New Google Reader

I just got the new Google Reader. As was to be expected, it reminds me of the old Windows Hi-Res theme. Not really my preference--I like some color--but I'll get used to it. Glad to see they kept the core of Reader unchanged, as expected. I didn't use the social features before and probably won't use the Google+ features now, so I'm left out of that particular bruhaha. I'm just glad to see that it's not going to get Buzzed. It's one of the most powerful web applications.

Now that we've got Google+ integration one way, how about adding RSS feeds to Plus to make it go both ways. I've been wanting to be able to subscribe to people and circles in Reader since the beginning.

I'm also irritated with the lack of themability. The new styles have much larger sticky portions, which is a problem with my ancient monitor and limited resolution. I'm finding myself having to use fullscreen to use Reader comfortably now. In addition, they still haven't added the simple feature of having the search default to the folder or feed you're viewing (as Gmail's search does). That's been annoying for a long time.

One thing I hate: fake third-party logins

Everyone's come across websites that allow you to sign in with Facebook, Twitter, or an OpenID provider. What I've recently come across is sites that purport to let you sign in with Facebook or Twitter, but don't really: once you've authorized them, they try to make you open an account with them. How obnoxious. The whole point in my trying to sign in with Twitter was so I don't have to create a frakking account with them! Digg and Cnet, I'm looking at you!

Update: Okay, I'm partially retracting my rant. Digg only makes you give them an email address and verify it and Cnet only makes you agree to a EULA and choose a username. Still, having to go through account-creation lite is annoying considering that you already did account creation with the third-party service.

Google+ failing?

It has lost 60% of its active userbase. I have to say that I'm not surprised by this one bit. In order to supplant a dominant product or service, your product or service doesn't need to be just as good or a little bit better. It needs to be a lot better (or significantly cheaper). Just look at the Zune: it never went anywhere precisely because Microsoft couldn't surpass the iPod and its ecosystem and refused to compete on price.

I have to say, for my part, that Google+ feels too much like stripped-down versions of Blogger and Google Reader merged. It just doesn't seem ideal for communicating with people in a non-Internetty way like Facebook is. For instance, sending a private message is a very clumsy process that isn't well-documented.

How misunderstood is direct messaging?

With the British coalition Energy Secretary pulling a non-sexual* Anthony Weiner and tweeting something he wanted to direct message, this question is relevant. It is extremely ironic that the Telegraph itself misunderstands how Twitter direct messaging (in a paragraph that's sure to be pulled):

It was not clear who the intended recipient was, although he would have only been able to send a Direct Message to one of the 87 people he follows, who include about 30 national journalists and several fellow MPs. 

No, that's not the way it works. You can only send direct messages to people who follow you. Whether you follow them is irrelevant. I've received DMs from people who never followed me, but I of course followed them. It makes sense when you look at following as a granting of trust, and you can only send people DMs if they trust you.

*He wanted to rubbish some unknown person but to do it from the shadows. This proves once again that Chris Huhne is a backbiting git.

Update: Sure enough, the paragraph has been corrected. It now reads:

It was not clear who the intended recipient was: he would have been able to send a Direct Message to any of his 7,616 followers.

Most (83%) Google+ users are inactive?

That's not really surprising, is it? In addition to being par for the course with just about everything, Google+ is particularly susceptible to inactive users for one reason: the invitation scheme. People's curiosity is naturally accentuated when something has a limited membership. It becomes something elite, and so naturally we want to find out what's so special about it. Then we get an invite, log on, and most of us find that it's nothing special (yet!) and log off.

Two Ways to Get RSS feeds for Twitter Timelines

It is really a shame that Twitter removed the ability to subscribe to an individual users timeline RSS feed on the page (either through a button on the page or through metadata that produces the RSS icon in the address bar). Here's a pessimistic blog post on what this forebodes for the future of RSS. The good thing is that the feeds still work and there are fairly painless ways to find them:

1. Use "Add a Subscription" in Google Reader and paste in the old-style address of the user's profile page. To get the old-style url, just remove the slash-shebang (/#!) from the current url (e.g., http://twitter.com/#!/isaachummel becomes http://twitter.com/isaachummel).


2. Search for the person's twitter handle in Google Reader. The feed should appear even if no one has ever subscribed to it (way to go Google Reader!). To find the feed search feature in Google Reader, select Browse for Stuff and then click on search at the top of the page. Or just click this link.


3. Follow this blog post's instructions.