Another blogger blames Google+ for his own circle choices
There's nothing wrong with a little Google+ bashing. The site is neither finished nor perfect.
But what I can't stand is when bloggers or columnists say there's something wrong with Google+ because of their own circle choices.
The latest in a long line making this absurd "argument," is Forbes columnist +Jeff Bercovici
. He says that Google+ is "an echo chamber frequented only by tech geeks and social media groupies."http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/10/11/whyd-you-go-and-break-my-heart-google-plus/
His evidence? "When I logged into Google Plus this morning, eight of the 10 newest posts in my stream were from +Robert Scoble
That's like denying global warming because your air-conditioned home isn't hot.
So Bercovici chose to circle Scoble, and obviously a small number of non-vocal other people, and as a result of his own choices, Google+ is flawed?
In my own stream, only about eight out of every 1,000 posts are from Scoble.
I also scan new people who circle me. And you know what? These new users are the general public, and global. Less than 1% fall into the categories that Bercovici says Google+ is dominated by.
Anyone with 30 seconds and access to the Google+ search engine can demonstrate that his assertion is completely wrong.
This is probably the third or fourth time I've argued with columnists or bloggers who use their own circle choices as evidence for what's wrong with Google+.
I'll try to make it my last. It should be self-evident by now that not circling anyone doesn't mean Google+ has no users, that circling only Scoble doesn't means that everyone on Google+ is a social media geek.
Hey, Bercovici. I have a scoop for you: First, uncircle Scoble. Then circle these people: https://plus.google.com/s/Cupcakes/people
See? Google+ is nothing but an echo chamber frequented by people who like cupcakes!