"It's like Facebook, but you can but your friends in different buckets. So you put your family in one bucket and your friends in another bucket. Then when you post pictures of yourself being drunk, you can post it only to your friends-bucket and your family-bucket doesn't see them." - There you go.
Explaining Google+ To The Norms
31–40 of 41 posts
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bottom right of that flowchart is a little scary. So anything you post, no matter how private you want it to be, can be seen by anyone that it gets re-shared to? Nevermind: just noticed that that only applies to posts you share publically.
Yes, any user that can see your post can reshare it to people you did not originally share it to by clicking the share button. They could also just tell person A or repost it if there wasn't a share button, though. Just use good sense.
wrong.. if you mark it as a limited share...no one outside that circle can share it..try it yourself and see...it is a new change that went into effect over the weekend
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#33even the title of this article smacks of nerd exclusivism/elitism
thanks for helping to perpetuate the idea that smart people in technology are bizarre outcast freaks
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#34My wife has always been an intermittent Facebook user, because she was never sure how private anything was, and the periodic UI changes confused her. She's perfectly intelligent and reasonably technically savvy, but not a huge tech nerd, and not willing to invest time into figuring out all the nuances of FB. So I was really surprised when, after trying Google+ for a few days, she said, "I think this is really going t…
Will user A see my post? http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RIL_CvjOmVY/ThQKTNckBYI/AA...
It would be nice if you could add a blocklist for a given post (so you don't have to remove people from circles or create temp-circles).
e.g: You and your friends are throwing a surprise party for one circle-member's birthday.
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#35I sent my wife a G+ invite, but things fell apart when her Google account with Gmail address and Google account with Yahoo! address turned out to be not the same, and she will not be bothered to figure out how to delete one and add the email to the other. Too many hoops to jump through.
I started to explain it to her, but then I became embarrassed at my subtle knowledge of the history of Google account identification and conflicts* and realized that the look on her face was right: no one should have to care about that shit.
* eg. Google Apps account and Gmail account with Google Apps email being different and having no knowledge of each other.
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#36Not sure I'd use this explanation to convince any normals of anything if I would in fact try to convince them, but I think the reason that Fb took off beyond the early adopters is that there was a conversation taking place without them on Fb, which had become the post-email convention, and as social creatures they felt the inherent need to become a part of it and share/friend/poke accordingly, just like everyone else…
It'll be interesting to see if people start requesting to be followed back on G+. The thing I've increasingly hated about FB is that I have to deny people access to me because I don't give a shit about what they are saying. Sure, I could friend them and then just hide them from my feed, but that's not giving me enough control over what they can see. With G+, I have complete control over that, after all, I don't mind them checking out what I'm doing, I just don't need to see their kid's pictures.
It'll also be great for following celebrities/people that you care about but don't know you. The best parts of Facebook and Twitter.
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#37Reading the comments of this thread, I wonder if anyone actually reads the linked articles anymore. A bunch of discussions about why Google+ is better then Facebook etc... no one seeming to notice the article was comedy, and hilarious.
maybe.. a little too many instances of "a walk in the woods"
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#38Reading the comments of this thread, I wonder if anyone actually reads the linked articles anymore. A bunch of discussions about why Google+ is better then Facebook etc... no one seeming to notice the article was comedy, and hilarious.
Perhaps because it's not that funny?
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will user A see my post? http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-RIL_CvjOmVY/ThQKTNckBYI/AA...
It would be nice if you could add a blocklist for a given post (so you don't have to remove people from circles or create temp-circles). e.g: You and your friends are throwing a surprise party for one circle-member's birthday.
Hmm, unless the planning literally involved a cast of hundreds, I'd just create a temporary circle.
Re: Explaining Google+ To The Norms
#40Not sure I'd use this explanation to convince any normals of anything if I would in fact try to convince them, but I think the reason that Fb took off beyond the early adopters is that there was a conversation taking place without them on Fb, which had become the post-email convention, and as social creatures they felt the inherent need to become a part of it and share/friend/poke accordingly, just like everyone else…
It'll be interesting to see if people start requesting to be followed back on G+. The thing I've increasingly hated about FB is that I have to deny people access to me because I don't give a shit about what they are saying. Sure, I could friend them and then just hide them from my feed, but that's not giving me enough control over what they can see. With G+, I have complete control over that, after all, I don't mind…
> I just don't need to see their kid's pictures
Exactly. Also, someone, by request, added me to a circle and now I get those limited posts and I have now way to unsubscribe without unsubscribing that person entirely. They're putting the onus on the content creator to admin their circles. That's counter-productive.