No, Google+ is Not Dead -- It's Just Dead to You, and Here is Why

I have to laugh every time some idiot posts online that Google+ is dead or that no one is there. I mean REALLY laugh -- like guffaw, hold my sides, tears streaming down my face laughing. Well -- maybe not that much, but seriously giggling.

Google+ is not dead, it's just DIFFERENT. You wanted more privacy, so G+ invented circles. You can share your posts with everyone in your circles, or just one group of people. When you circle someone, if they don't circle you back, you won't see anything they post unless they make that post public.

So while you're thinking nobody is posting, you just aren't seeing them, because they aren't posting to you. Trust me, people are posting. I have over 600 people in my circles, but not all of them see my posts. For example, I have a circle for Acquaintances which are people I don't know well enough to know where to place them yet. A lot of what I post is to all my circles, but some of what I post is only to my Home and Garden or Writers and Bloggers circles. Why would I force irrelevant posts on people who aren't interested? I had enough of that crap at Facebook! If I was friends with someone, I had to see everything they posted, whether I wanted to or not.

That's why I love G+ sooooooo much! I have a lot of people in my circles who write. Some of them write about gardening. If I post something that relates to writing about gardening, I will share with both. If I share something JUST about growing something, I will post only to home and garden. I also have a circle for photographers, simply because I love looking at their pictures, however, they are very prolific posters, so I can choose NOT to see the photography posts when I look at my posts by not choosing to view that circle.I can see posts only from gardeners, or only from writers, or only from photographers. It's very relaxing to be able to just pop in to see what people are doing in their gardens without having to go through several dozen irrelevant messages about celebrities and politics and whatever else.

Then there are communities. Communities are for where the circles intersect, where you might not want to circle everyone that has anything to say there, but still want to see what they have to say. I own several communities and belong to several more. I can allow posts from communities to show up in my stream, but I choose not to. I reserve my stream for the people in my circles.

Yes, it takes some getting used to how things work on Google+, but once you do, you will either love it and leave all your other social networking sites behind, or you will hate it and stay on FB bashing G+.

But trust me, there are plenty of people here, and we are ALL posting...just not to you.

Marissa Mayer, Telecommuting and Constructive Discharge

I've read a lot in the last few days about Marissa Mayer and her decree that people will no longer be able to telecommute. Opinions are running about 20-to-1 against her, when it may not have actually been her decision at all. She did, after all, recently hire a new head of HR, Jacqueline Reses, and it was her name on the leaked memo.

I'll keep this brief, because enough has been said on the topic, but to those of us familiar with the practice, this is so clearly a case of constructive discharge.  According to Wikipedia,
In employment law, constructive dismissal, also called constructive discharge, occurs when employees resign because their employer's behaviour (sic) has become so intolerable or heinous or made life so difficult that the employee has no choice but to resign. Since the resignation was not truly voluntary, it is in effect a termination. For example, when an employer makes life extremely difficult for an employee to attempt to have the employee resign rather than outright firing the employee, the employer is trying to effect a constructive discharge.
 The last CEO of Yahoo lost his job after he fired thousands of employees to try to improve the bottom line, so Mayer can't exactly do that again, can she? In fact, she is trying to get some of those people back. She does, however, have to get rid of some more people, so this is how she does it. If she forces them to quit by giving them a "choice" that is really no choice, Yahoo does not have to pay them unemployment. Yes, that's right. Mrs. Mayer is trying to fire hundreds of people and keep them from drawing unemployment on Yahoo's account.

She's doing a lot of other things that people aren't aware of too. At Yahoo Contributor Network, she has done away with programs that pay for contributor articles and replaced them with assignments which are literally "given" to Yahoo for exclusive rights with no pay. THEN the staff takes those articles and chops pieces out of them to create a compilation article which is promoted on one of Yahoo's major sites. Contributors who usually receive money for page views get nothing, zip, NADA for these compilations that use their words, because the gave those words away.

Sorry, maybe this isn't so short after all, but I don't like Marissa Mayer or the minions she has brought on board. She still has a lot of employees fooled, but one day, the rose-colored glasses will clear and they will see her for what she is -- someone who was blocked from rising to the highest levels of management at Google because she doesn't have what it takes, and someone who will likely not last long at Yahoo.

Gee, wonder where she will get free daycare then?