Support NeoGAF

[AstroLad]

Good article on + privacy and the overall project courtesy 33 bits:

The origin of Circles

“Circles,” as you’re probably aware, is the big privacy-enhancing feature. A presentation titled “The Real-Life Social Network” by user-experience designer Paul Adams almost exactly a year ago went viral in the tech community; it looks likely this was the genesis, or at least a crystallization, of the Circles concept.

But Adams defected to Facebook a few months later, which lead to speculation that it was the end of whatever plans Google may have had for the concept. But little did the world know at the time that Plus was a company-wide, bet-the-farm initiative involving 30 product teams and hundreds of engineers, and that the departure of one made no difference.

Meanwhile, Facebook introduced a friend-lists feature but it was DOA. When you’re staring at a giant list of several hundred “friends” — Facebook doesn’t do a good job of discouraging indiscriminate friending — categorizing them all is intimidating to say the least. My guess is that Facebook was merely playing the privacy communication game.

Why are circles effective?

I did an informal poll to see if people are taking advantage of Circles to organize their friend groups. Admittedly, I was looking at a tech-savvy, privacy-conscious group of users, but the response was overwhelming, and it was enough to convince me that Circles will be a success. There’s a lot of excitement among the early user community as they collectively figure out the technology as well as the norms and best practices for Circles. For example, this tip on how to copy a circle has been shared over 400 times as I write this.

One obvious explanation is that Circles captures real-life boundaries, and this is what users have been waiting for all along. That’s no doubt true, but I think there’s more to it than that. Multiple people have pointed out how the exemplary user interface for creating circles encouraged them to explore the feature. It is gratifying to see that Google has finally learned the importance of interface and interaction design in getting social right.

There are several other UI features that contribute to the success of Circles. When friending someone, you’re forced to pick one or more circles, instead of being allowed to drop them into a generic bucket and categorize them later. But in spite of this, the UI is so good that I find it no harder than friending on Facebook.

In addition, you have to pick circles to share each post with (but again the interface makes it really easy). Finally, each post has a little snippet that shows who can see it, which has the effect of constantly reminding you to mind the information flow. In short, it is nearly impossible to ignore the Circles paradigm.
. . . .

http://33bits.org/2011/07/03/google-and-privacy-a-roundup/

 

[Korey]

Good article on + privacy and the overall project courtesy 33 bits:

http://33bits.org/2011/07/03/google-and-privacy-a-roundup/

Was talking to a friend about this and we agree that circles and Google+ are inherently anti-social, which is why it probably won't catch on.

For example, there's no wall. This is the biggest flaw.

You can't see anyone's interaction with anyone else unless they make their post public, and why would they, if they're specifically interacting with a limited circle anyway? And even then you can only see that person's interaction with other people, and not other people's interaction with him.

You start to see how antisocial it is.

Facebook allows you to see other people's interaction with each other, not necessarily just your own with other people. That's what makes it social.

Google+ is all about privacy, which is great, but that makes it less open and therefore less social.

 

[kehs]

I think you might be confusing voyeurism for socializing.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I think you might be confusing voyeurism for socializing.

 

[Mik2121]

Was talking to a friend about this and we agree that circles and Google+ are inherently anti-social, which is why it probably won't catch on.

For example, there's no wall. This is the biggest flaw.

You can't see anyone's interaction with anyone else unless they make their post public, and why would they, if they're specifically interacting with a limited circle anyway? And even then you can only see that person's interaction with other people, and not other people's interaction with him.

You start to see how antisocial it is.

Facebook allows you to see other people's interaction with each other, not necessarily just your own with other people. That's what makes it social.

Google+ is all about privacy, which is great, but that makes it less open and therefore less social.

Dude, are you done with your crusade against Google+? You're one of the few people I've seen that after getting it explained a ton of times, still thinks Google+ is anti-social or whatever you wanna call it each time.

You only see what others wants you to see. If you have two friends and one sends a comment to the other, you will see it if both of them have you in their Friends circle. If one doesn't, why would you be able to see what a person you don't know says to a friend of yours?

Just because Facebook has walls, it doesn't mean it's a must. I personally don't even like the Facebook wall (then again, I don't like Facebook as a whole and never use it). Google+ is as social and as open as you wanna make it. If I don't want people to see a family photo that my mom posted on the "Family" circle, why would I have to suck it up like on Facebook, instead of having the option to having it limited to my, you know, Family?

I think you either don't get it, or just don't wanna get it. Either way, you've been around here since Google+ released trying to tell us how bad it is, even if we are enjoying it. Just let it go, man.

 

[Enco]

Google+ is not antisocial.

Wanting personal relationships and not wanting everyone to see everything is not antisocial. Unless if you're a voyeur, stalker or just nosy, it shouldn't really be an issue.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

I think you might be confusing voyeurism for socializing.

You know, I'm laying bed right now and I came all the way back here to make this joke.

 

[GhostRidah]

Anyone using chrome found any good extensions for this yet?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Was talking to a friend about this and we agree that circles and Google+ are inherently anti-social, which is why it probably won't catch on.

For example, there's no wall. This is the biggest flaw.

You can't see anyone's interaction with anyone else unless they make their post public, and why would they, if they're specifically interacting with a limited circle anyway? And even then you can only see that person's interaction with other people, and not other people's interaction with him.

You start to see how antisocial it is.

Facebook allows you to see other people's interaction with each other, not necessarily just your own with other people. That's what makes it social.

Google+ is all about privacy, which is great, but that makes it less open and therefore less social.

There is an option to post to public or extended circles.

Video of my kitty doing something cute? Public.

Link only a few friends are interested in? Buddies circle.

Pictures from vacation? All Circles except 2.

Funny link with broad appeal? Public.

Convo I want between 3 - 4 people? Between those 3 - 4 people.

you get the idea. the website is as open or as closed as you want it to be. I love that circles aren't necessarily a two-way flow of information. People can add me to their circles and get my public stuff, but I don't have to add them and send them anything more. I can follow people, businesses, etc. by adding them to my circles without them adding me. It's flexible in the way facebook should be. Facebook's lists, which are ridiculously complicated (you need to check off about a million boxes, create several lists, and then remember who is in what), do not get the job done.

 

[AstroLad]

Dunno if it was posted earlier, but this Tips article addresses about 99% of the questions I've seen about G+ and is just a good guide overall: http://www.bspcn.com/2011/07/03/20-google-tips-to-enhance-your-google-plus-experience/

Anyone using chrome found any good extensions for this yet?

Brings black bar down page while in G+: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cebloakddhlipfblldpcnombdblmelhb

Notifications in address bar (I've been using this one, reviews indicate it's being a little buggy now but seems OK to me and I like having it there):
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pfphgaimeghgekhncbkfblhdhfaiaipf

 

[Devolution]

There is an option to post to public or extended circles.

Video of my kitty doing something cute? Public.

Link only a few friends are interested in? Buddies circle.

Pictures from vacation? All Circles except 2.

Funny link with broad appeal? Public.

Convo I want between 3 - 4 people? Between those 3 - 4 people.

you get the idea. the website is as open or as closed as you want it to be. I love that circles aren't necessarily a two-way flow of information. People can add me to their circles and get my public stuff, but I don't have to add them and send them anything more. I can follow people, businesses, etc. by adding them to my circles without them adding me. It's flexible in the way facebook should be. Facebook's lists, which are ridiculously complicated (you need to check off about a million boxes, create several lists, and then remember who is in what), do not get the job done.

Yup in facebook you have to go into your private settings (which constantly get reset) and specifically name who is allowed to see what (wall, pics, comments etc) in a custom group. Circles basically bypasses that by establishing groups right off the bat AND making the settings per post, rather than some fucked up list that cuts off certain people from the entirety of your wall or photos. How someone could possibly complain about this I'm honestly surprised.

 

[GhostRidah]

Dunno if it was posted earlier, but this Tips article addresses about 99% of the questions I've seen about G+ and is just a good guide overall: http://www.bspcn.com/2011/07/03/20-google-tips-to-enhance-your-google-plus-experience/


Brings black bar down page while in G+: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cebloakddhlipfblldpcnombdblmelhb

Notifications in address bar (I've been using this one, reviews indicate it's being a little buggy now but seems OK to me and I like having it there):
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pfphgaimeghgekhncbkfblhdhfaiaipf

Very nice thanks

 

[Enco]

https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/4SUGUYvkYWG

Taylor Swift has arrived :lol

 

[Everdred]

https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/4SUGUYvkYWG

Taylor Swift has arrived :lol

Majority of these people are impostors.

 

[derFeef]

Was talking to a friend about this and we agree that circles and Google+ are inherently anti-social, which is why it probably won't catch on.

For example, there's no wall. This is the biggest flaw.

You can't see anyone's interaction with anyone else unless they make their post public, and why would they, if they're specifically interacting with a limited circle anyway? And even then you can only see that person's interaction with other people, and not other people's interaction with him.

You start to see how antisocial it is.

Facebook allows you to see other people's interaction with each other, not necessarily just your own with other people. That's what makes it social.

Google+ is all about privacy, which is great, but that makes it less open and therefore less social.

Thanks, you reminded me why I dislike Facebook and why I start to actually like Google+ and social networking.

 

[Enco]

Majority of these people are impostors.

Looks pretty legit to me.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Soulja Boy is real. He's hungout a few times

 

[Devolution]

Thanks, you reminded me why I dislike Facebook and why I start to actually like Google+ and social networking.

Sad thing is FB wasn't always that open. I recall a time when it wasn't constantly telling me what one of my friends was doing on some other douchebag's wall that I couldn't care less about.

 

[Enco]

Sad thing is FB wasn't always that open. I recall a time when it wasn't constantly telling me what one of my friends was doing on some other douchebag's wall that I couldn't care less about.

Making a G+ account made me realise how few people I actually care about on fb.

I have a couple good friends that I'll definitely want to stay in contact with but the majority of people I don't care about at all. The fact that I'll never see 99% of them again also adds to that.

Just got to convert a couple more friends to G+ and I'm set.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Hm, still feels like the area underneath a post is a bit too cluttered.

 

[kehs]

Hm, still feels like the area underneath a post is a bit too cluttered.

Definitely is. They could easily condense it down if the would just flow things to the right instead of moving to new lines.

 

[remz]

Making a G+ account made me realise how few people I actually care about on fb.

I have a couple good friends that I'll definitely want to stay in contact with but the majority of people I don't care about at all. The fact that I'll never see 99% of them again also adds to that.

Just got to convert a couple more friends to G+ and I'm set.

Amen! If only I could figure out how to invite my friends to this damn thing, ahah

 

[Korey]

Dude, are you done with your crusade against Google+? You're one of the few people I've seen that after getting it explained a ton of times, still thinks Google+ is anti-social or whatever you wanna call it each time.

You only see what others wants you to see. If you have two friends and one sends a comment to the other, you will see it if both of them have you in their Friends circle. If one doesn't, why would you be able to see what a person you don't know says to a friend of yours?

Uh...are you sure? If you're friends with Tom and Joe (all three of you are in each other's circles), and Tom says something to Joe, I'm pretty sure that you can't see it.

THAT'S why it's anti-social.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Because I think I'm right but I'd loved to "get it explained" to me if I'm wrong, and I'll gladly admit I'm mistaken.

 

[wario]

Hm, still feels like the area underneath a post is a bit too cluttered.

yeah, i don't get why the "+1" counter gets its own entire line.

also, they could delete the comment button since there's already an input text field if you want to write something.

 

[Mik2121]

Uh...are you sure? If you're friends with Tom and Joe (all three of you are in each other's circles), and Tom says something to Joe, I'm pretty sure that you can't see it.

THAT'S why it's unsocial.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

If he says something to Joe that he only wants Joe to see, you won't see it, but if he doesn't mind other friends to see it, he might just send the message to the Friends circle or add extra people in if he wants others to read it as well.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Uh...are you sure? If you're friends with Tom and Joe (all three of you are in each other's circles), and Tom says something to Joe, I'm pretty sure that you can't see it.

THAT'S why it's unsocial.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

If he sends it only to Joe, no one else can see it. If he posts it to the same circle you all belong to, posts it to public, or posts it to extended circles and just adds a +Joe to the start of his message, you and everyone else can see it (but will know the message is mainly intended for Joe). It's the difference between PMing someone on Facebook or posting it to their wall... except in this case you have more control over who sees your post on his "wall."

 

[kehs]

So I guess Zuckerberg has an account here too. =!

 

[Korey]

If he says something to Joe that he only wants Joe to see, you won't see it, but if he doesn't mind other friends to see it, he might just send the message to the Friends circle or add extra people in if he wants others to read it as well.

Right, so I wasn't incorrect.

You don't see the flaw in that?

If I'm writing a message to my friend Tom, why would I go to the trouble and take the time of adding more viewers to it? That makes no sense and is an unnatural thing for a person to do.

Facebook and Twitter are both open by default, and private if you want it, not the other way around.

 

[Gowans]

with the lack of my social circle I've been adding the people I follow on twitter.

Anyway if anyone wants to join my NeoGAF circle add me https://plus.google.com/108607295827951338136/posts?hl=en&tab=wX

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Some of the facebook people on google are a little bit snippy.

"Lol at irony that FB staff are complaining about privacy..." +1

https://plus.google.com/110625777586806023955/posts
"don't add me to your circles if you don't know me"
*posts a bunch of stuff to public* "hey, why are all these strangers replying to my public posts!?"

https://plus.google.com/104550678234629742078/posts

 

[Mik2121]

Right, so I wasn't incorrect.

You don't see the flaw in that?

If I'm writing a message to my friend Tom, why would I go to the trouble and take the time of adding more viewers to it? That makes no sense and is an unnatural thing for a person to do.

Facebook and Twitter are both open by default, and private if you want it, not the other way around.

Then just send the message to your Friends circle. There, no trouble and take time of adding more viewers. This way at least you're sending the message just to your Friends, and not to a whole bunch of people completely unrelated like would happen in Facebook or Twitter if you didn't add @ in there.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Also noticed that profile pictures are public, profile picture changes still show up in people's feeds even if you don't have them in a circle and random people can still comment on your profile picture. Is that correct or am I wrong? I'd love to be wrong. Hope they change this.

 

[kehs]

I think Facebook has given people the wrong idea about what "public" actually means.

The profile picture thing has bugged me....I think it's tied to whether your profile is searchable or not.

Added you gowans

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Right, so I wasn't incorrect.

You don't see the flaw in that?

If I'm writing a message to my friend Tom, why would I go to the trouble and take the time of adding more viewers to it? That makes no sense and is an unnatural thing for a person to do.

Facebook and Twitter are both open by default, and private if you want it, not the other way around.

It literally takes 0 extra time if your last post was to public as well. It takes 1 second more to change it to public or all circles if you so desire. That is a small price to pay for the flexibility you get. Now, instead of PMing Tom details you don't want grandma and your boss finding out, you can send him a message that several circles of friends will get. Or you can send him a message that literally anyone online could read (totally public).

 

[wario]

Also noticed that profile pictures are public, profile picture changes still show up in people's feeds even if you don't have them in a circle and random people can still comment on your profile picture. Is that correct or am I wrong? I'd love to be wrong. Hope they change this.

no, you're right. all profile pic changes i've seen are public. they should add an option to change the visibility on that.

 

[kurtrussell]

Right, so I wasn't incorrect.

You don't see the flaw in that?

If I'm writing a message to my friend Tom, why would I go to the trouble and take the time of adding more viewers to it? That makes no sense and is an unnatural thing for a person to do.

Facebook and Twitter are both open by default, and private if you want it, not the other way around.

Admit it. You just have sand in your vagina because you can't play Farmville on G+

 

[Enco]

no, you're right. all profile pic changes i've seen are public. they should add an option to change the visibility on that.

Yup. At the very least hide the comments.

Amen! If only I could figure out how to invite my friends to this damn thing, ahah

Check out the invite thread.

 

[Korey]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't WANT google+ to fail. I'm simply pointing out the flaws of it's social networking model and why I don't think it'll appeal to the general public and Facebook crowd.

The best model, in my opinion, is Facebook with exclusion lists. Like negative-circles. That way everything is "public" by default, but you can tag posts with "-Family" or "-Coworkers" to exclude them from seeing it.

So in other words, Facebook Minus.

Actually I think Facebook can already do this

 

[Mik2121]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't WANT google+ to fail. I'm simply pointing out the flaws of it's social networking model and why I don't think it'll appeal to the general public and Facebook crowd.

The best model, in my opinion, is Facebook with exclusion lists. Like negative-circles. That way everything is "public" by default, but you can tag posts with "-Family" or "-Coworkers" to exclude them from seeing it.

So in other words, Facebook Minus.

Yeah... I definitely think it's more intuitive to put the groups of people you DON'T want to see your content, rather than selecting the group(s) you want to see your content. Because you usually write something that you want everybody except your family, or everybody except your co-workers to see, rather than writing something you just want your family to see, or just your friends to see..


Wait, no. That's even less intuitive.

 

[WordAssassin]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't WANT google+ to fail. I'm simply pointing out the flaws of it's social networking model and why I don't think it'll appeal to the general public and Facebook crowd.

The best model, in my opinion, is Facebook with exclusion lists. Like negative-circles. That way everything is "public" by default, but you can tag posts with "-Family" or "-Coworkers" to exclude them from seeing it.

So in other words, Facebook Minus.

But then Facebook would need circles, which you said are a bad idea, so instead they have groups, or lists, which fucking suck.

And I like Facebook.

 

[Enco]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't WANT google+ to fail. I'm simply pointing out the flaws of it's social networking model and why I don't think it'll appeal to the general public and Facebook crowd.

The best model, in my opinion, is Facebook with exclusion lists. Like negative-circles. That way everything is "public" by default, but you can tag posts with "-Family" or "-Coworkers" to exclude them from seeing it.

So in other words, Facebook Minus.

I really don't see how that's an improvement. It's just more backward.

 

[kehs]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't WANT google+ to fail. I'm simply pointing out the flaws of it's social networking model and why I don't think it'll appeal to the general public and Facebook crowd.

The best model, in my opinion, is Facebook with exclusion lists. Like negative-circles. That way everything is "public" by default, but you can tag posts with "-Family" or "-Coworkers" to exclude them from seeing it.

So in other words, Facebook Minus.

Isn't that what Facebook has become already with the lists?

 

[Gaaraz]

I still find the main 'stream' and notifications pages to be overly messy and confusing - there's little differentiation between each item, imo.

I still much (MUCH!) prefer just using the little notification area in the top right of Gmail - it keeps each item separate, highlights any updates nicely, and neatly lists the most recently changed item at the top.

Also means I never actually have to visit the Google Plus site.

Perfect.

 

[DefectiveReject]

I don't give a crap on Facebook that some dickwad of a family member has toothache or bumped his head. I also can't not have him/her due to being family
Having circles i can just filter out Circles i don't wanna see...... Win Win!
And i don't have to click 1100 sub menus to get to what i want.

If the rumours are true that All Facebook are hitting back with this week is Skype being built in... i don't class that as amazing.

 

[°°ToMmY°°]

Are invites being sent out again?

 

[Terrell]

Uh...are you sure? If you're friends with Tom and Joe (all three of you are in each other's circles), and Tom says something to Joe, I'm pretty sure that you can't see it.

THAT'S why it's anti-social.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Because I think I'm right but I'd loved to "get it explained" to me if I'm wrong, and I'll gladly admit I'm mistaken.

Let's use a real-world example to show how ludicrous your reasoning behind it being "anti-social" is...

Say you're at a party, and you know everyone there. It's a large group of people.

You're talking with a specific group of friends, maybe 5 of them in the larger group party of about 20-30. The conversation you're having is really only something that group of 5 of you would know about or care about.

By your definition, this is "anti-social", whereas screaming at the top of your lungs so the whole room can hear a conversation that the rest of them don't give a shit about is "social".

Google+ is exactly what it sets out to be: making social media more like real-life social interactivity instead of broadcasting every little minutia that no one else cares about. On Facebook, you can achieve a similar objective in less elegant ways with private messages and groups and whatever other abstraction Facebook offers (which people do use for these "anti-social" purposes you're railing against, already rendering your criticism senseless), but Circles simplifies the process by baking it right into your Wall or whatever Google calls it on their service. All Google has done is stripped away Facebook's layers of abstraction.


Good god, do I want to use this.

 

[Freestyler]

I don't think there are enough voyeurs in this thread, and 90% of Facebook users are there to be a voyeur or stalk voyeurs.

I think that's something that's gonna hold back G+. For the masses, Facebook is a show-off tool or a "keep tabs on that bitch from highschool" tool. It's not about sharing interesting content or keeping in touch with family. People just wanna tag themselves in photos that show how amazing their life is.

Am I wrong? That's how I feel most of my friends

Spoiler

and me

use it.

 

[Terrell]

I don't think there are enough voyeurs in this thread, and 90% of Facebook users are there to be a voyeur or stalk voyeurs.

I think that's something that's gonna hold back G+. For the masses, Facebook is a show-off tool or a "keep tabs on that bitch from highschool" tool. It's not about sharing interesting content or keeping in touch with family. People just wanna tag themselves in photos that show how amazing their life is.

Am I wrong? That's how I feel most of my friends

Spoiler

and me

use it.

A tool is only as useful as the one who wields it. Or so they say. And Facebook is definitely full of useless tools. (sorry, bad joke)
If anything, G+ presents an opportunity to separate the genuinely social people from the attention whores. Possibly.

 

[Korey]

I don't think there are enough voyeurs in this thread, and 90% of Facebook users are there to be a voyeur or stalk voyeurs.

I think that's something that's gonna hold back G+. For the masses, Facebook is a show-off tool or a "keep tabs on that bitch from highschool" tool. It's not about sharing interesting content or keeping in touch with family. People just wanna tag themselves in photos that show how amazing their life is.

Am I wrong? That's how I feel most of my friends

Spoiler

and me

use it.

Completely agreed. The people in this thread who love the idea of G+ are in the minority.

Most regular people just want something where they can keep up with people in their lives without necessarily being involved 24/7. Old high school buddies, old college buddies, family, coworkers, casual acquaintances, and friends. You can't do this with G+ because you're shut out of everything that's wasn't specifically meant for you.

Also, Facebook's main purpose is socializing, not sharing content. On Facebook, all that "useless minutia" IS the content, and that's interesting for a lot of regular people. You can call it voyeurism if you like, but that's condescending.

This seems more like something for internet friends.

 

[Terrell]

Completely agreed. The people in this thread who love the idea of G+ are in the minority.

Most regular people just want something where they can keep up with people in their lives without necessarily being involved 24/7. Old high school buddies, old college buddies, family, coworkers, casual acquaintances, and friends. You can't do this with G+ because you're shut out of everything that's wasn't specifically meant for you.

Also, Facebook's main purpose is socializing, not sharing content. On Facebook, all that "useless minutia" IS the content, and that's interesting for a lot of regular people. You can call it voyeurism if you like, but that's condescending.

This seems more like something for internet friends.

So then... do you view and/or respond to everything that every friend you have on Facebook says or does?

Every single thing?

You care about ALL of it? Including things like game posts that they saw fit to share to the general public?

Even if it involved something like this? http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/

By your reasoning, if you block content in your News Feed or your Wall or make any post only viewable to certain friends, you're not being "social".