3 ms·

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?
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    Yes, that is another great illustration of how complex and unclear this system of individual lists is. Now imagine the same scenario under the Places metaphor. You go to the "Work Friends" place and share an item. Jill, who is also in that place has access to the exact same list of people that are in the place and so knows exactly who she is talking to when she comments on that shared item. No confusion.
    - tonfa 15y ago
      Google+ works in the way you describe (when you comment you know who can view the post).
      - joebadmo 15y ago
        Well, that's encouraging, but I think part of the problem is that I didn't know that. And I think part of why I didn't know that is because "Circles" isn't actually a metaphor that helps me understand how it works. Places, OTOH, is, and I think the metaphor is flexible enough to add other interesting functionality, too. Edit: Also, can you elaborate on how that works? Is there a list of names attached to each shared item?
        tonfa 15y ago
        See the help here (hopefully it works for people not in the trial): http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1347964&topic=1358057&answer=1283790 http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&... I'll quote the relevant part: > If a post was shared with a limited group of people, you can click Limited at the top of the post to see the profile pics of up to 21 other people who can also see that content, as well as the total number of people on the post.

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?
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Yes, that is another great illustration of how complex and unclear this system of individual lists is. Now imagine the same scenario under the Places metaphor. You go to the "Work Friends" place and share an item. Jill, who is also in that place has access to the exact same list of people that are in the place and so knows exactly who she is talking to when she comments on that shared item. No confusion.
  - tonfa 15y ago
    Google+ works in the way you describe (when you comment you know who can view the post).
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      Well, that's encouraging, but I think part of the problem is that I didn't know that. And I think part of why I didn't know that is because "Circles" isn't actually a metaphor that helps me understand how it works. Places, OTOH, is, and I think the metaphor is flexible enough to add other interesting functionality, too. Edit: Also, can you elaborate on how that works? Is there a list of names attached to each shared item?
      - tonfa 15y ago
        See the help here (hopefully it works for people not in the trial): http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1347964&topic=1358057&answer=1283790 http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&... I'll quote the relevant part: > If a post was shared with a limited group of people, you can click Limited at the top of the post to see the profile pics of up to 21 other people who can also see that content, as well as the total number of people on the post.