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?– GnomeSliceNov 7, 2011 at 23:42
-
@GnomeSlice Of course. What do you think our posting volume should be to start off with?– fredleyNov 8, 2011 at 0:36
-
1This this question be closed? Google+ is dead since April 2019.– Fabian RölingJan 20, 2020 at 12:37
-
2@FabianRöling No need to close, I've self-answered and accepted.– fredleyJan 22, 2020 at 13:28
-
2@fredley Magnificent.– Fabian RölingJan 22, 2020 at 13:34
-
The accepted answer really gave me a laugh.– Timmy Jim ModJan 22, 2020 at 19:01
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
No
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.
answered Nov 9, 2011 at 2:30
-
I would not be opposed to being a maintainer, on the stipulation that there were others. Nov 9, 2011 at 2:52
-
1This 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.– fredleyNov 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?– fredleyNov 7, 2011 at 18:50
-
-
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.– mordi2kNov 7, 2011 at 19:10
-
@mordi2k I've seen quite a few SE'ers on Google+ before I got suspended.– badpNov 7, 2011 at 19:29
-
@mordi2k Wait, so the way to make more impact on social media is to target fewer social media sites?– fredleyNov 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