I’ve always loved Google. I love that I can count on it to send me to the most bizarre, unpredictable blogs, ones that I’m sure can’t be counted as “academic journals” or “legitimate online sources.”

I like that it already knows what I’m trying to search before I’m done typing, and if it’s not spot on, it’s always nice to know that “how to dye your hair” is also in the same category as “how to dye your hair with Kool Aid.”

I’ve never had to delete emails to make room for more with my Gmail account (not something I can say about my old Hotmail account), and Google Chrome has always promised me speedy search results (I guess Kim and Kris really are dunzo).

All in all, Google has always been good to me. So when I heard it, too, was going to jump on the social network bandwagon, well, it only seemed right.

Google . It sounds so clean, so crisp. My Google enthusiast friends were buzzing about how it was invite only, and for a while you were only cool if you were lucky enough to get ”invited.”

I had to wait long enough for an invitation, and when it came, it felt as shiny and new as the golden wrapper on the Hershey’s bar. Think me crazy, but when your friends are self-proclaimed Google junkies, you become one too.

I was ready to unwrap Google like the present you’ve known you’re going to get but still have to wait forever for.

When I was all cozied up to my computer ready to discover all sorts of new social networking goodies, all I could find was this weird “Circles” option and a bland white backdrop which frankly was begging for some pizazz.

Circles were created so you can make different groups of friends and share accordingly because too often “today’s online services turn friendship into fast food — wrapping everyone in ‘friend’ paper — and sharing really suffers,” says the official Google blog.

In addition to Circles, Google introduces “Sparks,” a sharing engine that streams “highly contagious content … on any topic you want in over 40 languages.”

“Hangouts” are the third component which allow you to have a live multi-person video chat with your friends; it lets you choose when you’re free, making it possible to have on screen-gatherings that are “fun, fluid and serendipitous.”

I like the way that all sounds, the problem is that it’s not enough to keep me interested.

Like many other people, I’m the occasional slave to Facebook because it only feels right reading your “procrastination nation” status while I’m procrastinating myself.

Before Facebook, I naturally had a Myspace, because where else would I pick to debut my mirror picture and my new friendship with Tom?

You might say I appreciate a good social network. I swear by Google, so I guess I figured Google would be a hit, an explosion of Twitter and Facebook, the ultimate junkyard for good and bad photos, statuses, a continuous stream of unnecessary information and Youtube links that I’m going to show everyone right after this.

Google managed to draw a lot of people to Google and that makes sense considering its wide appeal, but it hasn’t managed to keep many of them invested.

I expected Google to be innovative and different but equally as satisfying as refreshing my Facebook feed is.

When I go to my Google page, it seems barren. No, I don’t want to add all my Gmail contacts to my circles, and I don’t feel compelled to spark a conversation. Sure, I like the concept of a casual videochat with friends, but I could just “hangout” somewhere else instead.

My Google-obsessed roommate might say that Google is not exciting for me, either because I’m not using it right or I don’t get it. Here’s the thing though, I already have a Facebook, and I already have a Twitter; those manage to keep me plenty “fulfilled” and busy.

A social network that’s only as exciting as my dedication to it isn’t going to keep me on board. Making the transition to Google or even maintaining both networks seem tedious and unnecessary when one is clearly more exciting than the other.

Forbes contributor Paul Tassi “compares Google”:http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/08/15/a-eulogy-for-google-plus/2/ to a party that no one showed up to.

“It might be nice if there’s better music or drinks but none of that matters without anyone to hang out with,” he said.

In a recent Slate article titled ““Google is dead,””:http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/11/google_had_a_chance_to_compete_with_facebook_not_anymore_.html Farhad Manjoo points out that even Google executives aren’t interested in their own site; executive chairman Eric Schmidt didn’t put up his first post until three months after the network went live.

I’m not claiming that “Google is Dead” like Manjoo or writing “A Eulogy for Google ” like Tassi, but I do agree that this social network is never going to be what Google wants it to be without the people. What Google needs is a new and fantastic way to market its innovation, because circles and sparks aren’t any fun when they don’t have anyone to hang out with.

_Nishat is a senior in LAS._