4 ms·

(cross posted from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2706219 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2706219) I'm very excited to try this out. Context (AKA "Cir

by dfield 15y ago

(cross posted from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2706219 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2706219) I'm very excited to try this out. Context (AKA "Circles") is the biggest feature Facebook still hasn't gotten right. By mirroring the way we think about our social graph in real life, Google is making a huge step toward converging Online and Offline identity. It will be very interesting to see how Facebook responds to this... they might finally have a competitor.

rapind 15y ago
I agree. Circles seem really well thought out. I also like the hangouts idea, especially auto-switching focus based on speaker volume, which is again similar to offline interactions.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Circles is not well thought out if the demo is accurate in only allowing one circle per friend.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - mshron 15y ago
    I haven't seen the demo, but the indications from the press is that circles can (and should) include groups of people.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - Gormo 15y ago
      I think he means this the other way around - you should be able to assign a single person to multiple circles.
    - kissickas 15y ago
      Why is Gormo's comment dead? He was right, mshron misunderstands his parent's comment. The concern is that people can only be a part of one circle.
      - mshron 15y ago
        Right, I misread it. Also, I'm playing with it right now and you can put people into multiple circles.
        kissickas 15y ago
        Thanks for the update.
  - munificent 15y ago
    A friend can be in multiple circles.
  - monjaro 15y ago
    There is no such restriction.
wccrawford 15y ago
It's the feature I hear the most people complain about Facebook and Twitter lacking, that's for sure.
petegrif 15y ago
I agree. It is somewhat ironic that Paul Adams who promoted this idea so forcibly whilst at google now works for...facebook.
joebadmo 15y ago
The problem I see with user-defined groups implementation is conversations. If I share an item with my "work friends" group, and someone replies to it, who can see the reply? Is it only my work friends, or can the replier choose others to expose her reply to? What about people in my work friends list that she doesn't know or follow or is followed by? This already sort of happens in Google Reader. Sometimes I comment on something a friend shares, and some random person I don't know will reply to my comment. It's not terrible, but it is unclear and kind of destroys the sense of a private place/conversation. I think the solution is have discrete "places" instead of multiple lists that interact in increasingly complex and unclear ways.
- jokermatt999 15y ago
  In Google Reader, comments on items are visible to everyone that can see the item. Edit: this is meant merely to inform, not judge how it is or should be.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    Right, but that still leaves me not having any idea who can see my comments. Which is fine in Google Reader because I don't expect any level of privacy there, but in Google+, esp. after having explicitly set up Circles, I might expect some level of privacy which doesn't include people outside of the Circle I'm commenting in being able to see my comments. With a "Place" metaphor, if you have a private place, nothing would leave that place, and only everyone visible in the place would be able to see any of your content. I think this is just a much more intuitive way to handle groups. It can be more flexible, too, because you could very easily create new places with varying levels of privacy, but the exact level of privacy would always be known to the occupants of the place.
    - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
      If it works like advertised only people in your circle can see the comment. Which leads to a weird experience for the commenter. To them they're essentially talking to just you while you're talking to your own circle. I'd be interesting in seeing a breakdown on how the circles intertwine. For example perhaps you have Jill in your coworkers circle and I have her in my friends circle. So presumable our communications are separate. But what if I move her to my coworkers circle and you're also in my coworkers circle? Are the names of our individual circles significant?
daralthus 15y ago
I think the +1 feature is born just because of this, so they will be able to recommend you new content or friends, based on your interest. Something where they could beat fb and twitter, as they don't seem to get it so intuitively. Twitter is already all about this, and even if facebook started the whole 'like' thingy, they are in a heavy situation. They can't just roll out a whole new kind of content discovery feature, where you met strangers and their content. (think about reddit, hn..)(or could they?) I am not sure, they are so tied to this just my close friends and friend of friends feed, that it would really confuse the users. The +1 is maybe just a temporary solution, till the time your browsing history will count more. (hence chrome) But the path is pretty clear now what is a social network really good for and how it is used.

by dfield 15y ago

rapind 15y ago

I agree. Circles seem really well thought out. I also like the hangouts idea, especially auto-switching focus based on speaker volume, which is again similar to offline interactions.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Circles is not well thought out if the demo is accurate in only allowing one circle per friend.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mshron 15y ago
  I haven't seen the demo, but the indications from the press is that circles can (and should) include groups of people.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Gormo 15y ago
    I think he means this the other way around - you should be able to assign a single person to multiple circles.
  - kissickas 15y ago
    Why is Gormo's comment dead? He was right, mshron misunderstands his parent's comment. The concern is that people can only be a part of one circle.
    - mshron 15y ago
      Right, I misread it. Also, I'm playing with it right now and you can put people into multiple circles.
      - kissickas 15y ago
        Thanks for the update.
- munificent 15y ago
  A friend can be in multiple circles.
- monjaro 15y ago
  There is no such restriction.

wccrawford 15y ago

It's the feature I hear the most people complain about Facebook and Twitter lacking, that's for sure.

petegrif 15y ago

I agree. It is somewhat ironic that Paul Adams who promoted this idea so forcibly whilst at google now works for...facebook.

joebadmo 15y ago

The problem I see with user-defined groups implementation is conversations. If I share an item with my "work friends" group, and someone replies to it, who can see the reply? Is it only my work friends, or can the replier choose others to expose her reply to? What about people in my work friends list that she doesn't know or follow or is followed by? This already sort of happens in Google Reader. Sometimes I comment on something a friend shares, and some random person I don't know will reply to my comment. It's not terrible, but it is unclear and kind of destroys the sense of a private place/conversation. I think the solution is have discrete "places" instead of multiple lists that interact in increasingly complex and unclear ways.

jokermatt999 15y ago
In Google Reader, comments on items are visible to everyone that can see the item. Edit: this is meant merely to inform, not judge how it is or should be.
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Right, but that still leaves me not having any idea who can see my comments. Which is fine in Google Reader because I don't expect any level of privacy there, but in Google+, esp. after having explicitly set up Circles, I might expect some level of privacy which doesn't include people outside of the Circle I'm commenting in being able to see my comments. With a "Place" metaphor, if you have a private place, nothing would leave that place, and only everyone visible in the place would be able to see any of your content. I think this is just a much more intuitive way to handle groups. It can be more flexible, too, because you could very easily create new places with varying levels of privacy, but the exact level of privacy would always be known to the occupants of the place.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    If it works like advertised only people in your circle can see the comment. Which leads to a weird experience for the commenter. To them they're essentially talking to just you while you're talking to your own circle. I'd be interesting in seeing a breakdown on how the circles intertwine. For example perhaps you have Jill in your coworkers circle and I have her in my friends circle. So presumable our communications are separate. But what if I move her to my coworkers circle and you're also in my coworkers circle? Are the names of our individual circles significant?

daralthus 15y ago

I think the +1 feature is born just because of this, so they will be able to recommend you new content or friends, based on your interest. Something where they could beat fb and twitter, as they don't seem to get it so intuitively. Twitter is already all about this, and even if facebook started the whole 'like' thingy, they are in a heavy situation. They can't just roll out a whole new kind of content discovery feature, where you met strangers and their content. (think about reddit, hn..)(or could they?) I am not sure, they are so tied to this just my close friends and friend of friends feed, that it would really confuse the users. The +1 is maybe just a temporary solution, till the time your browsing history will count more. (hence chrome) But the path is pretty clear now what is a social network really good for and how it is used.