KWPro.net

Simple: They're algorithmic.

I'm being partly facetious here and mostly accurate, imo.  My friend pointed out an article that I'm linking about Google's strategy to win at social, in which they are worried about Facebook (apparently). Here's a lesson that I've learned about many large companies that attempt to copy as opposed to buying out the competition: usually it ends up in failure. Google has been trying for a while now to catch up in the realm of social via various projects that have gone nowhere or were controversial. Knol? Buzz? Wave? Google +1? At the moment, Google is starting to sound like a desperate Yahoo and we all know what happened to them.

The problem with Google in moving towards social is that simply they've never been a social company to start.  Google has always been about the whole Star Trek culture.  I'm almost certain that if you're a loyal fanatic of Star Trek, you'll be welcome with open arms into Google. Meaning, you share the same beliefs as a certain Vulcan and attempt to emulate his impassive logic. That works great when you're attempting to create the Borg as Google has seems to have done. However, if you're attempting to create the hottest party in town, a Star Trek convention is probably the last place on earth where I would try to pick up a date.

Google, if you'd like some hints at winning on the social realm, let me give you some tips here:

• No more stupid academic interview questions. Social is about people. Find people who are social, not people who attempt to fit into your uber logical culture. And yes, I do know people there. And I used to work below you so I've seen your people. Not a friendly bunch as far as I could tell.
  
• Instead of competing with Facebook, why not get in bed with them? You're attempting to reinvent the wheel here. Isn't that an ecological waste? That defies one of your "Don't Be Evil" premises. Also, it's just not nice.
  
• Social is about socializing, making friends, connecting deeper into ways possible. You've already had four major attempts at social. The only successful product that I can quickly name from Google is YouTube....but that's because it wasn't created internally. And now even that product is becoming fucked up because you're bowing to industry pressure rather than using the people who helped make that product successful (i.e. the remaining parts of the world) help fight the powers that be.
• It's people powered, not computing powered. You say that you focus on the user, but I say you focus on the nerd. Take the Android platform for instance. There's a fucking checkbox for debugging the device that you show users. A fucking DEBUGGING CHECKBOX. What average user is going to know about DEBUGGING??????? If you want the average user, use my mom as QA. That's your standard. Apple has figured this part of the equation out but you haven't. Well, maybe your employees' moms are all uber geeks too.
• Social doesn't have to be just the typical "like" button. That's just one facet to a huge vocabulary of actions that are being ignored. Nor does social have to be just about recommendations and comments. These are just obvious and easy tools to quickly build up a community.
  
• Try asking the humanities majors what social is. Seriously. Humanities is, as it's name implies, all about humans and what it means to be human. Developers think of solving problems around computing and maybe some math. The Humanities people are great because they're thinking about many world issues too. Some of us have managed to cross the divide to handle both sides of the barrier. Don't ignore us because we could write an essay and you couldn't. Or that maybe others were getting supposedly easier grades and partying while you were at the labs trying to finish your assignment. Perhaps that last statement reveals a lot more about a major issue with the computing/engineering discipline than it does about humanities.
• Tying your employees' compensation to the success of social isn't very social. Actually, that's pretty mean spirited. In fact, it's Machiavellian, the complete opposite of social. For Mr Page directly, if you want your company to be social, first learn how to be social yourself. Otherwise, you have no vision for social and you should probably stick to solving mental masturbatory problems that your company probably excels at compared to most on this planet.

I like to boil social down to the artifact of users. Always start with them. Start with people, society. Then ask yourself how can we improve both? And don't simply ask how can we improve both according to my vision and my set of values. Put yourself in their shoes at all times and try to imagine what it's like to be them. Does that potentially mean dumbing yourself down? In the case of many Googlers, probably yes. But if you don't accomplish this step, you'll constantly fail at understanding the human condition.

Social also doesn't necessarily mean "cool."  Sure, I did use the term loosely when describing the kinds of people Google should try locating for hire. But that's a very broad and vague term. Sometimes "cool" means trendy. Sometimes "cool" means neato or novel. But does that necessarily mean it's a great product for people? It's like Justin Bieber vs Batman (Dark Knight). Sure Justin Bieber might be hot with teens, but is he the right guy for these swarmy little girls? Is he the role model that people need rather than deserve? (or whatever confusing epiphany Batman said at the end of Dark Knight). Same thing with what Google might perceive as being cool in terms of devices and features. For instance, Android is cool....for developers. As a developer myself, I can appreciate the API and power that the Android platform provides me. But as a user of the device, it absolutely stinks and I want my iPhone back.

At any rate, my advice to Google to succeed in social is not to copy and be a little more friendly towards people. I do think that social does have something to do with friends. Try to be one yourselves.