Now that we can finally have pages on Google+, Gaming should totally get one!

  • This is probably a good idea, as long as we can get some volunteers to operate it. Would you take that on @fredley?
    – GnomeSlice
    Nov 7, 2011 at 23:42
  • @GnomeSlice Of course. What do you think our posting volume should be to start off with?
    – fredley
    Nov 8, 2011 at 0:36
  • 1
    This this question be closed? Google+ is dead since April 2019. Jan 20, 2020 at 12:37
  • 2
    @FabianRöling No need to close, I've self-answered and accepted.
    – fredley
    Jan 22, 2020 at 13:28
  • 2
    @fredley Magnificent. Jan 22, 2020 at 13:34
  • The accepted answer really gave me a laugh.
    – Timmy Jim Mod
    Jan 22, 2020 at 19:01

3 Answers 3



  • 2
    – Joachim
    Jan 22, 2020 at 14:03
  • Cf.
    – fredley
    Jan 23, 2020 at 16:23

Along the lines of what Dave DuPlantis said in the comments, I fully support this idea, if we can get people to maintain it. If not, I think it looks bad to have a dead page.

Along the lines of keeping it active:

If we can steal an SE dev for a while, perhaps they can patch some feeds up to automatically post, similar to how our twitter account works. In addition, we need to do a lot of the same things suggested in the meta thread about our Facebook: Post, post, post! Post good questions! Post good answers! Promote our events! Promote our servers! There's a whole host of things we can do, but with one caveat:

We have to be careful not to overdo it.

People who get bombarded with post after post about us will eventually ignore us. Remember: moderation. Find that happy medium and thrive in it.

Another thing that can help ease the burden of maintenance, is having several maintainers. It's a lot easier for 3 people to post twice a week than for one person to post daily. I think that one post daily (maybe more if G+ explodes and peoples streams get more cluttered) would be a good ratio for keeping us in the public eye, yet not so much that people start to find us annoying.

  • I would not be opposed to being a maintainer, on the stipulation that there were others. Nov 9, 2011 at 2:52
  • 1
    This is good, what we need is a similar setup to the blog, where we can have a pool of users who can help maintain the page.
    – fredley
    Nov 9, 2011 at 10:08
  • I disagree about maintainers. You need one person who can do it consistently. I hate accounts with inconsistent personality. In a blog or magazine you can have a particular style with room for individual flavor, but not so much in a social network page. (And haven't we actually had complaints about the lack of consistency on the blog?) </minirant> Nov 14, 2011 at 20:43


  • I'm not sure why you're pasting that link, could you add a bit of context to your answer?
    – fredley
    Nov 7, 2011 at 18:50
  • Yeah, I don't know.
    – GnomeSlice
    Nov 7, 2011 at 19:02
  • 2
    @fredley Considering the 15 likes on the Facebook page, I see no point in having yet another social network page, where we have almost no publicity.
    – mordi2k
    Nov 7, 2011 at 19:10
  • @mordi2k I've seen quite a few SE'ers on Google+ before I got suspended.
    – badp
    Nov 7, 2011 at 19:29
  • @mordi2k Wait, so the way to make more impact on social media is to target fewer social media sites?
    – fredley
    Nov 8, 2011 at 0:37
  • 3
    @fredley, I think targeting isn't as important as providing a consistent, active presence. Pretty much every site is cluttered with pages put up by companies/people/sites who simply wanted a presence without a purpose behind it: making it worthwhile requires constant effort, and that may be a reason behind some people's reluctance to support the idea, uncertainty as to where the effort will come from. Nov 8, 2011 at 1:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .