Talk:Google+

Unofficial Google Plus Wiki

Hi, I nominate the Unofficial Google Plus Wiki to be in the External links section: http://wikigpl.us/

This is a site which compiles the latest tips and know hows of google plus. Obviously the length and detail would not be suitable here, additionally it is for limited audience at the moment. However who are already in the system or just joined raise the same questions and the information is beneficial for both new users or for the ones who just very curious about the details. The site is neutral and has references to google insiders who originally posted majority of this information. There is no official wiki of google plus just yet.

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ..." "... amount of detail .." ".. or other reasons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feczo (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:Reliable sources and WP:ELNO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at it. Please look at the page, it is reliable and has references eg. <source: David Yonge-Mallo> https://plus.google.com/117851035855826465807/posts/4Engwqgr4nZ who actually works for google https://plus.google.com/117851035855826465807/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feczo (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

additionally From: Trey Harris (https://plus.google.com/u/0/116222833568410151476/about) "+Szabolcs Feczak Thanks—I've looked at this and it seems quite nice! As a regular Google engineer, I hope you understand I can't endorse any outside work, but I'll try to link to it in a post soon. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feczo (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My Stream Screenshot

I've just added a screenshot of my Stream, so that people who don't have access to Google+ can see what it looks like. I don't expect the image to survive once this article is expanded and Google+ is opened up to all, but for now I think it's useful. Jaruzel (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

One screenshot for a website is typically acceptable. (Just realized that there's already one in the infobox.) I think your screenshot is fine and helps illustrate the site. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"invite was ended" is not entirely true

There's a workaround and people still invite. --84.130.182.171 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for this workaround? Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And is the workaround sanctioned by Google? If not, then the phrase "invite was ended" is accurate. Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 17:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And this "workaround" worked for less than a day before Google fixed it (if ever ... I tried it and it didn't work for me, but I don't exclude the possibility that it worked at some point). --B (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, someone sent me a Google+ invite today (July 5), and it worked. Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 00:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I also was sent an invite yesterday and got in today. --Nextil - (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Invites are Google sanctioned, (though the amount of invites may be limited). I received an invite, got in, and sent invites today. There is a section on the home screen where you can send invites. At one point there was a section at the bottom that said something like "Send 9 invites" and had a list of suggestions, but that section has since disappeared, so I am uncertain as to the number of invites that are allowed at this time. --Katiewoz (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would wager it is closed again. This has been on the front page for at least a week now: "Already invited? We've temporarily exceeded our capacity. Please try again soon." -- abfackeln (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed beta and pictures, NDA in effect?

We should probably be a little bit careful with posting pictures from Google +, it's a closed beta after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommie (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Negative, there is no NDA. It was an open beta before it was closed. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Statememt about Andy Herzfeld is wrong

He designed the circles interface but did not have anything to do with the Google-wide redesign. This according to a post he made on Google+ to clear up misconceptions in the press ... not sure how to find a suitable reference for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.233.250 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the direct link: https://plus.google.com/117840649766034848455/posts/FddaP6jeCqp LGFN (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of certain links

On facebook, it won't let you post links to torrents or porn on your wall. Does Google plus restrict linking to certain sites, and if so, what types? --LeedsKing (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Distorted logo

The logo in the infobox shows distorted. I've changed the pixel count to half of the original image to keep the original proportions, but it has been reverted and shows distorted again. Why is this technical problem happening? Diego (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what's up with the distorted logo? Am I the only one who sees it badly now? Diego (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What in the image are you seeing distorted? It appears fine to me - the proportions are correct and there's no abnormal pixelation that I can see. Which browser and version are you using? I can try with that to see if I can replicate a problem. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It shows vertically compressed in Firefox 4, Chromium (one year ago) and the native Android browser (I think that's WebKit based, too), so at least two different engines. The original size and my half-size reduced version show fine in both. Diego (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Same problem here. --Stryn (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I'm not seeing that here (using Firefox 5, IE9, and Android browser) - but clearly at least one other person is seeing the same issue. Just ruling out the basic stuff, have you cleared your local cache to make sure it's not a saved version of the image on your local machine? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not cache-related. I've logged out of my account to also make sure that it's not related to the skin I'm using. This is the HTML generated by MediaWiki for that image:

<td colspan="2" class="" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="/enwiki/wiki/File:Google%2B_logo.png" class="image">
<img alt="Google+ logo.png" 
src="http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Google%2B_logo.png/180px-Google%2B_logo.png" 
width="180" height="55"></a><br>
<span style="">Google+ logo</span></td>

If you can see this version correctly, I propose using it as it's guaranteed to keep the right proportions. Diego (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you brought this issue up at the village pump? I'm suspecting that it may be related to Template:Bugzilla, but it may be beneficial for some of the developers and/or users involved with supporting the technical areas to take a look to confirm. If it is related to that bug, then reloading the newest version of the image with a new name may resolve the issue (we could ask the person who uploaded it originally to try this). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that this logo which appears to me is not a transparent version, although the latest version of the logo is transparent[1]. I have the same problem in some other wikis too (eg. fi-wiki, es-wiki). And it's not related to browser. --Stryn (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gender issues

The title in the Gender issues section has been changed to Privacy issues. But it does not describe general privacy issues (only gender-related ones) and it does contain a reference that is only about gender disproportion, with no privacy issues at all. I think the original section name should be kept, and I don't understand why user Barek undid my revert if there was no consensus for either name. Diego (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the sources. The original one is clearly describing privacy issues. The new one you had added argued against the three categories "Male" "Female" "other", while Facebook had only "Male" and "Female". So, in theory, there's criticism of the "other" category, but not of being narrow buckets as is being claimed by your addition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've read the reference, in fact I posted it in the article before user Everyone Dies In the End changed the title. The source describes how "other" is an offensive term to describe minorities, and that Google should have no business in forcing users to self-identify into a weird category they didn't create. How is my sentence not an accurate description?Diego (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I was rewording my reply when you posted to this, which is better worded for clarity:

Read the sources. One is clearly describing privacy issues. The other had argued two points; a) against the three categories "Male" "Female" "other", while Facebook had only "Male" and "Female". So, in theory, there's criticism of the "other" category, but not of being narrow buckets as is being claimed by your addition ... and b) that instead of "I am", alternate descriptors such as "I feel", "I was", etc would be more interesting - but that's not a criticism of what's available, but an idea to expand new descriptor fields. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the sarcasm in "most people I know who do not fit into social norms prefer “Other” as an identifying term". You don't think that whole paragraph includes criticism? Diego (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading the source I realized something: the criticism is also not directed at Google+, as is implied by your wording ... it's a criticism of all social media sites. Even if the phrase is added back, which I argue is not appropriate, it should be clarified that the source of that claimed criticism is only using Google+ as the launch point of the discussion as being the newest player in the field, but concludes with a mention that the change for additional descriptor fields should be to Facebook, Google+ and all social media sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll rewrite the sentence along those lines. Next time, I beg you to read the sources before reverting content and placing commentary on them.

I still don't think the section title "Privacy issues" is valid for the content. Sentences like "Why are Facebook and Google getting involved in gender? Why are they asking people to identify their own gender for the purpose of social networking?" and "Do Facebook and Google think this is an important, primary way we should be identifying ourselves?" are definitely not about privacy. I'll change the title to something. If in the interim you have further new ideas about what the title should be, please edit them or discuss them here but don't repeat the change to "privacy" without consensus. Diego (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, what? Commentary? I did not add commentary - and I did read the sources before and again after making my reverts. The first two questions listed above are clearly privacy related, claims that they are "definitely not about privacy" is nonsense. The third question listed is gender related, I will grant you that one - but that one is the criticism that is not being Google+ specific. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That aside, I do agree with the revised wording that more neutrally presents the criticism and targets it at the appropriate places. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So, can you live with the current title? Diego (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I miss the stuff after the paragraph about the privacy issues. IE the issue about the majority of the beta being males and I don't think that should be lumped together with being forced to show your gender and called gender issues. As gender issues usually refers to sexism and not privacy issues. Anyway I didn't see the other part and would have separated the two into one being under Privacy issues and the other being gender issues.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gender gap article

I have removed the bit about the gender gap. I actually read the article and it is based on one guy's survey of his friends. And even for what it purports to be - unscientific anecdotal evidence - it's very bad at math. "Shout out to Internet researcher danah boyd, with a roughly 75:25 male/female ratio – you were the only one above 10% (I had six women out of 50 people, about the average on my check ...)". Umm, the last time I checked, 6/50 is > 10% and if 6/50 is about the average, then there was probably more than one over 10%. So he then takes his new math and guesses at the reason for the gender gap. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure there is a gender gap, but this is not anything resembling a meaningful source (much less a reliable source) for it. --B (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Official / Alternate Names?

Should we mention that the name of the service is "Google Plus", and is sometimes stylized as "Google+"? I feel that we should somehow mention that this service is referred to equally as "Google+" and "Google Plus" in the first sentence. Sp!ke (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's sometimes even shortened to G+, + or Plus. --84.130.255.117 (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen those yet, but those are more like nicknames rather than real alternatives to the actual name. It's like calling Firefox "FF"; it's just shorthand for the real name. Gary King (talk · scripts) 15:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Required information

This section describes an old policy, a controversy surrounding it, and a resolution. The title 'required information' does not accurately describe the contents. I propose that it be retitled to 'controversies' or that the entire section be deleted. What are your thoughts people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.39.10 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I don't get how Google's reaction would justify deleting verified coverage of the public reception. If anything, it's a reason to expand the section as it has been done, by adding links to Google's answer to the criticism, and maybe clarifying that one of the original disclosures is no longer required. Also note that this is not exactly a resolution; several of the criticisms described have not been addressed at all - gender selection is still required, there are still preconceived gender descriptions, and Google profiles are still going to be "upgraded" to the new system. As for the title, all of the section's content is about required information and it's under the Reception chapter; but maybe "controversies about required information" would be more descriptive, if a bit too long. Diego (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented your suggestion. I feel that despite the somewhat long title, it is still better than leaving this issue unaddressed. While the subsection in question is within the broader 'reception' section, its placement and title would imply to many readers that it is purely an entry on required information rather than a summary of a controversy.--24.10.24.215 (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Plusgate

Well, there is another issue that might be worth mentioning in the article: It seems Google+ have started suspending users with pseudonyms, particularly those with names they use on Second Life and the like, where they know lots of people under that name, and none of those know them under their real name. Some articles and blog posts on that, in no particular order, are here and here and here and here, and more interesting here, and most thought-provokingly over here. --Nomad Of Norad (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Hi, just wanted to ask about this sentence in the features section

Additionally, Google+ presents the different icons in a graphical or pictorial manner instead of the more commonplace text written icon names.

The key question I have about this line is, what do you mean by The different icons? What different icons? The second thing is the wording, its a bit odd, it says that google+ presents its icons in a graphical way, well of-course it does that's what makes them icons, if google+ used text then they would be links and not icons. Also it's hard to understand why this is even here, its a design choose not a feature as-such.

I don't have an alternation because I don't really understand what the sentence is trying to say, and I also do not have access to google+.

But I think it needs looking at. --Inputdata (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved, then parked this sentence, as it nonsense as written,

Parking this here. It's removed from the article:

• Google+ presents its icons in a graphical or pictorial manner instead of the more commonplace text written icon names.

Icons are by definition, graphical and pictorial. So, as noted above, the sentence, is nonsense as written, and confusing to the reader. Please make it make sense, before adding ti back. Adding a <ref></ref> would have helped me make it make sense, and is still the wikipeidan thing to do. Or was this original research?

Note I tighten the language to remove the different issue in the first part of this section. Lentower (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One user likes this.

One user likes this. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 16:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Social Gaming

I think this article should go more in depth on the social gaming aspect that was added to Google Plus. It takes a completely different approach then Facebook,so I think more info should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyswimmer (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Google+ Hangout.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Google+ Hangout.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. I will note that this discussion was about MOS:TM. It appears that there seems to be support for this move if there is evidence supporting Google Plus as the common name. That will need to be another nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Google+ → Google Plus — MOS:TM is pretty clear: avoid using special characters that simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love"). Note related previous discussion in section Official / Alternate Names? above. ENeville (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. I'm not sure '+' really counts as a "special character" the way the heart symbol does. It seems to me that "Google+" is the actual name of the service, with "Google Plus" merely the way the name is pronounced. Cf Yahoo!. Powers ^T 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a bit of inconsistency around Wikipedia about this. There are articles like Joomla. It seems more like personal taste or something. But there is a diference between a heart (and any other of those cute special characters) and plus symbol. The latter is on every keyboard I have seen. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support "Google+" gets more hits overall. But in a headline, it's always "Google Plus." See Time, Forbes, and PC Magazine, or Washington Post. Kauffner (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Keyword: avoid. If it were the common name it would be a different story. The media seems to prefer Google Plus because + signs ddon't matter in search results. Marcus Qwertyus 06:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

These sound like reasons to support the proposal. Kauffner (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I havn't committed to saying Plus is the primary topic (common name). I am opposing the nom who said this violates WP:TM. It will have to be demonstrated that Plus is the primary topic. Marcus Qwertyus 18:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What possible other candidates for primary topic are there? Powers ^T 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Google calls its self Google+ not Google Plus and there is noting wrong with using the + symbol as said above it's on the keybord — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdata (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Using '+' in the title is not like renaming the article love to '♥'. The '+' is an integral part of the name seeing as that it is used in the name by Google itself. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

+ is not a normal character in text. One would not write for a WP article "Her debating experience was a + for her candidacy". Nor would one write "The donkey ate the ^" or "Friday the 13th is a /er film" let alone "Lincoln voted 4 the bill", even though all those are normal symbols, and appear on keyboards. The two salient points are to make Wikipedia easy to read so that it's accessible to a general (uninitiated) audience, and in the realm of commercial topics to prevent peculiar and tortured language that functions to draw undue attention.

Note that the case of Yahoo! was very contested. ENeville (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What about C++? Powers ^T 15:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What User:LtPowers said. Especially in technical/computer areas, non-roman script characters are common. See also B+ tree (and nearly all articles in the Template:CS_trees template), Romeo + Juliet, today's Did You Know article Olds, Wortman & King, etc. --moof (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to follow the sources, or perhaps the titles for similar things. The titles used for computer languages and movies have no relevance here. There's almost 4 million titles on Wikipedia. Are they all fair game? Kauffner (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that saying that The donkey ate the ^ is not valid, is pointless, we are talking about something that has been named with a + we are not talking about shorting words to symbolism for the sake of it. I don't think the Yahoo! applys here, in yahoo's case the ! is not said however + is said we say plus. And as is said above in the case of C++ the article is called C++ because no one would search for C plus plus or for that matter See Plus Plus --Inputdata (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The arguments for "Google+" seem to be generally relying upon the configuration having been that advanced by the trademark holder, and the symbol commonly appearing on a keyboard. But the former would be an unbounded negation of MOS:TM, and the latter would indeed allow for endless shorting of words to symbols for the sake of it. The important thing to remember is that this is not just about this single case, but what would happen if these arguments were extended to all cases. We then would have REALTOR®, TIME, Macy*s, skate, Se7en, and a host of others. We then would have the likes of a bakery named "^cake", a clinic named "The Happy :", something named "2x+!" (double plus?...).

While to those acquainted with the topic, "Google+" may be recognized as "Google Plus", imagine a multitude (an encyclopedia even) of other topics all with their own unnecessarily cryptic titles. If one's first encounter with this topic is "Google+" in print (as mine was, for what it's worth), it's not even clear if the + is pronounced, or pronounced as "Google Positive", "Google and More", or what. Should there be a space between a word and the + symbol with such a naming convention? Why get into all this mess when we can just have the clear – and as pronounceable as the rest of English – "Google Plus"? The topic is a social network, a realm of wide media coverage. The visual of "Google+" is ambiguous to a general audience. This is good for marketing, bad for informing. Informing is what Wikipedia is for, and what we as editors should be pursuing. ENeville (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Google+ defined as identity service with social networking aspects??

This general definition of g+ as an identity service seems to be quite off in my opinion. While for Google and advertisers its primary function is indeed as an identity service (as acknowledged by Google's CEO), for its users, which are by far in the majority, it is a social network which happens to require your real name.

Also most of the service G+ offers is related to social networking, not the identification of human beings. Combining all the different perspectives and functions of G+, its function as an identity service comprises only a very small part of G+ and caters relatively to a very small amount of people.

Furthermore, the stated purpose of a tool by its creator for profit-generation is not necessarily a more legitimate purpose than its purpose defined by its use for the majority of the people. For example, it seems weird to define facebook as an advertisement service with social networking aspects. Or commercial broadcasting as an advertisement service with broadcasting aspects.

I also can't distance myself from the feeling that defining G+ this way seems to be a stab at Google for it requiring real names on G+. People following internet news know that there has been a lot of fuss about this policy and its strict enforcement, and it now seems like the Nymwars are also being fought on Wikipedia itself. I dont think Wikipedia is the place for such battles, and also that Wikipedia really should offer the most concise and neutral definition of any object. So for me this definition not only seems awkward, but also not NPOV.

I therefore propose to define it as a "social network" or if people really insist "a social network and an identity service" but not "an identity service with social networking aspects". That just seems way off. 145.97.224.124 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I also want to add that "with social networking aspects" implies that it is not a full social network, that it only partially resembles a social network, when in fact compared with the features and functionality of facebook it really is a full social network. I think we can agree on that. 145.97.224.96 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think it is very odd to call G+ an identity service. In fact the article manages to conterdrict its self less then a pargraf later. It says ...is a social networking and identity service and then says ...declared it Google's biggest attempt to rival the social network Facebook the key there is that it is been compared to Facebook a social network its not compared to an identity serves. Also I do find my self thinking "all social networks have some degree of identity serves in them" after all an identity serves is basically an online directory. Just like a social network.

Could we at least make the social network part of it more focused? The artile lists it second to an Identity Services.

Since their was no opposition, I decided to go for "social networking and identity service" because the CEO of google did state that its primary purpose was as an identity service, we can't ignore that.

We also have to consider that facebook and other social networks might have a policy requiring real names, however they don't seem to be very adamant on the enforcement of that policy. So I myself really think (after some consideration) that the current definition reflects the different purposes of G+ pretty well, and that it therefore is complete and the most neutral. 145.97.224.124 (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Google + Edits

As a group project, several Cornell University undergraduate students and I will be editing and adding material to the Google Plus page over the next several weeks. We will be adding more current and relevant information to the "Growth" section as well as the "Features" section. We will also be adding a section about its relevance / competition with other social networking sites! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandahill23 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

From your friendly neighborhood observer: I'm not sure how much you guys have added, but so far the "Features" section looks pretty good - maybe add some more information about the +1 button, comparing and contrasting it to Facebook's "like button" rather than simply saying that it is similar. The growth section has sufficient sources, but it is a bit sparse in terms of description, so some more there would be useful. BreakfastPancakes. (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think with this ever-evolving project, there is a lot of potential. Specifically in the "Games" section, there will be consistent updates for this. I know in specific there have been announcements over new popular games that are available for Facebook that are now on Google+. Also, it might be worth noting the tension between Facebook and Google+. I would also consider the publicity and marketing that have come from the launch of this social network (e.g. what celebrities are endorsing it, what are the marketing plans around this). Stay objective though in all commentary about the success/failures of Google+'s features. I think this is such an interesting Wikipedia article to be looking at :) MikelG2012. (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Article needs a more accurate user count

This article needs a more accurate user count. I believe it is around 50 million as of now. Shrimpboyho (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)