Skip to main content

How Google SHOULD Have Rolled Out Buzz

As much as I've tried to convince everyone I know not to use Google Buzz, I can't pull myself away. I'm too curious about stuff like this.

But beyond the bone-headed privacy issues behind Buzz, it's just not a very good product. It's hard to know if it was rushed or just ill-conceived, but it was too much all at once with too few options. Here's how they should have done it:

Start With Statuses ONLY
Forget rolling in Reader, Picasa and Twitter: start only with the Twitter-like ability to post messages, with the ability to pull in your gchat status and the ability to comment or like.

Yes, the web world would have yawned big at another Twitter clone. But this would have been the slow growth that Google needed for Buzz. It would have made the noise much quieter at first without that unread count going completely crazy, and the messages being sent to your inbox when you got a new comment would have been perfectly manageable.

Most importantly, it would have eased the average users into the experience. Yes, those of us highly active on Twitter would have shrugged it off, but it would have been usable and interesting, and would have been much less likely to freak people out when they first got a vomit of information thrown into their Gmail. Which is why most people I know turned it off almost immediately.

Get The Privacy Right The First Time
Even with the flurry of long articles, the problem with Google Buzz's privacy is very simple: you don't have control of your own privacy. Instead, you rely on the people you're following to be private, which is impossible to do.

With the rollout as simple as status messages, the privacy setting could have been made much simpler: Public or Private? If you choose private, then EVERYTHING is private. Your comments don't appear to anyone except the people you allow to follow you, your name doesn't appear in any lists of followers even if the person you're following has thrown privacy to the wind, and your profile page is completely private.

Roll In Services Slowly & With Full, Clear Options
One of the most frustrating things with Buzz is that it hasn't incorporated in Reader. It only feeds it in, so I see the same shared articles twice.

There's no reason for this. Reader, Picasa and Blogger are Google products, and they shouldn't be something that can feed into Buzz until it was fully imlemented. If I see and article shared by someone from Reader, it should be marked as read in Reader as well. If I use the FriendConnect Follow feature on someone's blog, it should put it in Buzz, Reader and Blogspot BUT it should mark it as read whichever service I read it in.

Likewise with Twitter. As far as I can tell, it's just feed in tweets, but it should be fully integrated with the Twitter API. Anything you can do in Brizzly and Hootsuite should be possible in Buzz.

Finally...
I really think that the privacy problems came because Google was trying to recreate FreindFeed, a service that is highly confusing to average internet users. If they had kept things simple from the beginning, I think the world--geeks included, however grudgingly--would have embraced the product. Instead, it's stoked distrust in a company that relies heavily on people's trust to achieve their goals, something they could have avoided with a clear, slow rollout.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why you should be clicking the Google +1 button

One of the things that most makes me feel like I'm beating my head against a wall is when I'm trying to convince people to click reaction buttons like the Facebook Like button or Google +1 button on web pages. I think that most people just don't really think to do it when they read something that they like, but they should, because as Avinash Kaushik brilliantly termed it , it's applause.  Now, I kind of get why people shy away from the using the Facebook Like button: because it shows up on your Wall, has a chance to show up in people's stream and now shows up in the ticker. All of those things are great for people trying to promote their content and get more clicks, but it's not so great for those of us just trying to get feedback on what people are liking and if they're actually reading what we're writing. Even if you're not actively embarrassed to have people know that you like it, it just feels a little more intrusive than a lot of people wan...

Some scattered thoughts on the money of digital music

If you haven't already read Digital Audio Insider's interview with Camper Van Beethoven's Jonathan Segal ¹, it's a must read for anyone with even a slight interest in digital music and the money of the industry. Segal has tons of thoughts on just about every aspect of digital music, but best of all, he brings in these thoughts as someone whose initial music industry experience was in the days of purely-physical media, when "pirating" meant copying something onto a blank tape. My main takeway is general and obvious but an important reminder: we are in a transition time for music, and what it will become is anyone's guess. I think Segal's take on merchandise and live performances taking the place as artist's primary source of income as "asinine" is too harsh to be true, but I do think that we're in such a state of transition that any shot at predicting artistic income in the future is completely in the dark. Such predictions are really ...

Why are we still judging work done by time spent?

Every morning, when I fill in the hours on my work's electronic timesheet, I'm struck by how odd it is that we're still judging our work by the time spent on it. It's odd because it's old-fashioned. In the paper and phone world, you could really only do work when you were at work. But we do work all the time now. I check my email when I first wake up. Does that mean I start my day at 6:30 am? Should that be reflected on my timesheet? How about when I respond to an email or check Basecamp when I'm on the bus? Does my work day start then? How about when I look at Google Analytics at night or think about email newsletters when I'm in the shower (which I'm somewhat ashamed to admit I did this morning)? On the other side, if someone finishes the work that they're meant to do, why should they feel like they need to stay at work until 5:00, just because that's the official time of the work day? I don't think anyone would argue that time spent ...