What if Google+ Offered A Revenue Model?

Personally, probably not so much but maybe I just have yet to stumble across the alleged better G+ content.

I'm actually offering the suggestion in part as a remedy to the current situation +Peter van Rens, so your observation is entirely appropriate. 

Yes. Google has called Google+ a social media network. I have heard it called that by some of the upper-level Googlers whom I have met. It certainly is created to be that, too.

I also heard straight from Zuniger that the views thing is supposed to be a remedy for the SUL. It's possibly a small step, but the views of people on the SUL are still much more inflated than those who are not on it. No matter what, there is no way to fix the mess they made. Giving people money to be narcissistic jerks really will not help anyone. Let's keep that on Youtube before we ruin something else.

I see your point +Jeff Sullivan but I don't think there is any way for them to really give people an equal chance on this platform. It was equal in its infancy, but that was a long time ago.

If they do open it up for revenue, they would have to then have a better way of addressing copyright infringement (Youtube doesn't require the content's creator to complain) and adult content (Youtube has a check box, last I checked). Like I said, it's been a while since I was on YouTube, but I think they are better at managing content like that than Google+ is. I think that is because they bought it from someone else, and those rules were already in place.

I don't usually engage with photographers about photography anymore. I'm getting frustrated about how arrogant people are. Most of the people I actively follow now are people who are social, funny, or artists of other types. I've also been grumpy lately because when I post something, people ask me about my process and settings and stuff. For some reason that REALLY bugs me lol.

I've benefited so greatly from all the free content available here, not just information I can collect at random but people actively helping me, giving advice, answering questions.  Even when it comes to a $4 e-book, I always think, if/when I have time for that topic, I can quickly and easily find all the knowledge free.  Soon I'll be taking my own turn to freely offer up what I can on some topics I've thought a lot about for the last couple of years.  I would worry that pay walls and "premium" content could sharply diminish what is here for the community, and prevent rather than support many of the natural bonds that people form here.

+Jeff Sullivan i think that most certainly you will implement your siggestions and will lose your strengths necausr you did. I think you do not care what the people that use google plus think. You have already made your decision.

Aren't there already people doing things for the love of it +Alex Lapidus?  But the truly knowledgeable ones must charge somehow to share the information they'e earned over years to decades of work. 

Nikon will be charging people $1399 this year to lead photographers around the Eastern Sierra region where I live for 3 days.  I could offer both technique and location information for free if ads paid for my knowledge instead of direct payments.

Apparently I've mixed two ideas into one post… there isn't necessarily any need to charge users for anything if it's all ad-supported, but the updates are coming so slow these days I'd happily pay for some collection of enhanced services.

The YouTube model is based on views +J. Rae Chip.  Sure, there may be some prioritization and favoritism in there somewhere, it's tempting for people with power and control to exercise that control (until the Peter Principle enables them to fully mess things up), but at the core of the algorithm is this: you create the content, and if it goes viral, you get some cut of the revenue generated.  

New content is discovered all the time, creating new opportunities for new people.  That's the opposite of so many factors on G+, but that legacy doesn't have to be a lasting or permanent liability.  At no point have I suggested anything which favors picking any narcissistic jerks to promote, and in an algorithm-driven meritocracy, the community vets the leaders.  

Bear in mind too that people can use YouTube any way they want.  I use the site all the time, I have one video at nearly 500,000 views, and I couldn't tell you who's popular, promoted, or whatever.  In other words, the availability of a revenue model for those who choose to use it is not mutually exclusive with the site having features for everyone else to use.  

If you don't care to get paid a few bucks for a post, no problem, but why would you care what my approach might be, or assume that my getting paid might automatically "ruin" the site?  Is G+ really so perfect now that evolution would ruin it?  Is it so devoid of narcissistic jerks now that a new revenue model might suddenly attract a debilitating flood of them?

My "would you pay for features" comment should have been posted separately.  I'm just sick of having circle management features taken away.  If Google+ needs some charity, I'll throw in a few bucks for them to hire engineering staff.

+Jeff Sullivan I'm not trying to be brusque or mean btw. I hope you don't think that.

+1 to JR for use of the word "brusque." 

+Samuel Klause I would be curious to know what you are basing that opinion on because at the moment it just sounds like you are trolling. Can you substantiate it?

+Jeff Sullivan G+ will never be dropped, Google can't afford the loss of face. Which makes it doubly strange that more thought AND resources didn't go into the effort.

Vic G. made it sound to a small group of users in a private meeting in Dallas the other day as if G+ had limited resources at their disposal, and THAT was the reason for the herky-jerky "course" all around. Which just doesn't make much sense to me.

See my last few comments here:
plus.google.com/u/0/+GideonRosenblatt/posts/Hb4xeApNu4L

Interesting points in the comments on both posts +Alex Schleber , thanks.  I did think that Vic's "sailing" metaphor was a graceful way of justifying what may look like changes in course, whether or not there is actually something analogous to wind or a powerless sailboat to navigate in it.  Surely Google could afford to slap an engine or two in any vessel.

+J. Rae Chip = Not just another vapid blonde. 🙂

You know that I know the history and agree with you on the favoritism +J. Rae Chip , and you should also know that I've consistently advocated managing the site as a meritocracy, which is exactly the opposite of favoritism.

I've seen both sides of the coin and I still receive clear feedback from photographers that G+ isn't yet on a healthy path (to put it politely), so I'll do what I can to help Google bridge the gap.

I don't know if you know it but contact count has little to nothing to do with the operation of G+, and hasn't since mid-2012.  That's why many of the recommended users quickly and simultaneously posted that they didn't care about being on the list when they were taken off… they were clearly assured that they would still rule the site, list or no list.  Their posts were prioritized no matter what… no matter what their daily participation is, how many circles they were shared in, what their contact numbers did, no matter how they acted.  The controls simply went underground and no longer were associated with any visible list.  The corruption of reality and reason is obvious in so many aspects of the community that now years later I continue to meet people with essentially the same reaction that you have.  I believe that the false promotion of leaders here can be shut off like a switch, or slowly turned off like a faucet, at which point the community can thrive, especially if there's some incentive in place to reward genuine participation.

I'm not sure what's unclear about anyone being able to have their work go viral (the polar opposite of "rich-get-richer"), but I'm probably not describing it well after a week of too much driving and not enough sleep.

+Jeff Sullivan based on what I've heard from newer adds, I believe you. I'm not sure if it's outright corruption or that the majority of people who are new joins to this network are trolls, bots, spammers, and amateur-genitals-selfy-takers.

I guess I'm just not sure how this plan would give everyone the opportunity to have their work go viral. Maybe it's because I avoid YouTube and have long-since given up on Google+ being useful for anything except socializing with my friends. It's probably beyond my understanding I guess.

Peace.

If only they had listened to us in the beginning! lol
+Alex Schleber yea I have a friend who is not a photographer and has been on the SUL since it first came out. She's been on it still, even though she hasn't posted in a year.