Google Sites: Not so pretty in the morning

My first review of Google Sites was positive. I even chose to overlook some weird display issues as early beta bugs (every 1.0 product I review has them) that other reviewers, such as ZDNet's Dennis Howlett, were not so kind about. I thought that, overall, it was a strong and useful collaboration product.

My second review--this one--is not positive. There's only one thing about this product that really bugs me, but it's annoying enough that I would throw the thing out the window if only it came in a box I could pick up. It's this: The integration with Google's productivity applications (word processor, spreadsheet, and presentations) is awful. To me, that's the one thing I want most from a wiki, especially one from Google, which historically has put great collaboration features into its otherwise lightweight productivity applications. I want to be able to easily create a wiki and then embed a productivity document in it, so I can share the whole package with my co-workers.

This is what happens if you try to embed a spreadsheet that isn't public. You don't want your spreadsheet to be public? Tough.

Try this with Sites, though, and you'll feel jilted. First you have to create your spreadsheet outside of the wiki, which is just weird. The real killer, though, is that your spreadsheet will only show up in your wiki if you "publish" it in Docs, making it viewable to anyone who gets its URL. It doesn't matter if you have carefully controlled the access to the wiki itself. If you want people to be able to edit your embedded spreadsheet, you've got to give them permission to do so from Google's separate spreadsheet application, even if you've already given the people who you're collaborating with on your wiki permission to edit the page that's hosting the embedded sheet.

Confused? Common-looking toolbars notwithstanding, Google Sites is clearly not integrated into Google's other productivity applications. It feels like Sites and the other productivity applications are from two different evolutionary branches. They have similarly-colored fur, but they do not interbreed.

Google could have done this a lot better (and I trust it will). An embedded spreadsheet or a presentation should inherit the permissions of the surrounding wiki page. Better yet, you should be able to create a new document, spreadsheet, or presentation directly inside the wiki, without having to drop back the Apps interface.

For those of you who read my prior review and have started using Sites, I apologize. This product still has great potential, but just as is the case with many of Microsoft's productivity applications, this version 1.0 Google product is best avoided.

[CHRlSCO]

Yes, what you mention makes it totally unusable. Going with Google Sites when there are plenty of real wiki sites out there that let you do those things would be pretty foolish. Still, I'll bet a lot of people sign up just because they don't know any better. That must be who Google is target marketing.

Also, I read a great post on another blog (can't remember which one) yesterday about the TOS. Wow, it has really got some Evil stuff in there. I mean it is pure poison if you want to use Google Sites for anything other than your 4th grade class project. No way a business could use this. Not with those TOS. Evil.

[trevoltarnp]

We were looking for something like Google Sites for our clinic. We thought it would be what we needed. That was until we read this piece about it. My dilemma then is what would you then suggest as an alternative like Sites?

[trevoltarnp]

We were looking for something like Google Sites for our clinic. We thought it would be what we needed. That was until we read this piece about it. My dilemma then is what would you then suggest as an alternative like Sites?

[baum744]

Many of you seem to have forgotten that Google Apps is a beta service, so give Google some slack. The Google Apps platform is a fantastic set of tools which is offered to you completely free, so keep that in mind before you flame Google. Sure there are some bugs and design flaws. I think Google has done a great job rolling out useful software which has steadily improved. I just can't wait until they integrate www.GrandCentral.com!

[Marc1000]

Google Apps is a beta? I suppose, but let's remember that Google Sites is the re-release of JotSpot, which was started in 2004, then upgraded to JotSpot 2.0 back in 2006. Google Sites has been in development for 16 months since then. Google Sites is the culmination of all that work.

If anyone believes that Google Sites is a first effort and will quickly be improved, just ask the JotSpot users what they think! 16 months of development and the new Google Sites has fewer features than JotSpot.

[excogitate]

What from Google isn't beta? Calling it a beta release is no excuse if all you release are betas, and you never finish anything.

[vuturistic]

I must agree with baum744. Google is much more generous than any number of other companies--Microsoft in particular. Given that these services are in beta (in other words, experiment that could get the plug pulled at any moment) users should keep that in mind and not think of it as an old standard that will be here 20 years from now. Looks like a mighty good idea in theory, so if you need something with greater permanence, look before leaping into beat products or wait until the beta phase is over. Grand Central--now that's cool and I hope it turns out to be everything it promises.

[jpring]

For those looking for an alternative to Google Sites or Office Live (neither of which are ready for prime time), you should check out ProjectSpaces - which focuses on speed, simplicity and ease-of-use.