Updated

googleshareditems.png On December 14, Google’s RSS feed reader application, Google Reader, introduced a new way for “friends” to see your “shared” feed items. The feature caused me to blow a fuse, because I realized it was letting competing bloggers automatically see my shared feed items. Google was defining who my friends were, not me.

At the time, a couple of others wondered about the move. But this past week, more fuses have been blowing, as Google Reader users discover that business competitors, politically sensitive relatives, ex-lovers, and others are getting access to items that Google Reader users think they’re sharing with selected confidantes.

The significance is that the “social” data Google has about person-to-person interactions in its applications may not be nearly as valuable as the social data contained in other social networks.

This is where Open Social, its software developer platform for third parties (our coverage), should come in. Google Reader should let you automatically find friends on Myspace, Bebo, Hi5 and other social networks, who are also using Google Reader.  Then you could invite these people in to your friends in Reader. [Note: OpenSocial doesn't yet offer this functionality to third-party developers, although OpenSocial member LinkedIn's platform does -- or will when it gets up and running (our coverage).] Of course, there are other interesting possibilities, like building a Google Reader application that lives within these social networks, that shows your shared feeds to your friends.

More on that in a minute. First, here’s a specific description of how Reader works.

Before the addition of the “friends” feature, if you marked an item as “shared” you could email it to people via Gmail or post it on a blog. “Shared” items would also be automatically and publicly available at an obscure URL that nobody would ever find unless you specifically told them about it; these URLs were not indexed by Google search.

The new “friends” feature, however, makes this information far more public. If you chat with someone through Gtalk, the Google instant message service embedded in Gmail, Reader assumes that person is your “friend.” Then, within Reader, you and that person automatically get to see each others’ “shared” feed items.

The Google Reader team replied, yesterday, with an official blog post explaining ways you could make shared items private. But that’s not the point.

Here’s the point: Don’t tell me who my friends are, ask me who my friends are — after that, we can talk about what to share publicly or not. As you can see from the screenshot I just took from Reader, below, the team still isn’t getting the memo. Apparently, any competitor who I chat with in Gmail, who then starts using Reader, will still be getting automatic access to my “shared” feeds.

googlefriendsshareditems.png

Interestingly, Google has another news-sharing application already available — a third-party Facebook application. Like all Facebook applications, if you want to invite people to use it with you, you need to select individuals who are already your Facebook friends (see screenshot). This is the sort of option I’d like to see, instead of having any chatter recipient “automatically subscribed” to my shared items.

googlenewsinfacebook-1.png

There’s also nothing stopping Reader from using Facebook’s developer platform to access the social data on Facebook from within its own site. Or from building a complementary application for Reader users within Facebook (which this independent developer has already done).

These are suggestions for the Reader team. The key is to ask some sort of permission to share, first. This is how a company builds trust with users and mitigates user backlash when daring new features are released.

Probably the most successful example of that is when Facebook introduced a “news feed” page last year, where you could see all of your Facebook friends’ most recent activity on the site (adding friends, joining groups, etc.). At first, users hated it. They didn’t realize Facebook might give their friends such easy access to see their behavior. But within weeks, everybody realized the news feeds page was a great feature. Why? Everybody had already chosen to be friends with the people who were seeing their activities on the news feeds. In other words, the feature is a great way to get your friends to pay more attention to you — and attention is why many people use Facebook in the first place.

On its face, one can guess why Google isn’t asking you to directly invite other Google users to share feed items with you. Inviting friends is a laborious business, something Google may fear Reader users won’t care to do. After all, many Reader users have already gone through the friending process within social networks like Facebook and Myspace.

Google, you could ask me who my friends are first, then I’ll tell you. Or you could tap into that existing information through OpenSocial. Just don’t assume that you already know everything about me.

Tags: ,
Trackback URL

4 Trackbacks

  1. Dear Google Reader: Use Open Social To Figure Out Who My Friends Are | Eric Eldon | Voices | AllThingsD said:

    [...] Read the rest of this post Print Sphere Comment Tagged: VentureBeat, Open Social, Eric Eldon, Voices, RSS, Reader, Google | permalink [...]

  2. OpenSocial is not about sharing Friends at Oliver Thylmann’s Thoughts said:

    [...] see this again and again, most recently in this post about Google Reader. There VentureBeat argues that Google should use OpenSocial to find out who my [...]

  3. VentureBeat » GMail updates: A sneaky, creepy new year from Google? said:

    [...] The news emerges after concerns Google is already violating our privacy by sharing things about what we do without explicitly asking our permission. See our coverage about the Google Reader controversy. [...]

  4. GMail updates « MelakaToday said:

    [...] The news emerges after concerns Google is already violating our privacy by sharing things about what we do without explicitly asking our permission. See our coverage about the Google Reader controversy. [...]

7 Comments

  1. jack said:

    i’m going to be honest, i find all of this backlash to be really bizarre and unfounded. the entire point of the feature was to mark articles that you want to share widely.

    if you wanted to mark articles as important, that’s what the star was for. if you wanted to email articles, that’s what the ‘email’ button was for. you didn’t need to mark an item with ’share’ to do those things. i know because i used to email plenty of articles to people through gmail without marking them to share widely.

    nothing has changed except they’ve now made the distribution easier. you compare it to facebook, but it’s very different - they already asked you for permission to share the article because the button says ’share’ on it.

    am i the only person who understands what the word means? i feel like i’m taking crazy pills here!

    i mean honestly, what did people think the ’share’ button was supposed to do?

  2. ITrush said:

    Very informative! thanks for sharing.

    Nhick
    http://www.itrush.com

  3. Harshal Vaidya said:

    Thanks for this. I completely agree to all the content in this post. To add to that there is another annoying feature with Orkut. If I add a person as a friend on Orkut, whenever the person accesses his GMail s(he) automatically shows up online on my GTalk and can chat with me automatically.

    This is preposterous. I admit that I added that guy as a friend but I might not want to talk to him on GTalk. Why the hell is there a default assumption that I want to chat with my Orkut friends? Who gave you that right ?

    Most people add friends on Social Networks even if they have a faint acquaintance with them. That does not mean that they want to chat with them.

    C’moon Google grow up and be responsible. You can play with peoples data like that.

  4. Aaronontheweb said:

    Large organizations like Google and Facebook take their user bases for granted; they don’t take into account the real-world circumstances of all possible relationships. I’m friends on Facebook with a lot of people whom I would certainly never talk to over AIM or GTalk, and for Google or whomever to make the reverse assumption is frustrating and potentially creates awkward situations for the lives of those people using social networks.

    In short, social networks should assume NOTHING about their users.

  5. Bob said:

    When you mention the idea of Google Reader + OpenSocial, the word “Spokeo” just came to mind. It was recently introduced on Guy Kawasaki’s blog: http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/12/reality-check-s.html

  6. Eric Eldon said:

    Jack, Google’s definition of what public “sharing” means has been confusing to many people.

    Many interpreted “share” to mean “share privately,” based on Google’s description of what the “sharing” option has meant up until the introduction of “friends.”

    Example: Text from Google’s help page on the obscure, non-search-indexed “public” URL generated for your Shared items.

    “Like any regular web page, your public page is viewable by anyone who knows its address. Send the link to your friends and family, and they’ll be able to read what you’ve recommended. They can bookmark your page in their browsers for easy access, and they can even subscribe to it in Google Reader.”

    http://www.google.com/support/reader/bin/answer.py?answer=69989&topic=12016

    When Google says this is a URL that you tell “friends and family” about in order for them to find, there is no suggestion that Google will all of a sudden define your “friends” as people you chat with on Gtalk.

    So there are two problems here for Google. Miscommunication about what sharing has meant and will mean in the future — then, wrong assumptions about who your friends are.

  7. Rob Scott said:

    Hmm… perhaps I’m missing something here. If they only share what is marked as “shared” and the default setting is to NOT share items (as it appears to be) what’s the problem? I agree with up you, Eric, that this is another Google miscommunication. However it also sounds a bit like rabble rousing when the risk with default settings nil.

    “competing bloggers”? Interesting concept.

Add a Comment