2 years or more. Posting should not be requirement. Some users may be read-only types that still benefit from content of others without the desire to post themselves. In the early days, much of the www was read-only for the majority of users. Not so much now but that doesn't negate that many are primarily content consumers still.
Not sure why postings should be a requirement to have a Google+ account. I very seldom post however, I'm a member of many communities. I use Google+ primarily as a learning tool for my family history "hobby". I do occasionally make posts but they are rare. Is this a suggestion that I may not be carrying my own weight on this service if I don't make "X" number of original posts per year?
Don Varner I didn't mean to imply that posting be a requirement for a G+ account. It has more to do with knowing who is active on G+ and it what areas so that a person can direct someone to an active engager rather than one that has been inactive for a while.
2 years or more. Posting should not be requirement. Some users may be read-only types that still benefit from content of others without the desire to post themselves. In the early days, much of the www was read-only for the majority of users. Not so much now but that doesn't negate that many are primarily content consumers still.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why postings should be a requirement to have a Google+ account. I very seldom post however, I'm a member of many communities. I use Google+ primarily as a learning tool for my family history "hobby". I do occasionally make posts but they are rare. Is this a suggestion that I may not be carrying my own weight on this service if I don't make "X" number of original posts per year?
ReplyDeleteDon Varner I didn't mean to imply that posting be a requirement for a G+ account. It has more to do with knowing who is active on G+ and it what areas so that a person can direct someone to an active engager rather than one that has been inactive for a while.
ReplyDelete