This is remarkable, considering that when Google began offering news as one of its many services about ten years ago, it made great hoopla over the fact that no actual humans were involved in the assembling of the news on google.com. The company that invented the world’s leading Internet search algorithm would rely on news aggregation algorithms to determine what was newsworthy.

But now, Google will partner with editors from leading news providers such as the New York Times, LA Times and Reuters to select “Editor’s Picks” that will appear in Google news.

This turnabout is especially important for several reasons. Occasionally, Google (and Yahoo, and others) will grab onto off-the-wall stories from Russian tabloids detailing a Siberian farmer’s encounter with space aliens, or something equally bizarre that should have never made it past the computer news selector. Slightly less annoying is the search engines picking up a story in a foreign English-language newspaper (such as Xinhua) that was probably told just as well (and without government censorship) in the Washington Post.

Lastly, the whole notion of “the more news, the better” that’s taken over the media ever since the advent of 24-hour cable news and the global spread of the Internet has not been healthy for us humans. Rather than news being carefully filtered by knowledgeable editors, it’s simply tossed out to the masses like chum over the side of a fishing boat.

Fox News says “We report, you decide,” but sometimes we need news editors to decide what’s news and what’s not, or what’s opinion and what’s fact. In these days of mass hysterias, Wall Street panics, left vs. right and a general overload of people telling us what to do and how to think, we could use a little less news. Or barring that, we could use more credible news.

So, Kudos to Google—and here’s to their experiment in having actual people write the news.

Google has released “Google+” (let’s call it “Google Plus”), which is supposed to be the Facebook killer that isn’t really a Facebook killer. It’s supposed to be a better way to share, connect and hangout with others online—even people who don’t sign up for Google+.

The reality is, it’s difficult to know what it really is. Google+ seems like one of those “some assembly required” toys that kids open on Christmas morning. Circles, Sparks, Photos, Hangouts, Profiles, lions, tigers, bears…

A constant refrain I hear is “I don’t have time for any more social networking.” People are busy enough living their real lives without spending even more time maintaining their virtual ones.

Clearly, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and a few other social networking sites are truly worthwhile and have been proven effective in some circles. But I think we’re reaching a limit beyond which legitimate business people can’t devote any more time to social networking because they have to make sales, move products and sign deals. In other words, do their jobs. Social media is a tool, like a hammer, cell phone or copy machine. When the tool becomes the thing—when the means become more important than the end result—we have a problem.

Never forget that people do business with people and companies that they trust and value. Your company’s social media efforts should be aimed at making your company more important in people’s lives. When customers say “I buy computers from that company because of their great customer service,” then you’ve made your company more than a provider of electronics—it’s become a partner. Your social media should reinforce that goal.

When you find yourself adding yet another social media obligation to your desktop without that purpose in mind, but rather because it’s the next new thing, you’ve lost your way.

So let’s regard this Google+ thing with caution. If it’s worthwhile, let’s go for it. Rumors are, it may be the Facebook we always wanted but couldn’t have. Otherwise, it may be time to draw the line.

The story that wasn’t mentioned but should have been is Karl Marlantes’ book Matterhorn, a novel set during the Vietnam War. Matterhorn isn’t newsworthy because it’s a good book—it’s newsworthy because it was nearly three decades in the making. Marlantes, a former Marine and Vietnam vet, finished the book in 1977. However, he was turned down by publisher after publisher for three decades and given countless pieces of advice on how to change it.

First he was told it was too soon after the unpopular Vietnam War for a book about it. Then he was told that Hollywood had covered the war too recently (“Platoon,” “Full Metal Jacket”), and later that he should set the book in Iraq or Afghanistan to make it more current.

Finally, Barnes & Noble caught wind of the book and helped to line up a publisher. In the meantime, Marlantes was able to refine and improve Matterhorn (on his terms) and shrink it from a chubby 1,600 pages down to a merely stocky 598. The book spent more than two months on the New York Times bestseller list in 2010.

The moral? Don’t give up, and don’t give in to criticism that just doesn’t sit well with you. Marlantes’ 30-year odyssey is a testament to perseverance and telling the story you want to tell.

And watch out for Google in 2011.

HTML. Believe it or not, sometimes it’s just best to use good old HTML right on your website, especially if you’re all sharing is a small amount of text. Quick, easy and it can’t be modified or lost in translation. Users simply copy and paste the information they need.

Adobe .pdf. The venerable .pdf (portable document format) has come a long way since it was introduced by Adobe in 1993. There are many benefits to using a .pdf, the chief being that it’s now ubiquitous. Almost every PC manufactured comes with Adobe’s free Acrobat reader, so having the right software to view the document is almost never a problem. The .pdf can also be edited and manipulated by end users who have Adobe’s full Acrobat software package, unless security settings have been enabled to prevent it. A .pdf is usually a pretty authentic representation of the original document, whether it’s a Word file, a photograph, or other content file. A downside is that Adobe’s reader software has become bloated and annoying, frequently reminding users of the need to upgrade and running a continual update checker in the background that may (along with the dozens of other updaters for iTunes and other software that are probably running on your PC) slow you down.

Scribd. Scribd is a popular, free online document sharing provider introduced in 2006 that not only allows users to view documents, but it opens up both the document contributor and the user to the wider world of social document sharing. Much like YouTube for videos, Scribd invites users to browse documents by subject and displays featured and “popular now” documents. Use Scribd if your audience is wider than the accounting department, a few clients, or the Delhi office, because social, interactive and sharing are the names of the game. The best part about Scribd (and its competitor Docstoc) is that no software is necessary—everything takes place through your browser at scribd.com.

Docstoc. Introduced in 2007, Docstoc is very similar to Scribd, with a few notable differences. It didn’t allow personal accounts (only business) until February of this year, and while its basic service is free, it also offers a paid service to host commercial documents. Which one to use? Try them both and see which one you like best.

Google Docs. More than just an online document sharing service, Google Docs is an entire suite of applications designed to compete with the Microsoft Office suite and also free, open-source competitors like Oracle’s Open Office. Google Docs is a good choice for commercial users who wish to restrict access to specified individuals—sort of the opposite of Scribd and Docstoc. Like Scribd and Docstoc, Google Docs takes place entirely in your browser, so there is no need to download software and update it continuously. Another bonus of using a Google product is that Google does anything and everything these days, so it’s usually easy to integrate your Google files into applications like Google Calendar, Picasa, YouTube, Google Earth, external programs like Microsoft Outlook—you name it, and Google is probably offering a way to integrate with it.

So there you go. There are more services and options out there, but these are the most popular and proven. Just don’t let us catch you posting links to Microsoft Word documents on your website any longer!