61–70 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You often have no choice as the photo is put online by a (or worse an acquaintance) and then helpfully tagged by someone. I'm not sure that Google+'s circles will stop your boss from seeing a drunken photo in this scenario.
In Google+ you need to approve any photo tags before they take effect.
We'll see. I agree that Facebook Groups is much less powerful than Circles and much less fundamental to the core Facebook experience than Circles is with G+. On the other hand, Facebook Groups takes less effort to use - each person does not need to sort their friends, a small number of curators can organize the group. More importantly, it is clearer to the user just what is going on. I have been trying to talk to as…
Circles are ok to set up at the beginning, but many people belong in more than one circle and it gets cognitively tiring to sort people appropriately into one-and-only-one circle. It's also cognitively tiring to work out the consequences of sending a message to a circle larger than what you might type into an email "to" field. You can work out the consequences of a broadcast announcement to the world/all your friends…
It amazes me that this engineer appears to not know that Google+ Circles are already implemented in the core of Facebook as Friend Lists (though without a nice UI and pushed aside over time) and that Facebook Groups solve a completely different, unrelated problem.
Finally a well balanced article after a week of non stop hyping of Google+. Google+ is just trying to do what Facebook is already doing with a few new features added to make it distinctive. Nothing really innovative or ground breaking. It is just the early adopter crowd trying to make the masses using Facebook feel inferior for still using it. Regarding the circles concept, if I need to share something with a certain…
G+ is very much like that and this is quite a notable thing that a so large project with so much power is reduced to such a few functionalities. This is actually what makes it bearable otherwise it would be pretty hard to follow. I wonder if they'll be able to keep this nice contraption evoluting, this will be quite a challenge ihmo : things like knowing who see your posts won't be easy to solve without privacy issues.
We'll see. I agree that Facebook Groups is much less powerful than Circles and much less fundamental to the core Facebook experience than Circles is with G+. On the other hand, Facebook Groups takes less effort to use - each person does not need to sort their friends, a small number of curators can organize the group. More importantly, it is clearer to the user just what is going on. I have been trying to talk to as…
FB for me (and it seems, for many) is an inherently private thing. I don't want groups outside of my real-life friends. That's the fundamental break here - I'm being followed (and following) much more widely, similar to Twitter. What Google has done is made Twitter for people who don't get why 140 characters is a feature. So: FB for my friends, G+ for the digerati and my real interest groups. Frankly, the latter has…
I think a killer move from facebook would be a 'SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS' button for each post. It would be effectively like tweeting (individual posts) and would have critical mass pretty quickly due to fb's scale.
Maybe it would be a nightmare building another twitter overnight or they would be pilloried for copying so blatantly. Additionally, it's occuring to me right now that a big issue would be deciding how to integrate those shouts into the newsfeed... oh wait by following people.
I think Google+ will be a social network for techie hipsters and other early adopters seeking a Facebook alternative, but the novelty will wear off, and the mainstream will barely notice. Just my initial impression. There isn't a compelling enough reason for Facebook's 750 million users to switch.
I find G+ especially useful in a "semi-professional" use case. G+ is just an extension to gmail that adds some easy ways to organize work groups.
For example, a meaningful percentage of my gmail activity is sharing links and info with project teams. It's more intuitive to me to create a circle for each team and post to them via G+ than it is to prepare an ad hoc email to them each time. Also, I'd rather organize that conversation as a private stream with discussion, etc. It avoids clutter in my gmail inbox.
I also spend a lot of time chatting and talking on Skype. Now that I can organize group video chat via G+, I can cut Skype out of my workflow. I don't like using the Skype client at all.
I realize that solutions to these use cases existed before G+, but G+ provides a unified interface that has a powerful effect on my willingness to organize a graph inside Google.
I can see Google+ taking off for enterprise users of Google Apps, once it's released to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Circles are ok to set up at the beginning, but many people belong in more than one circle and it gets cognitively tiring to sort people appropriately into one-and-only-one circle. It's also cognitively tiring to work out the consequences of sending a message to a circle larger than what you might type into an email "to" field. You can work out the consequences of a broadcast announcement to the world/all your friends…
Why sort everybody into just one circle? Most of my contacts are sorted into multiple circles so that I have more fine-grained sharing control. G+ also makes it fairly easy to create new circles on the fly for when I want to share a message with an even more specific group. I think of Circles more like tags that I can use to control visibility of my posts.
That's exactly what they are: a visual interface to tags and tagged social graph nodes.
They've been very clear that they think giving people their privacy by default would kill them. I wish I had the MZ quote on hand that proved that.
We'll see. I agree that Facebook Groups is much less powerful than Circles and much less fundamental to the core Facebook experience than Circles is with G+. On the other hand, Facebook Groups takes less effort to use - each person does not need to sort their friends, a small number of curators can organize the group. More importantly, it is clearer to the user just what is going on. I have been trying to talk to as…
Another way out for (2) would be doing some kind of circle matching: if someone has shared something with you and a circle very similar to your "Close Friends", it should show on the filter for that circle, if not matched to any circle it should go to a 'general' stream.
It amazes me that this engineer appears to not know that Google+ Circles are already implemented in the core of Facebook as Friend Lists (though without a nice UI and pushed aside over time) and that Facebook Groups solve a completely different, unrelated problem.
That's not what he was saying. His point was that he was waiting for Facebook to make their pre-emptive response to Circles, and then FB released Groups. He knows full well is solves a different problem - that was the point of what he was saying. Not only does Groups not really do the same things as Circles/Lists at all, but Facebook appears to think that Lists don't work. Zuckerberg: Just take friends on a site, and…