Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 363 posts

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#341

Post by 0x0 »

sandipagr wrote: post #327
barista wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually called list. Groups in FB is something different. Try creating a friend list and then you can share it with only that list.

You can't share with lists alone. Facebook sharing options are friends, friends and networks, Friends and their friends and so on. Or you have to add each friend individually. It's just weird how lists are pretty much useless in facebook.

Sure you can. In the status update thing, click the padlock and choose "Customize" and then "Specific people", and you can enter lists of friendlists.

(Granted, it's not very discoverable)

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#342

Post by atomicdog »

natural219 wrote: post #269
yalogin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wave died because no one (not even developers) understood what it is or what applications could it have outside of mail.

This sentence is baffling to me. Do you not know what Wave does? Really? Or do you NEED a marketing person to tell you how to use a product?

I'm guessing he needs a product to be intuitive enough that he doesn't need a marketing person to tell him how to use it. Wave was pretty far from that.

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#344

Post by [deleted] »

FlowerPower wrote: post #331
jamesaguilar wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because who wants to share 1024x768 resolution pictures with their friends? ffs why do I then have a 15mp camera? Hundreds of millions of people, apparently. Anyway, you can download the high res image nowadays via the link below the picture.

I too noticed that people don't seem to care about their picture resolutions, or perhaps they just do not know about it, they dont see resolutions. The hundreds of millions see pictures.

[deleted]

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#345

Post by angstrom »

reso wrote: post #232
nextparadigms wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests." I totally disagree with that. Facebook sorely lacks such a feature, and the lack of it has led to "spammy" messages from so called "friends" you barely even know, or care about in your list. Google+ seems to solve a lot of issues with Facebook. And I thin…

I think Facebook's biggest failure is that they've never educated people on how to use Facebook well, and honestly, they have likely inadvertently encouraged bad practices with their emphasis on growth. For example, why do you have friends on FB you barely know in reality? You should only have your genuine friends on Facebook. This simple rule solves the "annoying status update from someone I don't care about" proble…

It's a failure in interface design and there's no reason to innovate the interface because it strikes at the core of their revenue stream which is all about hyper connectedness when the real value is in the type of the relationships.

It reminds me of search engines proclaiming "2,800,000 results returned". Really? Most searchers never go beyond the first couple pages in the query result set. Who cares? Likewise, other than playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, who wants to see all these tertiary relationships that mean nothing?

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#346

Post by danssig »

joebadmo wrote: post #247
Lewisham wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the Field Trial. My understanding is that anything in a post can only be seen by the people who can see the post. Thus, if you share with a circle, people who do not know each other can see each others replies. It is all about who you chose to share to in the first place, they are the people you are trusting the information to. I would need to test this more fully, but that is my understanding of it.

That's basically how Google Reader does it, too. The problem is, as you said, if I comment on something someone shared, I have no idea who can see that comment. I was definitely a bit weirded out the first time someone I'd never met replied to a comment of mine on someone else's shared item.

So it that's true, then it's no better than what Facebook has with lists, etc.

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#347

Post by smackfu »

0x0 wrote: post #341
sandipagr wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't share with lists alone. Facebook sharing options are friends, friends and networks, Friends and their friends and so on. Or you have to add each friend individually. It's just weird how lists are pretty much useless in facebook.

Sure you can. In the status update thing, click the padlock and choose "Customize" and then "Specific people", and you can enter lists of friendlists. (Granted, it's not very discoverable)

Yep, my default sharing option is "Friends Only; Except: Work"

Only bummer is that you can't do fancy options like that with the Facebook iPhone app. You can only do your default, the normal options like Friends Only, or specific groups.

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#348

Post by smackfu »

akkartik wrote: post #242
kristiandupont wrote: post #96

This is exciting and all -- and much as I would love to see a serious competitor to Facebook, I still don't know how I would convince any of my non-techie friends that they should switch to this. Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests. Although it looks like a big discussion group, the news feed…

I find I feel a sort of stage fright at the thought of posting something for my 800 facebook 'friends' to read.

If it makes you feel better, most of them surely have their wall set to only show the friends they interact with, and not all friends.

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#349

Post by rb2k_ »

joeguilmette wrote: post #121
kristiandupont wrote: post #96

This is exciting and all -- and much as I would love to see a serious competitor to Facebook, I still don't know how I would convince any of my non-techie friends that they should switch to this. Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests. Although it looks like a big discussion group, the news feed…

i just got an invite and am instantly bored. i already have a news feed, i already have a way to share pictures, i already have a place to share links and i already have a way to chat with friends. on the + side (hah! get it??), the ui looks nice, so hopefully this means google with start paying more attention to the look and feel of their applications.

any words on how you got that invite? is there some place one can sign up?

Re: Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+

#350

Post by billybob »

dspillett wrote: post #338
dazonic wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to strongly discourage adding non-friends. I remember when adding people you had to enter something for "How did you meet this person?" and if you checked "I don't know them", it would close the box and say "Well why are you adding them?"

That sort of thing goes out when advertising and paying for games and such via the system come in. People having many connections means that if someone lets you app in or "likes" the page directed to by your ad then you get a change to advertise to all those people on that one person's list of contacts. This is attractive to the advertisers, and makes paying money to facebook a better value proposition. Facebook want…

"Facebook want you to be connected to as many people as possible because this network of connections is essentially what they sell."

I agree, but I also think that eventually, this devalues Facebook.

It's like you had this party with all your friends, and then all your coworkers and former classmates and people you met at conferences and people who share your interest in banjo music all showed up too.

And eventually, it wasn't a party anymore; it was just a random collection of people. And you started thinking, "wouldn't it be nice if I had a place for just me and my friends?"

Post reply on HN