Skip to main content
 

Two dogs and a view.

1 min read

Two dogs and a view.

 

Paul Lindner hung out with 1 person.Julie Lindner

1 min read

Paul Lindner hung out with 1 person.Julie Lindner

 

Mike's already picked up on the +1s bleeding through.

3 min read

Mike's already picked up on the +1s bleeding through.

We have an open bug on choosing a URL from the body text.  Another possible solution -- allow posts with links to use full-bleed photos.

Originally shared by Mike Elgan

How Google+ could improve viral G+ marketing for free.

Unlike Facebook, Google+ is a great blogging platform.

Let's say you want to blog about another post somewhere. If you paste in the link, or click on the link icon, Google+ will add a thumbnail from the external post, plus a blurb. 

But this is ugly. Some of the highest-traffic bloggers on Google+ don't use that system, including me. What we do instead is add a big, appealing photograph, the paste in the link in the body of the post. 

The first method links plus-ones on the other post. In other words, when someone plus-ones a post on Google+, the original source plus-one count goes up by one. It's linked forever. If the same user comes back and un-does his plus-one, the count on the source site goes down by one. 

However, if you do the big-picture method, plus-ones on Google+ are not reflected on the external post -- the plus-ones are not linked. 

Here's an example of the problem: Yesterday I posted an item on Cult of Mac using the big-picture method. The post and its comments got well over 2,000 plus-ones. But over on the Cult of Mac site, the post got only 76 plus-ones. 

https://plus.google.com/+MikeElgan/posts/B9VLptUGikF

People always mentally compare the Facebook "Like" count with the Google+ "plus-one" count and Google+ often looks like a slacker. But the reason is that likes for the the big-picture posts on Google+ aren't counted. 

If Google+ had counted the "plus-ones" for my post, for example, the G+ count would have been much higher than the Facebook count, and people viewing the source page would have a more accurate comparison between Facebook and Google+. 

Here's my proposed solution. 

When a user pastes in a URL in Google+, and the system auto-generates the thumbnail-and-blurb thing and links the plus-ones of the two posts, the user should have the option of replacing the thumbnail-and-blurb without de-coupling the linked plus-ones. 

That way, bloggers like me could use big-picture blog posts and still have plus-ones reflected on the source page. 

Is this possible or desirable? 

 

Paul Lindner hung out with 1 person.Julie Lindner

1 min read

Paul Lindner hung out with 1 person.Julie Lindner

 
 

Paul Lindner hung out with 1 person.Julie Lindner

1 min read

Paul Lindner hung out with 1 person.Julie Lindner

 

The rain has let up enough for a relaxing 2 dog brunch..

1 min read

The rain has let up enough for a relaxing 2 dog brunch..

 

Nice to see a punk community springing up in Google+!

1 min read

Nice to see a punk community springing up in Google+!  Here's my first pick.  Posting the play store link since they don't have many youtube videos available and since Revolution and World on Fire are my faves...

 

There are almost 100k public schools in the USA.

1 min read

There are almost 100k public schools in the USA.

Let's assume a police officer in each school costs $50k/year.  (And that probably doesn't include pension costs).  That's $5 billion dollars per year.

There are around 10m guns sold in the USA per year.  So to fund this we'd have to add a $500/gun tax.

I couldn't find stats on ammunition sales, but it might make even more sense to tax bullets.  Maybe based on their lethality.  BB guns are free.  Cop Killer bullets are $2000.

[left this originally as a comment Dan Gillmor's post, but I think it deserves broader sharing since I think it puts this whole thing into perspective...]