fired. To create an entirely new social networking service and automatically enter all of your customers from an entirely un-related product into the new service is stupid beyond belief. I've spotted several victims of stalking or domestic violence who are terribly afraid right now, because Google has stupidly made public a whole bunch of information about who these people regularly correspond with, which will make it much easier to find them.

I like Google, and I like Gmail, but this is inexcusable. Indeed

soeone needs to be taken to the woodshed over this, and I guess Jackson fits the bill, along with all the guys who thought this was a good idea.

Hey Google, don't be evil!

I agree with everything in

I agree with everything in the main post, but would add two points. First, they did something somewhat similar with Google chat. While the same privacy concerns are implicated, for no reason that I can fathom, I have people on my google chat friends list for no better reason than that we exchanged emails a few years ago. Second, my recent experience with Google mail—both gmail, which I use for myself, and my work email, for which I have no choice but to use google apps—has been increasingly miserable. All the fat that they have slathered over the service has made it almost unusable; the only way to make it work has been to switch my default view to basic HTML. And no, it isn't my computer, my browser, or my connection: same problem using multiple browsers on multiple computers at multiple locations. The thing has become a hog.

At the risk of sounding like

At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, this is one of the main reasons I have never bought into cloud computing. When it comes to security and privacy online, I am borderline tin foil hat. However, I do understand that my methods of handling email accounts won't work for 90%+ of internet users who do not have access to their own servers. Nor would it be a smart way of doing it.

I have a gmail account that I use when no other method is convenient. I hate being at the whim of a company that can easily change its privacy policy. I use facebook for things on a whim and police it like a hawk. Facebook does scare me as to how well it is the ability to data mine and find connections. I have to wonder what commercially available data they use to make some of the connections since it has made some connections that were in no way feasible based on data I had on Facebook alone. Google's ability to data mine far exceeds Facebook.

I suspect this problem is going to happen more often. Data mining practices of personal data has become so widespread within the "cloud" that I suspect that the developers have a hard time understanding what is and what is not private data anymore. Companies that deal with this information 24/7 start to see all data as a commodity and nothing is private. In this case, Google's developers lost track of where that private/public line was. I hope this causes some reassesment of how private data is treated; but I suspect this will become more the norm instead of exception. However, it will brought in to play in more subtle and controlled ways.

Much in the same way that the Obama administration does not see a right to privacy for cell phone activities, corporations see much the same in the way they can use the data they mine from our personal lives. Everyone is going to have to understand what they are getting into and start to pay attention to those little privacy statements. Most people toss those privacy notices that get mailed each year. It is a hassle, but there are ways of opting-out in these notices. However, no one has gone out of their way to make it easy.

I think...

Better, I fear that Google's top brass have become too far disconnected from their basic core customers. I don't think anybody at the top at Google has quite yet realized just what a huge fiasco this is. Of all companies, Google should certainly realize how easy it is for a company's leadership position in web services to disappear virtually over night when a smart competitor comes along.

Google made its bones based on 3 factors: 1) a clear, simple, easy-to-load interface, 2) vastly superior search results, and 3) clear separation between ads and the unbiased search results it provided.

With Buzz (and a number of its other services), Google is screwing the pooch on at least 2 of those fronts. The interfaces for some Google services have not scaled well, as Simon notes. The admin tools have always been fairly weak and complicated to figure out, and Buzz is particularly so (how did they role out a major project without having a settings tab already set up for it?!?).

It's also no longer clear where all their money comes from. Do they really pay for all of these new services just with context-based ads? I'm beginning to doubt it.

A lot of Google's money is

A lot of Google's money is starting to come from commercial applications and services. Google Apps and Gmail, among other Google products, are being offered to handle the infrastructure demands of companies and institutions. Their push for money is really coming from offering the cloud computing concept. Applications and data is hosted on Google infrastructure via Google software to release corporations and other groups from having to operate non-core operations. Their commercial and corporate software is becoming much more important to their bottom line. This can also be seen in Google's push to increase infrastructure speeds because the business model will become more reliant on pushing higher levels of data if the cloud concept is to become the dominant platform.

As the pressure grows on Google to continue its growth and innovation, it does seem to be falling into the 80/20 trap a little more often. Human interface and customization is a difficult part of a project as the applications become more complex. Microsoft has had problems with this as they grew. Sometimes developers also don't think like the normal consumer does. I use to joke when a new project came out at my office that the first release was always needed to find out how creative the users are in trying to break it or use it in a way no programmer intended. It would not surprise me if some of the developers of Buzz never imagined some of the ways their user base was using gmail since it was not a way they were using it.

This is a growth problem for Google. They have access to more data than may have ever been available in the whole history of man. It is easy to lose what the data means to an individual. Hence, I really believe this was not an intention to be evil as much as it was poor execution of a new software product since they did not have a complete understanding of how their applications were being used by their customers. Google has also gotten to the size where they suffer from institutional inertia that makes it a little more difficult for them to make a quick change of direction. I suspect there will be all kinds of apologies and changes over the next week or so as everything finally makes it through the internal Google channels.

Probably right...

I think your last paragraph is probably correct, and this will turn out to be a huge growing lesson for Google.

You are right, too, that Google has been moving aggressively into the business market, which is one of the reasons this was a really bad idea. Fortunately, they haven't yet rolled out Buzz for their corporate accounts, though that apparently is in the works. Apple avoids marketing to enterprise-level customers, because it brings a whole different set of expectations and headaches. Buzz is a toy for kids and young adults, primarily. It's not a business tool.

One of Google's fundamental foul-ups here is not recognizing that they shouldn't be tying a social networking toy so tightly to a serious business app that's part of the core of their latest business model.

according to CNBC

In CNBC's documentary on google, they say that the overwhelming majority of its revenue comes from a single advertising-based app whose name I forget. Potential advertisers place bids for the right to come up as a top hit for various search terms and phrases. That works in conjunction with google's ongoing assessment of how relevant your site truly is for the given search term, so you can come at the top if your site is relevant even if you pay less, and so on.

Whatever you bid, you pay that bid price for hits or click-thoughs or something. And the businesses placing the bids are delighted by the quality of the visits they get, meaning interested customers who ultimately buy. I may not be explaining it all that well, but the gist is that it has been a tremendous win-win, because it connects advertisers with truly interested customers.

Thanks for the heads up on this. I had been ignoring this new stuff on my gmail account due to lack of interest. What an irritating development.

AdWords...

It's called AdWords. We're using it here on this site, over there in the right column. It was a brilliant concept, and has worked very well for the benefit of the advertisers, Google, and the sites which use the Google advertising to fund their operations.

AdWords is the service from the advertisers' point of view. Web publishers (like us) use AdSense, which delivers those targeted ads to us.

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 3 guests online.

Online users

  • bucyrus