For me the decision always boils down to whether or not I think my content can generate some discussion. If the answer is yes, I post to Cake. Otherwise, I post to Twitter.
Sometimes there's a bit of overlap where I'll post something to both Twitter and Cake, often using my tweet(s) as a reference point for my Cake post. Other times I share my Cake post on Twitter so my followers could read my post if they're interested.
What you need is a personal blog that has different sections that has walls to what content they could read. Does suck a thing even exist? So you could type all thoughts in one place but have it accessible from a wide assortment of places. And let’s say your personal things wouldn’t be available to coworkers.
A place like that did exist, but not any longer. You were able to simply post publicly, but also sort your posts into sections based on their topic. Each of those sections could either be made publicly available, or have its visibility restricted to certain sub-groups of your friends or followers. For example, you could have had one section visible to just your family, one for just your co-workers, several that were public but not generally shown to people following you as a person, etc. On the receiving end, people could either follow all of your posts, or just certain sections of it, by following or unfollowing those sections separately.
The only thing that wasn't possible was to group several of those individual sections you followed into one stream, which would have allowed you to see "all the posts about artisanal ice cream" even if that meant posts from two dozen different people. It could have been added, had the people running that platform really wanted it, though.
Sounds great, right? It was - but instead of adopting this, people just loved to make fun about the useless Facebook-lookalike and its "Collections" feature for the better part of a decade, until Google+ was eventually shut down. :)
That’s unfortunate. Keep looking?? Not sure what the best alternative would be. Private blog you cut and paste from. Doesn’t seem very convenient.
The Google+ venture fascinates me. $550 million spent by a company with extraordinary reach, talent, and resources — although admittedly that was an insignificant amount compared to what they spent on YouTube, which I guess was 10x that?
Did it fail because celebs are mainly focused on eyeballs and if you can’t have celebs you can’t have a big network? Is it because they didn’t have the conspiracy theory subs that seem so important to Facebook’s traffic? They didn’t foster the commercial activities that got companies so engaged?
In my case, I have different accounts for different purposes and share based on who my target audience is. For example, on my personal Twitter account and associated Facebook like page, I use it to share my Cal hoops articles primarly, Cal hoops news updatets, some of what I write on Cake, and also some posts from my NBA blog and tennis blog. It's sort of a hub for everything I'm writing.
I also share some of my stuff on my LinkedIn account, but I make sure stuff first gets posted on my Twitter and like page. As for my Facebook profile, I tend to post less of my writing on there because that's why I have the Twitter, like page, and LinkedIn.
For my NBA blog and tennis blog for example, those have separate Twitters and Facebook pages, where I share all the content from those blogs on there.
The idea is that I like to know who my target audience is for whatever account I'm using as well as the platform. Facebook profile is more for my overall friends and less about my friends who are super into Cal hoops for example.
As for Cake, this has become a place where I can write about things other than Cal hoops, share some of my knowledge of sports, and write about things that I don't write about anywhere else. Such as politics, philosophy, or science. So, I do think knowing your target audience is key.
Seems complicated. A business opportunity for someone to find a better solution. Seems Google couldn’t get people to bite.
What it boils down to, I think, is that there was always at least a good part of Google that despised Google+ in its current iteration, or at least didn't care one way or the other.
At the beginning, when someone high up the chain of command forced every other Google product under the G+ umbrella, it was definitely other product managers who didn't like having to implement G+ integrations instead of doing something else. Towards the end, I guess it was program managers for individual features within G+ itself who couldn't care less about what happened to the feature they were overseeing after it had first been published.
I've seen so many features added in a barely working state, or the platform as a whole "pivoted around" some new idea so hard that it nearly broke, I can't imagine any other reason for that other than that G+ had become just an experimental sandbox for new managers to have a first try at managing something, before they were given a product where it really mattered.
Hey! Seriously sick of fb and new to Cake! Got anything delicious to chew on? Spill your guts!
Hey! Seriously sick of fb and new to Cake!
FB can get pretty draining!
Welcome to Cake, which feels like a much more pleasant online hangout so far :-)
I sooooo agree! Great to see all these other apps popping up to choose from. I started out on MeWe yesterday, then discovered Cake today. Really liking the format.
