• https://abrah.am/ Abraham Williams

    One difference is Google+ apps can not automatically share to your stream. They have to use the G+ SDK to open a share dialog. Your app activity can show up to the people in circles allowed to see it in other ways (e.g. search) but it shouldn’t show up in the stream.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1279922677 Nikhilesh Jasuja

    Great comparison!

    One advantage of using G+ auth could be using rel=author pointing to G+ profile for content created by your users.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    If they absolutely cannot do that, that doesn’t mean that Facebook apps just spew everything, which is what the post describes. I have nearly 70 Facebook apps, and I can tell you that my stream is not flooded with activity from them.

    Also, the apps certainly may share what you do or like in Google search data or ad data in a “frictionless” way, as least based on the information that Google itself provides.

    Again, the bottom line is that with Google Account sign-ins, we didn’t have to worry about this stuff that supposedly was only a Facebook problem. But with Google pushing Google+ sign-ins (and almost certainly likely to make Google Account sign-ins go away), it’s actually making our activity less private and more subject to review than before.

    And that is pretty much the opposite of the message it tried to present today.

  • Vandré Brunazo

    > I can tell you that my stream is not flooded with activity from them.

    That’s because of EdgeRank. Facebook hides most activity in your stream from view, using their own secret sauce algorithm. Apps have a specially very low weight and will rarely show in your stream, even if you want them to. This way then can incentive brands to pay for visibility. On G+, absolutely everything you post is shown, just like twitter.

  • Vandré Brunazo

    One huge advantage of G+ sign in. As an Android app developer, this allows my users to install my app from my website directly to their phone, without visiting the play store. Because I’m not sending them to the play store, I can have an 100% accurate conversion rate, so I can measure ad campaigns. You can know exactly how many of the people who clicked your ads are actually installing your apps. (before you could only know how many of them you sent to the play store website, but not how many of those installed it).

    This is currently impossible on any other platform. And it’s a huge benefit for performance metrics.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    It’s both EdgeRank and also because not every app out there is constantly sharing. But it goes to the bigger point, the idea that Facebook is just full of “app spam.”

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    Given all the spam accounts that have been registered on Facebook, using that service to filter out spam registrations is a waste of time. I don’t know how many spam Google+ accounts have been created although I presume fewer since most people still believe Google+ has little to no activity. But given how easy it is to create multiple Google logins (which, presumably, automatically create Google+ accounts) I have to guess there must already be millions of spammy Google+ accounts just waiting to be abused.

  • Vandré Brunazo

    The point is that it is full of app spam. You don’t see it because both good app posts and app spam are hidden together. Which makes the good posts that you actually wanna show, harder to spot. Which is the whole point of why spam is bad in the first place. The app spam is not harmlessly going away with EdgeRank, it’s hidding your good posts in the noise.

    On Facebook, your friends don’t get to see everything you wanna tell them, because of social spam. On google they do. That’s a very good point.

  • http://justkidding.com tqwhite

    What I can’t imagine is using either of those. What could possibly justify giving anyone such access to any part of your life?

    I am (barely) willing to use Disqus to sign in for comments and am becoming sceptical of that. I would categorically refuse to use anything that insists on FB or G+.

  • https://plus.google.com/106614119906335578928 Alex Ander

    There are a few differences:
    - Confirmations for every share decreases the volume at which spam is created

    - You have to actually circle a spambot to see their posts as there isn’t a separate comments feed like the Facebook plugin

    - If the spambots manage to get into Communities or populate (the admittedly already imperfect) tag streams, the Google+ spam filter is almost too strong for its own good

    Google+ sign-in ensures that 3rd-party apps and websites, while still getting access to your “basic info”, can only see the people you want it to see – and most importantly, the system works both ways.

    The real difference here is that the Google algorithms can process your “activity” – which is all of the interactions between Google+ and that particular app. If you really don’t want AdMob to process what you share, though, you’d best not be using Google+ at all.

  • Marc Razia

    It won’t be long I am sure. But why should it be? If anything, having all the various Google services under a single login makes things much more efficient. Imagine if you had separate logins for FB photos, FB games, FB messaging, etc. What a nightmare.

  • Marc Razia

    If you own a smartphone and download any apps, you are already providing that info each time.

  • http://justkidding.com tqwhite

    Though I am annoyed that our government refuses to restrict companies’ use of our data, I understand that anyone I give info to is a leak.

    What I rarely do is allow apps to access systems outside their own aegis. EG, I do not allow the NY Times app to talk to Facebook. What I *never* do is use Facebook as an authentication system.

    In fact, I go one step further. I access my Facebook account on a separate web browser to sequester cookies. To the best of my ability, I keep my life separate from Facebook. It is insidious.

    Google is a bad problem. Adsense makes it possible to track one far and wide. Consequently, I sequester my Google login in a separate browser.

    Unfortunately, we know that a determined researcher can identify you by your search history. But by isolating my login, they have to take special steps to organize a picture of my life.

  • https://plus.google.com/106614119906335578928 Alex Ander

    You have to understand that the real purpose of Google+ is not to be a Facebook competitor (though now that the two have become more competitive, it may well turn out that way). In unifying their products through Plus (especially with features like 2-step authorization, profile verification, and PageRank boosts) Google is trying to put you in control of that footprint.

    While right now it’s still possible and pretty feasible to all but eliminate your online identity, as the world inevitably becomes more integrated with the web it’ll be nice to have one account that is verifiable, secure, and customizable.

  • http://simon-searchmarketing.com/ Geoff S.

    All my Google services are under a single login now, and i don’t have problems. If i want to share something on Google plus i know how, i don’t need an app to do it for me.

  • Ryan Ng

    What’s Disqus?

  • http://justkidding.com tqwhite

    Disqus is the utility this site (and us right now) are using to enter and display these comments.

    Their business model is based on collecting information correlating a cookie they set when you log in for this comment with all of the websites you visit that also use this tool. It’s a huge privacy invasion but they don’t have as much of my personal and relationship information as Facebook and Google Plus.