[citation][nom]goatsetung[/nom]Can you also DISlike something? Otherwise it would seems to be mostly of a function of the number of visitors to the site.[/citation]
That would double the chance of abuse. You'd be able to hire companies to mass "dislike" your competitors.
Google roll out the 587th attempt to rip off Facebook and end in another Epic Fail.
As stated on the Register earlier:-
Google has been unable to pry all that oh-so-valuable user data from Facebook, so it has restored to building its own Facebook facsimile. Of course, it has tried this sort of thing before, most notably with Google Buzz, which just resulted in a settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission that will see the company undergo regular privacy audits for the next twenty years.
If Google are trying to bloody the nose of Facebook with this they should think again, this won't even squeeze their pimple. I'm glad however that the Google Mega-Corp isn't dominant in all aspects of internet life, and like it of loathe it Facebook is now of a size where it's giving Google the heebie jeebies which is a healthy thing.
The facebook likes are still within facebook and being spread to a search engine is a big thing IMO. Google has a lot of potential in this. A faster startup with a partnership instead of competition with facebook could help them a lot, both of them. Facebook will realize this and go for it later. My guess is that google and facebook did not reach an agreement on the % they would share profit as main reason why it has not happened already. From the article, google is going to get twitter, which enforces my idea on the facebook-google partnership, reason why not already happened and reason why it will happen.
[citation][nom]virtualban[/nom]The facebook likes are still within facebook and being spread to a search engine is a big thing IMO[/citation]
It is also pointless as they are trying to get you to "Like" something from the list of browser searches before you have actually opened the site and looked at it.
Facebook "Likes" buttons don't just exist on Facebook, they also sit on the actual websites of other people. You go there, you look at it, you like what you see so you "Like".
Asking people to "+1" from the browser search before they have actually opened up and looked at the website is presumptuous and desperate.
Actually I'd say this is more of a ripoff of the RedvsBlue community site. They had a modding system way before most sites did, and you can specify how you wanted to mod up or down, whether it was cool, funny, etc.
That actually seems 10x more useful than everything that Facebook offers. I'd love to be able to get search results that are approved by my friends. I'm just worried about the potential for abuse that search rankings are always susceptible to.
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]That actually seems 10x more useful than everything that Facebook offers. I'd love to be able to get search results that are approved by my friends. I'm just worried about the potential for abuse that search rankings are always susceptible to.[/citation]
You just hit the nail on the head
It's nothing to do with giving you the option of saying that you "Like" something
It's about sponsored entries getting false "+1" entries if they give Google money
When you are at a website and decide to like it, it's because it appeals to you and you want to let them know, it is impartial because you don't know in advance how many other people have doen the same but if you want to go to that companies facebook page you can check
The Google method will be pushing right in your face from the second you see it on the search that this is really popular and you should like it too, you fat headed sheep
People should have the facility to decide what they like without being influenced by peer-pressure, it's the ultimate form of Democracy, so if you prefer Google "+1" to Facebook "Like" you may as well just go live in Soviet Russia, you stinking Commie