Shared publicly  - 
Facebook Launch: Hot Air in a Bubble!
Want to escape FB news? I solemnly declare that I will not post about Facebook today

share this to get a FB free circle of posters today
Hallo K's profile photoA.J Thomas's profile photosubhash mondewal's profile photoLyn Carr's profile photo
Yes I realized the paradox +Johannes Rüter but I thought it would be nice to give others a declaration as well. People can share this and we create a safe haven for today :)
I never had one +Kimberly Hurlbut but I forgive people who had one :)
It´s just that I am afraid we will get a real flood of FB posts analyzing everything about the stock notation today.
+Max Huijgen Your intentions are admirable, sir. We can all only hope they are not in vain. I'm hoping to avoid the deluge by remaining parked on a few circles that should be 'safe'
+Max Huijgen Fair enough. I'm not planning to invest, or anything. If Facebook takes off, I might regret that, but I think anyone would be foolish to invest in a company not making any money on mobile just as their users are starting to spend more time on mobile.
Especially seeing as G+ has a pretty good grip on mobile. Some huge percentage of people I know well on G+ mostly use it from mobile devices.
300 million friends of +Tom Anderson went up in smoke and I personally prefer to have him as a friend than +Mark Zuckerberg :)
Now is this a good indication of the future of stock?
+Eli Fennell He probably means that MySpace has declined substantially, not to say dramatically and it might as well happen to - Oops, almost forgot, this topic was especially for NOT talking about you-know-who! 
But let me immediately violate that by saying that the fun is that every face book user is ´sold´ for 100$ while generating 4$ in ad revenue. Did I say hot air or did I say bubble :)
Well, there's income from app builders and the like, die you count that in? If so, without growth or decline, investments will be returned in about 25 years... hmmm. Can't imagine we're the only ones doing basic math!
Basic math +Anton Theunissen is that FB now trades at a P/E of 25. Use that same profit / earnings ratio and Google would be worth a trillion and be the highest value company in the world.
There is a reason Google which has shown consistent growth over a long period, only has a P/E of 5. FB lives in a bubble of hot air so I stick to my photo which says it all.
OK, now back to the topic: I really like your new profile icon/avatar! At last, a topic where you can only be on topic when you're off topic!
Good one +Anton Theunissen :)
The off topic topic is open for all small chat and major developments like my new cartoon image.
ok, the topic... I just wrote a lengthy comment about how shit G+ is and that it's only the user contents that makes it worthwile. The new image of +Max Huijgen is therefore a substantial upgrade of (at least my own) user experience. But in fact it's an upgrade for G+. G+ in itself is nothing, the content makes it worthwhile. So Max, improving the UX for 23K followers plus 20 mln 2nd degree readers, has earned serious money with this initiative, right in the pockets of Google.
Unfortunately, after researching in another browsertab, that article is gone. Vanished. The textfield is blank. I blame it on my iPad that's even more crippled and incomplete than G+. Yes, I have fun with my tools.

Anyway, I'm curious about user satisfaction of Social Media-users. On G+ I have read a lot of complaints about G+ functionality and interface. On the F word I never ever read similar remarks, although I just learned that there is research that shows a low user satisfaction there (Hard to believe... For me Zuckerberg can redo G+ on its own merits. He has the startup capital, he could give it a shot: F+.) On Twitter I never read an elaboration on how frustrating the 140-character limit is ;-) I think people simply stop using Twitter if they feel serious criticism. Not so for G+.

Has research profiled users this way? It would tell us about the interaction between user and platform. If not: +Max Huijgen how about a simple poll about how each platform lives up to its promises? Being in 23.000 circles and with 20m 2nd degree readers, the results could be interesting and a nice starting point for new articles. I'm especially curious how each user values the functionality of his favourite platform, the platform he spends the most time on, where he is contributing most actively etc. Maybe the information is already out there but I couldn't find it.

Is this off topic enough? I couldn't help mentioning Zuckerberg, sorry for that.,,

i will send the bill to Mountain view +Anton Theunissen :)
Polls haven´t been done afaik, discussions at the other hand at length. Now if the search on G+ would work efficiently.......
The amazing thing about G+ is that´s a platform people love to hate. So it triggers constant discussions where other platforms are indeed just abandoned.
Don´t forget that FB (ah, the f-word) until recently didn´t have the mechanisms to discuss the UX. No public posting equivalent.
Telling the world what´s wrong with twitter in 140 chars is also quite difficult, so G+ at least offers a perfect platform to discuss itself.
I was on the iPad, so no Google ecosystem there. Would love to see Apple's answer to G+ though, probably awesome. 
Don´t you think the sample group would be a bit biased ;)
Do you think all your followers are G+ addicts? I hope not; I hope they're just like real people, having twitter and fb-accounts as well. You expect they all favour G+. Well, I don't, to start with. I have more fun using FB. How many percent of G+ers are active FB-users? Another interesting question... You can correct most of the bias if you pose the right questions.I'd like to see a page where these stats are brought together but I don't know where to look.
I had a fascinating conversation with one of the most prominent G+ users last night about +Sumit Sen's post comment regarding decreasing interactivity on G+, and photographers apparently leaving G+:

"I'm more worried +Jeffrey Sullivan that I'm getting more engagement and traffic from Facebook, even though on Facebook I have "only" 255,000 followers, vs. 1.43 million here. That tells me that Facebook is still getting a lot more usage out of each person. Which tells me that's still where I should be putting most of my effort. Which explains the dropoff here."

Personally I spend very little time on Facebook, but the subscription model there suddenly boosted my network about 50X (to levels higher than what I've struggled 11 months to achieve on G+), and interaction is up at least 10-20X.

I only mention these things from the perspective of someone who spends 95% of his time on G+ (and much of my supposed 5% use according to Klout is actually robotic, automated notifications posted there). I have a vested interest in Google+, so I think it's important to facilitate Google getting a more accurate view of the world from its community members' perspectives.

This is a particularly useful day to hold these conversations, as the G+ Photographers Conference promotes the same boring content and U.S.-centric agenda which has been imposed on the community for the past 9 months. Surely the conference is the last gasp fo a fialed strategy, which begs the question: will Google replace that strategy with a productive one in time?
Interesting indeed +Jeffrey Sullivan , thanks for sharing. I just don't understand why +Sumit Sen is worried? You're talking about G+ as if it is an endangered species that should be protected. You could regard it as a tool to reach a certain public or audience. Of course, try to enhance it, but if other tools turn out to be more effective for certain purposes or target groups, use them. It's an old concept, called 'orchestration'. You could even differentiate: some things may work better on FB, some on G+. Experiment and develop a feel for the medium and the audience. Connect Twitter, maybe only to announce your latest posts. There's no reason not to, except if you're a G+ addict. It's all free: no gain no pain.

There will always be a world outside the platform you prefer. It would be great if one size would fit it all but that has never been the case, not in PR, not in advertising, not in any means of mass communication - and that is what we're talking about here, even if it's bi-directional.
I just noticed that we can reply to email "it's new!" but it says to remove signature before sending. I'm like how do I do that & where is it in my gmail setting? I must vent sry all "I hate that I have to change s***" I don't mind change it's now I need to do this, that & the other thing okay I feel better now!
It all depends on what you want to achieve +Anton Theunissen If you want to share with your family:use FB. If you want to share interests with strangers (the #MOAF concept I preach for G+) use G+.
If you need a soap box to air little daily frustrations head over to twitter.
An orchestrated approach is hard to achieve for people. Brand can do this, but for an individual other than +Robert Scoble it´s next to impossible to use all services.
Well, it works. Now that's really convenient. Now we can send each other
messages without ever opening G+.
I see in the first email I tested that it doesn't catch G+ names, and Google didn't do their homework on the line/paragraph breaks. (LF CR/LF, CR, /br, Unicode chars, whatever). Not so impressive. Not worked out in the details.
+Max Huijgen Didn't your read +Jeffrey Sullivan 's post above? It's soooo 2000 to think FB is for family. And even if we persist that it is for kids and grannies, then re-reading that post, one can't help but seeing huge opportunities over there. If multi-platform management is hard to achieve it's time to either make a switch, hire a professional, or simply accept that you can't serve them all and prefer to stay in a well-known environment that is maybe not as rewarding as another.

And Max, you're using Twitter yourself to post announcements for your articles. In a few weeks you have gained 76 followers (and not just Social Media enthousiasts, but real people as well, probably quite some G+ers). That's pretty good, in Twitter terms. How can you say it's a soap box for little daily frustrations? I know (small business) entrepeneurs who solely rely on Twitter and FB for their marketing. I read comparisons between e.g. CocaCola-Pages on G+ and FB in terms of response and interactivity. Never did I sense the attitude towards FB that G+ers have of pure dismissal and rejection.

Beware of the G+Bubble! The G+truth about FB is what you're telling each other - it's what the others likes to hear: Zuckerberg bashing - I admit it's fun but let's not get carried away.
There is the opinion of +Robert Scoble versus the one of +Mike Elgan Both well known in the tech sector, both having extremely high Klouts, etc.
Robert went partly back to facebook so he is diverting his time where Mike went on a G+ only diet.
If you look at the page of Robert on FB you will see the typical cluttered family look. He has put a lot of time on FB the last few months after being mostly on G+.
He reports as much engagement there as on G+. Mike Elgan states he is happy concentrating on one platform as every other platform just dilutes your energy.
Without a set goal it´s hard to judge any strategy so me having an number of people who apparently follow me on Twitter is of no interest unless it serves a goal.
I think I have a point: FB is probably not suitabe to use as a Discussion Board, although I remember having nice conversations there, but never in-depth. Still it's an excellent way (like Twitter, and totally free) to attract people to your product - even if that's a Discussion Board.

I looked at +Robert Scoble 's FB-page. He has indeed made it a typical 'social media' page. Then I looked at That looks different. (I don't like the 2-columns Timeline, but that's another issue.) A post of one hour old has 1.005 Likes, 30 comments, 43 shares of people that otherwise wouldn't have thought of Coca-Cola. Not bad. Then I looked at the G+ Coca-Cola page. The last post on G+ from yesterday (one day old) had 37+, 2 shares, 6 comments. I know FB has more users so numbers have to be weighed, but still... And remember: it's very cheap compared to other means.

My point is that is had to be taken seriously as a marketing instrument. It's getting more flexible (apps). While I wrote this the Likes went up to 1.150, 34 comments (and 49 shares).

I have to get work done now.. It's hot here. Think I'll take a Coke.
Facebook is free for me allright. The suckers who bought FB stocks are paying for me. I hope it has been free for you too :-)
:-) free here though I do pay for internet so we are paying with the choice of signing In.
Hmm, totally missed this comment from +Anton Theunissen I´m afraid buddy, it´s the other way around. Your content was sold so it was your time which went over the counter at stock trading time.
+Max Huijgen You're right that Time = Money, but only if someone is paying for it - or would've paid for something else you could've done in the same time. Well I didn't pay, other people did. My spent time was spare time. Maybe I read less books, watched less movies, played less guitar, but I didn't waste billable hours on fb or g+. My time and efforts were compensated by comments, jokes, breaking news, discussions, contacts etc. It's clear where the cash came from. I understand your point that our content creates value, but only because it is held together by an accessible platform, attractive enough to gain momentum. You may remember my plan to buy Google stocks, boost the price by upgrading our avatars and then quickly sell?
Add a comment...