What if Google+ Offered A Revenue Model?

View Comments

• ขอบคุณครับ และ ผม กำลัง พิจาราณา กับ เป้าหมาย ที่ไม่แตกต่าง ของ การทำ แต่ ผมต้อง ทำกับ สัญญา ที่มี ให้ เรียบร้อย ก่อนครับ.เร็วนี้ กับ คำตอบ ครับ ทุกท่าน

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

• Personally, having a revenue model might be the straw that breaks the camel's back concerning this platform. This is social media..... to me that means that everyone should be social. They already do this to a point with the suggested user list. Any more would destroy the thing.

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

• +J. Rae Chip About your comment "This is social media..... to me that means that everyone should be social.", has Google ever called G+ "social media", or is that just aothers try to pigeon-hole it into?  Most times I've seen that sort of reasoning used, it came with an agenda someone was trying to sell along with the label.  What if Google were a content creation and discovery network?  There's no reason whatsoever why people can't be "social" around that; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

  You know that I totally agree with your comment about the SUL debacle.  I envision a more open process for sponsoring content, exactly as a remedy to the failed SUL-style model where a few people, mostly people with inside Google connections or some other tie to Google, get promotion and sponsors, and the rest of the community never gets an equivalent opportunity to flourish.

• 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.

• Consider for example how you and I interact +J. Rae Chip, we have the shared interest photography, we meet through photowalks and informal shoots and trips.  I could care less about being "social" on a "social network" for the sake of "socializing", even with people I already know, like you.  The socializing has to happen organically, around something else: content.

  Our shared interest in photography was the catalyst for connecting, and I have loads of techniques, location information, equipment reviews and other content to share and produce if there were any sort of viable revenue model here.  And people like my photos, love the technical advice, and it all gives us something to talk about, a closed loop, potentially a "virtuous loop" with positive momentum... if I could possibly justify investing the time.

  Lately tests concluded that even +1s don't translate into SEO benefits, so one promising aspect of G+ being created by Google does not seem to apply.

• 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 think it would kill google as it has conspired to kill the others. Still i think you will do it and lose your strengths because of it. Google plus is getting worse alrrady. Soon you will be worthless. Ads will hasten your demisr.

• 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.