Tired of SM us vs. them? The battle for more users and a bigger bottom line continues between Facebook and Google+. The mano-a-mano showdown is sickening–so much so that I feel penning this article is almost a complete waste of my time. Maybe it is.
Once again, a two-party system is thriving while members of the social media community sigh in exasperation. Have you ever had a better idea for a personalized network, and even the quirky Inc. name picked out? Too bad. You’re too tiny to carry any clout, even if you’ve already designed a kick-ass icon. Metcalf’s Law suggests that nothing is large enough to compete, especially since Google would be in charge of your stellar new network’s optimization, anyway. Ever heard of Quora? My point exactly. Being a regular Quora-only user would be like believing that your town’s mayor had enough following and campaign funds to be a serious contender in the 2012 presidential race. Such a user likely doesn’t exist.
What happened to social networks functioning as tools meant to satisfy their users? Even though this it what they promise, it seems as though companies are more obsessed with MUVs on the press release pages announcing major content and interface changes than they are concerned with making their current “customers” happy.
This time last week, the chatter seemed to indicate the Facebook approval ratings were actually up when compared to Google+, who saw a decrease in use over the last month. But then, in yet another attempt to hit the ping pong ball back over the table, Facebook went and changed things. Again. AGAIN! You would think that one of the largest networks (with arguably one of the largest cross section of diverse publics) would actually listen to those directly contributing to its success. I’m a fan of the age-old agage: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
This does not mean I’m throwing my hat back into the Google+ ring (feel free to chuckle at my nerdy joke), or that I am vouching for support of either one or the other. To be completely honest, I don’t even use Google+ often enough (if at all) to even be considered viable. But to Google, I’m still a user, and that’s really the only factor that matters to them. It seems that one would really only have time to keep up with either one or the other, though. And this is coming from a chick who tries to use as many social sites as possible (Yes, i’m counting LivingSocial. Don’t judge me).
Like so many others out there, i’m merely suggesting that no change is okay sometimes. How could Facebook possibly have enough time to monitor if a current version is satisfying its followers or not before they go and change it again? If they read ANY of the trending articles on a simple Google search (and the irony continues), they would see that past changes have typically been met with a disgruntled populace.
Another peeve I have with Facebook: how the hell do you know what stories I will want so desperately to read?! No, I do not want my ex-boyfriend’s photos coming up on my homepage as soon as I log in. My computer mine as well slap me in the face and say, “Good morning, Kate! Get ready for a day chock-full of remorse and unrequited love!” Delightful. At least Google+ would allow me to place him in my Circle of Kate’s Missed Opportunities group (I’m kidding).
The most ironic thing is that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is the Google+ user with the most followers (557, 910). What an incestuous industry.
Yeah, I have a fear of change and perhaps commitment sometimes (I swear i’m still referring to social media), but when it comes to my favorite SM outlets, I would just like to stick with one–or none?