5 ms·

Given that we already understand how Google will likely solve this problem (e.g. "shared circles"), the problem is not that big of a deal. The cognitive load to

Given that we already understand how Google will likely solve this problem (e.g. "shared circles"), the problem is not that big of a deal. The cognitive load to add that feature will be low and I can't imagine it will be that challenging to develop. The article really reduces to "Google+ will fail because Google+ is new and is missing features", which is obviously just silly. If Google+ fails, I guarantee it will not be from a scarcity of features. More importantly, Google+ doesn't have to become as widely used as Facebook to be a success.

r00fus 15y ago
The article is simply a plea for Google to speed up the evolution of the Circles concept... author doesn't seem to actually think Google+ will fail (he doesn't even define the context of what failure means here). Missing features and Apple has dominated many markets it stepped into... the flipside being the key feature-set should be done well and polished to perfection. The key is UX. I'm still waiting for an easy way to easily add one person to multiple circles without repeated click-drags... Circle auto-discovery (or suggestion) would be even better.
- sorbus 15y ago
  > The key is UX. I'm still waiting for an easy way to easily add one person to multiple circles without repeated click-drags... Circle auto-discovery (or suggestion) would be even better. While it's not auto-discovery or suggesting circles, in the profile of a person who's using G+ you can hover over the "add to circles" button, which then expands into a list of circles you have, with checkboxes next to each. It would be nice if they included that interface in the drag-and-drop circle-adding pages, which allow you to sort large numbers of people at once, though.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  Adding a person to multiple circles is easy. Click the name and you should get an option for circles that gives you a list of checkboxes. Check the appropriate circles.
brudgers 15y ago
>"Google+ doesn't have to become as widely used as Facebook to be a success" For Google, Google+ is probably already a success. Aside from having given them enormous coverage in the press, it has provided them with huge amounts of data about social relationships to mine for the purposes of improving the advertising upon which their revenue model depends. As I've speculated is the case with Microsoft and Bing, the first benefit of Google+ is in the data it generates as a research project. Ten million members is nothing compared with Facebook - but it is a statistically significant sample size for analyzing the social graph.
kjames 15y ago
No, the article reduces to Google+ will not overtake Facebook if it ignores adoption strategies mentioned by Reed's Law. I highly doubt that 'shared circles' is the solution, I believe there is a huge strategy needed which not only include the space needed to interact (shared circles, fan pages, games), but the median in which that interaction takes place (mobile, pc, camera, video game, tablet).
- T_S_ 15y ago
  Thanks for mentioning Reed's Law. TIL. According to that, the network value to an individual grows like 2^N - N - 1, which is the number of all possible subsets minus two obviously "useless" ones, The singletons (N) and the empty set (1). In the case of Facebook this seems to ignore plenty of other useless subsets, overestimating the value of the social network. Simple example. Think about 2 of my friends that don't like each other. I would be better off with two networks, one for each. Every division I can think of leads to a new circle, so the value of a network offering circles grows more like C (2^(N-C)). This looks like its smaller than Reed's Law, (more circles even makes it look worse!) but is actually more achievable. My Facebook network value is really more like 2^("max number of friends with no issues"). In the worst case this leas you to a network value of N^2 which is well-served by email. I'm sure somebody has thought of a more refined analysis.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Perhaps you should have read the article. (The second paragraph of page 1 was entirely about Reed's Law.)
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    Reed's Law ignores the relative weight people place on connections. Concider most americans there is little difference between everyone in india joining Google+ and nobody in india joining Google+. Having your dentist on Google+ might be helpful but it's hardly on the same scale as your wife.
    - kjames 15y ago
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Indeed. Any critique which is of the form "X will fail in the long run because it lacks some important, but readily implementable feature Y" is doomed to look silly in retrospect. PS: This is especially true when talking about Google. They are the king of iterative development, if they have a product with sound fundamentals and a few flaws you can bet that those flaws will get ironed out quickly.
- aidenn0 15y ago
  I remember going through some old computing magazines reading an article about how AOL was doomed to fail because it was still lacking internet access, whereas compuserve and prodigy were already including it.
mark_l_watson 15y ago
> More importantly, Google+ doesn't have to become as widely used as Facebook to be a success. That is the point! I don't think that this is a winner take all situation. Google has always wanted access to information on Facebook and maybe this will nudge Facebook to open up a little. Having at least three good social sites (I include Twitter) seems like a good thing - some diversification. If in a year's time G+ has even 20% of the active users of FB, I would call that a success. I am not a typical user so this may not be a valid data point, but: I do use FB but spend just a minute or two on my front page and do this 2 or 3 times a week. Maybe just because it is new, but I have been spending 15 minutes solid on a day on G+.

r00fus 15y ago

The article is simply a plea for Google to speed up the evolution of the Circles concept... author doesn't seem to actually think Google+ will fail (he doesn't even define the context of what failure means here). Missing features and Apple has dominated many markets it stepped into... the flipside being the key feature-set should be done well and polished to perfection. The key is UX. I'm still waiting for an easy way to easily add one person to multiple circles without repeated click-drags... Circle auto-discovery (or suggestion) would be even better.

sorbus 15y ago
> The key is UX. I'm still waiting for an easy way to easily add one person to multiple circles without repeated click-drags... Circle auto-discovery (or suggestion) would be even better. While it's not auto-discovery or suggesting circles, in the profile of a person who's using G+ you can hover over the "add to circles" button, which then expands into a list of circles you have, with checkboxes next to each. It would be nice if they included that interface in the drag-and-drop circle-adding pages, which allow you to sort large numbers of people at once, though.
jamesbritt 15y ago
Adding a person to multiple circles is easy. Click the name and you should get an option for circles that gives you a list of checkboxes. Check the appropriate circles.

brudgers 15y ago

>"Google+ doesn't have to become as widely used as Facebook to be a success" For Google, Google+ is probably already a success. Aside from having given them enormous coverage in the press, it has provided them with huge amounts of data about social relationships to mine for the purposes of improving the advertising upon which their revenue model depends. As I've speculated is the case with Microsoft and Bing, the first benefit of Google+ is in the data it generates as a research project. Ten million members is nothing compared with Facebook - but it is a statistically significant sample size for analyzing the social graph.

kjames 15y ago

No, the article reduces to Google+ will not overtake Facebook if it ignores adoption strategies mentioned by Reed's Law. I highly doubt that 'shared circles' is the solution, I believe there is a huge strategy needed which not only include the space needed to interact (shared circles, fan pages, games), but the median in which that interaction takes place (mobile, pc, camera, video game, tablet).

T_S_ 15y ago
Thanks for mentioning Reed's Law. TIL. According to that, the network value to an individual grows like 2^N - N - 1, which is the number of all possible subsets minus two obviously "useless" ones, The singletons (N) and the empty set (1). In the case of Facebook this seems to ignore plenty of other useless subsets, overestimating the value of the social network. Simple example. Think about 2 of my friends that don't like each other. I would be better off with two networks, one for each. Every division I can think of leads to a new circle, so the value of a network offering circles grows more like C (2^(N-C)). This looks like its smaller than Reed's Law, (more circles even makes it look worse!) but is actually more achievable. My Facebook network value is really more like 2^("max number of friends with no issues"). In the worst case this leas you to a network value of N^2 which is well-served by email. I'm sure somebody has thought of a more refined analysis.
- corin_ 15y ago
  Perhaps you should have read the article. (The second paragraph of page 1 was entirely about Reed's Law.)
- onemoreact 15y ago
  Reed's Law ignores the relative weight people place on connections. Concider most americans there is little difference between everyone in india joining Google+ and nobody in india joining Google+. Having your dentist on Google+ might be helpful but it's hardly on the same scale as your wife.
  - kjames 15y ago

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Indeed. Any critique which is of the form "X will fail in the long run because it lacks some important, but readily implementable feature Y" is doomed to look silly in retrospect. PS: This is especially true when talking about Google. They are the king of iterative development, if they have a product with sound fundamentals and a few flaws you can bet that those flaws will get ironed out quickly.

aidenn0 15y ago
I remember going through some old computing magazines reading an article about how AOL was doomed to fail because it was still lacking internet access, whereas compuserve and prodigy were already including it.

mark_l_watson 15y ago

> More importantly, Google+ doesn't have to become as widely used as Facebook to be a success. That is the point! I don't think that this is a winner take all situation. Google has always wanted access to information on Facebook and maybe this will nudge Facebook to open up a little. Having at least three good social sites (I include Twitter) seems like a good thing - some diversification. If in a year's time G+ has even 20% of the active users of FB, I would call that a success. I am not a typical user so this may not be a valid data point, but: I do use FB but spend just a minute or two on my front page and do this 2 or 3 times a week. Maybe just because it is new, but I have been spending 15 minutes solid on a day on G+.