Doug Haslam

Gischeleman: "To Create With the Mind"

By

I Almost Caused a Riot at Dollar Tree (Google+/Facebook Embed Experiment)

I recounted this tale of horror on Google+ and Facebook recently. I wondered if I should put it on the blog- a few weeks later, the new “embed” functions on both platforms is as good an excuse as any. The Google+ embed is below, followed by the Facebook version.    

In each, the “see more/read more” function opens the text within the widget. This is also true for the comment left on my G+ post.

For G+, the comment shows up in the widget, while for Facebook they do not; when you click on the Facebook comments link, you are taken to Facebook.com. The same is true for +1 vs “like,” and commenting on either widget. Go ahead, click around on each widget and see what you find.

(ETA: Rachel Levy points out that on the mobile version of this WP site, the G+ post does not show up; even when using Google’s own Chrome browser (which probably does not make a difference.)

(ETA II: The issue was cause by the mobile press plugin – ht Danny Brown. I suspected WP was the issue, but found it strange it did not affect the Facebook widget. Never a fan of mobile sites for the sake of mobile sites, and noting changes in design and device capabilities in the last few years, I am more than happy to get rid of it.)

All that is good to know if you are concerned about keeping people on site. Google+ wins overall in keeping functions within the widget, at least as of this writing. Facebook, of course, may still be your main content wellspring, so there is no clear winner if you factor that in.

In all, an interesting way to share your content on your owned platform, with the usual caveat- the content is still hosted elsewhere, and if you lose that account- or the entire platform, you must back up or forget about it.

 

6 Responses to I Almost Caused a Riot at Dollar Tree (Google+/Facebook Embed Experiment)

  1. Danny Brown says:

    I’ll give them credit, Google has been really smart in implementing G+. From the embed difference here, to the way they don’t care where you interact as long as it’s through their apps, they make the UX a much smoother one than Facebook, who need you on their site to see their ads, etc.

  2. Doug Haslam says:

    And yet, a social network, like soylent green, is people. You can see in the widgets the difference in engagement I get, at least on my differing personal accounts. There are several mitigating factors, sure, but many of those feed into the actual differences in network effectiveness. If only G+ features and Facebook people would converge.

  3. Great point, Doug. When it comes to clever technology, I think Google will always win. This is seen even in how quickly Android has caught up to iOS (and some may say surpassed). I know a lot of people that say G+ gives them better engagement, but it all really boils down to where your audience is and where you spend the most time cultivating them. FB for many of us was first, hence it being the primary platform.

  4. Lisa Thorell says:

    Cool experiment. That’s a real palpable difference in user experience – FB tugging your blog reader’s chain back into the walled garden.

    I agree with Danny that they just want you using their apps. This week’s scuttlebutt over GOOG not providing search keywords (except if you use Webmaster Tools and especially if you use Adwords)seems to be rewarding those who use more of their apps. As a frequent tool user (gmail, analytics, adwords, webmaster tools, etc.) if only they would offer “frequent GOOG app user” mileage credits which could be applied toward Adword budgets, I might just ramp up my G+ usage. Hint,GOOG ;-)

  5. Kami Huyse says:

    I am on Android, and I also don’t see the G+ widget.

  6. Doug Haslam says:

    Try it now Kami (per the note added to the main body text)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>