4 ms·

> No social network does a good job at allowing a person to share with those groups as desired. Doesn't g+ solve this with the whole "circles" idea? You contro

by IanCal 11y ago

> No social network does a good job at allowing a person to share with those groups as desired. Doesn't g+ solve this with the whole "circles" idea? You control which groups you share with.

hessenwolf 11y ago
I think linkedin's groups solve it a bit better. The problem with circles is that the people in a given circle don't necessarily have me in a circle. I can really just group the input feed, not the output feed. It's more consumption than distribution focused.
- IanCal 11y ago
  > The problem with circles is that the people in a given circle don't necessarily have me in a circle. I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean here. If they don't want to 'follow' you, why would you expect to send them things? > I can really just group the input feed, not the output feed You can choose which circle(s) you wish to share with, is that not controlling your output feed? People can filter their input (who they have in their circles) and their output (which circles they share each piece of content with). I suppose you can't follow a chosen subset of a single users output, unless you can do something fancy with tagging.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Incorporated entities expect to be able to send things to people who don't 'follow' them. Don't you get recruiter spam through Linked In? What about the more general advertising and marketing industry? They survive off such a model.
    - IanCal 11y ago
      I suppose they would, although that sounds pretty horrible. "Companies can't spam people" isn't a problem with a design to me. > Don't you get recruiter spam through Linked In? Yes, the rate of which makes LinkedIn just an inbox for job offers for me, not a social network.
tracker1 11y ago
Sorry, I actually forgot about g+, since none of my friends/family/acquaintances actually use it... mostly followed industry people's posts for a while, but I get most of that on twitter. G+ was a really nice imo way to work through it... too bad nobody used it in practice. I also hope that they work through a few of the issues I have with hangouts, mostly in taking over Google Voice duties, and the limited UX on the desktop (searches from contacts for SMS don't show up before random strangers in G+).
- tim333 11y ago
  I remember having an idea to make something like G+ as a response to the "which groups really see what" issue shortly before G+ launched. Glad I didn't try executing on that one. Having tried G+ though I think it's too cognitively complex to categorise a few hundred contacts into various subgroups. Most users aren't going to bother. I imagine facebook takes an automatic AI type approach as to which posts it shows to which people so techie posts are more likely to go to techies. Anyone know if that's the case? Might be a gap to do that stuff it facebook is not already on it.
  - kenbellows 11y ago
    > I think it's too cognitively complex to categorise a few hundred contacts into various subgroups. Most users aren't going to bother. I actually think the fact that you have to specifically put people into circles when you follow them makes it pretty straightforward. It only takes a moment, I like the inline dropdown interface to check the circles you want to add them to, and while it does take a few minutes to wrap your head around the first time you use it (probably not a non-tech-Grandma-ready interface), once you get it, it's easy and works well (IMHO).
- soylentcola 11y ago
  That's just it though. G+ did most of what was listed here without the annoying app/game requests and a better interface. They had cross-platform text and video chat long before Facebook did either. But in the end, the only thing that matters on a closed communications platform is where the people are. Most people won't bother switching platforms and in order for any competitor (G+ or otherwise) to take off is for everyone voluntarily migrate over.

by IanCal 11y ago

> No social network does a good job at allowing a person to share with those groups as desired. Doesn't g+ solve this with the whole "circles" idea? You control which groups you share with.

hessenwolf 11y ago

I think linkedin's groups solve it a bit better. The problem with circles is that the people in a given circle don't necessarily have me in a circle. I can really just group the input feed, not the output feed. It's more consumption than distribution focused.

IanCal 11y ago
> The problem with circles is that the people in a given circle don't necessarily have me in a circle. I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean here. If they don't want to 'follow' you, why would you expect to send them things? > I can really just group the input feed, not the output feed You can choose which circle(s) you wish to share with, is that not controlling your output feed? People can filter their input (who they have in their circles) and their output (which circles they share each piece of content with). I suppose you can't follow a chosen subset of a single users output, unless you can do something fancy with tagging.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Incorporated entities expect to be able to send things to people who don't 'follow' them. Don't you get recruiter spam through Linked In? What about the more general advertising and marketing industry? They survive off such a model.
  - IanCal 11y ago
    I suppose they would, although that sounds pretty horrible. "Companies can't spam people" isn't a problem with a design to me. > Don't you get recruiter spam through Linked In? Yes, the rate of which makes LinkedIn just an inbox for job offers for me, not a social network.

tracker1 11y ago

Sorry, I actually forgot about g+, since none of my friends/family/acquaintances actually use it... mostly followed industry people's posts for a while, but I get most of that on twitter. G+ was a really nice imo way to work through it... too bad nobody used it in practice. I also hope that they work through a few of the issues I have with hangouts, mostly in taking over Google Voice duties, and the limited UX on the desktop (searches from contacts for SMS don't show up before random strangers in G+).

tim333 11y ago
I remember having an idea to make something like G+ as a response to the "which groups really see what" issue shortly before G+ launched. Glad I didn't try executing on that one. Having tried G+ though I think it's too cognitively complex to categorise a few hundred contacts into various subgroups. Most users aren't going to bother. I imagine facebook takes an automatic AI type approach as to which posts it shows to which people so techie posts are more likely to go to techies. Anyone know if that's the case? Might be a gap to do that stuff it facebook is not already on it.
- kenbellows 11y ago
  > I think it's too cognitively complex to categorise a few hundred contacts into various subgroups. Most users aren't going to bother. I actually think the fact that you have to specifically put people into circles when you follow them makes it pretty straightforward. It only takes a moment, I like the inline dropdown interface to check the circles you want to add them to, and while it does take a few minutes to wrap your head around the first time you use it (probably not a non-tech-Grandma-ready interface), once you get it, it's easy and works well (IMHO).
soylentcola 11y ago
That's just it though. G+ did most of what was listed here without the annoying app/game requests and a better interface. They had cross-platform text and video chat long before Facebook did either. But in the end, the only thing that matters on a closed communications platform is where the people are. Most people won't bother switching platforms and in order for any competitor (G+ or otherwise) to take off is for everyone voluntarily migrate over.