Support NeoGAF

[jvalioli]

I'm very late on this, but Facebook's rubbish change to the chatbar has made me decide to give Google+ a go. Does anyone have any spare invites left?

PM me.

 

[bangai-o]

I'm very late on this, but Facebook's rubbish change to the chatbar has made me decide to give Google+ a go. Does anyone have any spare invites left?

got plenty of sausage to go around bro.

 

[gerg]

Thanks bangai-o, but jvalioli hooked me up with an invite already.

Time to set up my profile!

Question time:

Can you put circles within circles? (Can I have "High school friends" within "Friends", say?)

Also, can you put people in more than one circle?

 

[kehs]

Thanks bangai-o, but jvalioli hooked me up with an invite already.

Time to set up my profile!

Question time:

Can you put circles within circles? (Can I have "High school friends" within "Friends", say?)

Also, can you put people in more than one circle?

No(for now) and Yes.

 

[gerg]

Is there a known bug with the profile picture? I uploaded a picture automatically when I joined, but decided I wanted to try and re-crop it. Now, when I try and upload that same picture again I get an error message.

Anyway, at first glance Google+ seems good. But it's too simple at the moment - I need a way to be able to sub-organize my circles, if only because I don't need to see ten different groups of people (all of whom could be considered "acquaintances") on my circles page.

Also, I'd kind of like it if they included Facebook's "Interested in" information. It's sophomoric, perhaps, but it was nice to know.

 

[jvalioli]

Interested in and Looking For are sort of the same. For the profile bug, use the feedback button. It takes a screenshot and lets you type in a description.

You can't make trees with your circles because they didn't want to overwhelm the average user.

 

[gerg]

Interested in and Looking For are sort of the same.

I meant in terms of "Men" or "Women". ; )

For the profile bug, use the feedback button. It takes a screenshot and lets you type in a description.

Thanks.

You can't make trees with your circles because they didn't want to overwhelm the average user.

I can understand that, but I hope that as Google+ develops they try and implement it.

One problem with the circles, at the moment, is that it doesn't seem to distinguish between how you know someone and how much you know them. For example, I know acquaintances through synagogue, but I also know some really good friends through there. At the moment, this "3D" depth of the different relationships seems to have been flattened out in the UI, but I'm not sure if there would be a particularly elegant way of implementing that. I guess, in this way, the ambiguity and fuzziness of Facebook's broad "Friend" actually has something to it.

 

[ayeorkean]

Anybody have any invites left. If so I would be delighted to receive one. ayeorkean@gmail.com

 

[kehs]

I meant in terms of "Men" or "Women". ; )



Thanks.



I can understand that, but I hope that as Google+ develops they try and implement it.

One problem with the circles, at the moment, is that it doesn't seem to distinguish between how you know someone and how much you know them. For example, I know acquaintances through synagogue, but I also know some really good friends through there. At the moment, this "3D" depth of the different relationships seems to have been flattened out in the UI, but I'm not sure if there would be a particularly elegant way of implementing that. I guess, in this way, the ambiguity and fuzziness of Facebook's broad "Friend" actually has something to it.

That last distinction is left up to the user so they can place then properly.

 

[gerg]

That last distinction is left up to the user so they can place then properly.

Sure, and there's lots of versatility in the way that Google has designed the UI.

But, unless I've overseen something, with Google+ you can only create different circles; you can't really distinguish between different types of circles. For example, when you look at your stream, on the left you see all your circles lined out linearly, and you can click which information from which circles you want to see.

But social relationships aren't that linear - I think that, ultimately, it needs to be so that in one column you have "Friends, Acquaintances, Family", and in another you have "Work, School, Bike Club", and so on. And so if you want to see information from only your "Friends" you can do that easily, but that if you really wanted to you could share or see information from all your Friends and everyone you know through synagogue, including all the non-friend acquaintances there.

 

[AstroLad]

You can make a circle of that. I have a circle called work and a smaller circle called work friends.

 

[kehs]

Sure, and there's lots of versatility in the way that Google has designed the UI.

But, unless I've overseen something, with Google+ you can only create different circles; you can't really distinguish between different types of circles. For example, when you look at your stream, on the left you see all your circles lined out linearly, and you can click which information from which circles you want to see.

But social relationships aren't that linear - I think that, ultimately, it needs to be so that in one column you have "Friends, Acquaintances, Family", and in another you have "Work, School, Bike Club", and so on. And so if you want to see information from only your "Friends" you can do that easily, but that if you really wanted to you could share or see information from all your Friends and everyone you know through synagogue, including all the non-friend acquaintances there.

You can share to multiple circles.

-Friends
-Friends 2

Share a post with both circles. They have talked about boolean operations for circles, which they pulled out. So its definitely possible and will probably return.

 

[gerg]

You can make a circle of that. I have a circle called work and a smaller circle called work friends.

But, as I've said, the UI isn't best designed for that. It annoys me when I see the following list:

Family
Friends
Acquaintances
People from School

Because the last one is nothing like the others. It shouldn't belong on the list (to me).

(Granted, "Family" probably does occupy its own distinct category, too, but generally you are closer to your family than your friends, who you know more than acquaintances. Of course, there are exceptions, and you can be close to your friends in ways that you aren't with your parents.)

Share a post with both circles. They have talked about boolean operations for circles, which they pulled out. So its definitely possible and will probably return.

I understand why they may have pulled it out. I just hope that, eventually, they put it back in.

 

[kehs]

So.....don't make a circle with that label?


I'm getting Korey flashbacks.

 

[Slappers Only]

Google:

"Oh, let's closely examine [internet phenomenon], make a shitty imitation, fail with said imitation, buy the original, and then run it into the ground and ruin it for everyone."

Facebook will be the next youtube before long.

 

[AstroLad]

Korey:

Google:

"Oh, let's closely examine [internet phenomenon], make a shitty imitation, fail with said imitation, buy the original, and then run it into the ground and ruin it for everyone."

Facebook will be the new youtube before long.

actually nm sorry korey. even korey correctly recognizes that g+ is quite different from fb. back to gamefaqs with you

 

[gerg]

So.....don't make a circle with that label?

So then what's the point of Google+? I already have Facebook with all my friends roughly lumped together.

The point is that I want to create a circle with labels like "Synagogue", "School", "Japan" or whatever, but I don't want them displayed immediately alongside things like "Friends" and "Family". It's cluttered and lacks depth, and doesn't represent the difference between a category like "Friends" and "Japan".

I'm not trying to rag on Google+ too much. I think it's a great idea. People have always had general, vague ideas that Facebook would one day be replaced - because that's how technology works - but I think that Google+ is probably the first service to offer something that may actually do it. But at the moment (although this is understandable considering it is proposing a new concept and is still in its limited, testing phase) it doesn't go far enough. I hope it changes soon. I think we both think it likely that it will change soon. But a flaw is a flaw.

 

[Slappers Only]

Korey:


actually nm sorry korey. even korey correctly recognizes that g+ is quite different from fb. back to gamefaqs with you

 

[eznark]

Google:

"Oh, let's closely examine [internet phenomenon], make a shitty imitation, fail with said imitation, buy the original, and then run it into the ground and ruin it for everyone."

Facebook will be the next youtube before long.

Bizarre. Every single word.

 

[Kapura]

So then what's the point of Google+? I already have Facebook with all my friends roughly lumped together.

The point is that I want to create a circle with labels like "Synagogue", "School", "Japan" or whatever, but I don't want them displayed immediately alongside things like "Friends" and "Family". It's cluttered and lacks depth, and doesn't represent the difference between a category like "Friends" and "Japan".

I'm not trying to rag on Google+ too much. I think it's a great idea. People have always had general, vague ideas that Facebook would one day be replaced - because that's how technology works - but I think that Google+ is probably the first service to make it easy to see how or why that would happen. But at the moment (and this is understandable considering it is proposing a new concept and is still in its limited, testing phase) it doesn't go far enough. I hope it changes soon. I think we both think it likely that it will change soon. But a flaw is a flaw.

I don't understand what the problem is. I've found circles to be heaps better than any organisation I'd looked at in facebook. I have circles for the places i might know people ( uni, secondary school, etc) and then kind of tier lists for friends. Bros, Friends, and Aquaintences. I also have marching band as a circle, but that's entirely people from before university. So if I want to see shit from people I actually give a shit about, I'll look at the circles for Bros and Friends.

 

[gerg]

I don't understand what the problem is. I've found circles to be heaps better than any organisation I'd looked at in facebook. I have circles for the places i might know people ( uni, secondary school, etc) and then kind of tier lists for friends. Bros, Friends, and Aquaintences. I also have marching band as a circle, but that's entirely people from before university. So if I want to see shit from people I actually give a shit about, I'll look at the circles for Bros and Friends.

I agree that, in general, circles are better and more accurate to real relationships than the way Facebook is organised.

I just don't think they're as good as they could be.

As for what I find problematic, it's that "Friends" is a different type of category than "University", for example - the former is about how well or how much you know something; the latter is about how you know someone. The UI currently displays these different types of circles together (owing to the fact that you currently can't tier circles), when I think that they need to be separated somehow.

 

[kehs]

So then what's the point of Google+? I already have Facebook with all my friends roughly lumped together.

The point is that I want to create a circle with labels like "Synagogue", "School", "Japan" or whatever, but I don't want them displayed immediately alongside things like "Friends" and "Family". It's cluttered and lacks depth, and doesn't represent the difference between a category like "Friends" and "Japan".

I'm not trying to rag on Google+ too much. I think it's a great idea. People have always had general, vague ideas that Facebook would one day be replaced - because that's how technology works - but I think that Google+ is probably the first service to offer something that may actually do it. But at the moment (although this is understandable considering it is proposing a new concept and is still in its limited, testing phase) it doesn't go far enough. I hope it changes soon. I think we both think it likely that it will change soon. But a flaw is a flaw.

So the issue is you can't sort circles.

 

[Kapura]

I agree that, in general, circles are better and more accurate to real relationships than the way Facebook is organised.

I just don't think they're as good as they could be.

What would you do to make them better than? I don't want to act like some sort of google defence force, but they are actively changing the site in accordance with what people want. If you could articulate what the issue is better, you might submit feedback to it to Google.

 

[KevinRo]

I agree that, in general, circles are better and more accurate to real relationships than the way Facebook is organised.

I just don't think they're as good as they could be.

No, you're just not thinking large enough.

You have circles, which are sets. Then you can have subsets WITHIN those circles and even OTHER subsets that mix other circles too.

It should be almost like a linked list. You have your primary tree's: Family, Friends, School, Work, etc. Then within those main tree's you can have subsets that fit in-those specific tree's and those specific smaller circles too.

Just experiment.

 

[gerg]

So the issue is you can't sort circles.

I think it's a bit more than that - it's as much of a problem of UI as it is of specific functionality, imo.

What would you do to make them better than? I don't want to act like some sort of google defence force, but they are actively changing the site in accordance with what people want. If you could articulate what the issue is better, you might submit feedback to it to Google.

I detailed how I think the circles should be displayed earlier in this thread. On the stream page I think you should have one column for circles that differentiate between the quality of a relationship (as in, how close you are to someone), and another column for circles that differentiate between how you know someone (such as whether they're from school, from university, or from book club, and so on).

No, you're just not thinking large enough.

You have circles, which are sets. Then you can have subsets WITHIN those circles and even OTHER subsets that mix other circles too.

It should be almost like a linked list. You have your primary tree's: Family, Friends, School, Work, etc. Then within those main tree's you can have subsets that fit in-those specific tree's and those specific smaller circles too.

Just experiment.

Erm... That's kind of what I've been talking about this entire time.

But it's not just about sets and sub-sets, it's about overlapping sets as well.

 

[Bboy AJ]

I'm very late on this, but Facebook's rubbish change to the chatbar has made me decide to give Google+ a go. Does anyone have any spare invites left?

I realize this was a few hours ago but gotdammit. I wish people would stop encouraging these people from reading the OP by responding with an invite.

 

[Slappers Only]

Bizarre. Every single word.

.

 

[KevinRo]

I think it's a bit more than that - it's as much of a problem of UI as it is of specific functionality, imo.

Your stream circles are listed Alphabetically. You can always rename whatever you want at the top of the stream with a 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

That why those will show up at the top instead of the other stuff you don't like.

 

[gerg]

Your stream circles are listed Alphabetically. You can always rename whatever you want at the top of the stream with a 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

That why those will show up at the top instead of the other stuff you don't like.

As I said upthread, that's still one, singular list.

I think there should probably be two or three.

I realize this was a few hours ago but gotdammit. I wish people would stop encouraging these people from reading the OP by responding with an invite.

Thank God you didn't say "Fuck off you little shit" in a fit of anger!

As it happens, after I asked for an invite I did go and read the OP.

 

[Bboy AJ]

I detailed how I think the circles should be displayed earlier in this thread. On the stream page I think you should have one column for circles that differentiate between the quality of a relationship (as in, how close you are to someone), and another column for circles that differentiate between how you know someone (such as whether they're from school, from university, or from book club, and so on).

I appreciate this but it's too much and too confusing. I'd much rather put a close undergrad friend under Friends and put the less close ones under Undergrad. Your way is just managing just to manage. What would be the point? You'd probably have just a few in each and would be posting to too many circles. You'd divide GAF into a Gaming RPG, Gaming Action, Gaming Sports, etc. if you could.

What would you post to Book Club - Acquaintances that you wouldn't post to Book Club - BFFs? Those BFFs would probably get the Friends posts and not just the Book Club posts. You can put that one person in two Circles just fine.

 

[gerg]

I appreciate this but it's too much and too confusing. I'd much rather put a close undergrad friend under Friends and put the less close ones under Undergrad. Your way is just managing just to manage. What would be the point? You'd probably have just a few in each and would be posting to too many circles. You'd divide GAF into a Gaming RPG, Gaming Action, Gaming Sports, etc. if you could.

To more accurately represent real social relationships, like how Google+ is doing already.

What would you post to Book Club - Acquaintances that you wouldn't post to Book Club - BFFs? Those BFFs would probably get the Friends posts and not just the Book Club posts. You can put that one person in two Circles just fine.

I wasn't particularly talking about micromanaging Circles like that. It was more to do with how they're shown.

Don't get me wrong, this is a relatively small complaint, and I imagine that more features will be added as the service develops. But maybe I'm a minority on the issue - you say that this is "too much and too confusing" but I find the idea really intuitive: labels like "Friends" and "University" aren't the same, so why are they displayed the same?

 

[kehs]

To more accurately represent real social relationships, like how Google+ is doing already.



I wasn't particularly talking about micromanaging Circles like that. It was more to do with how they're shown.

Don't get me wrong, this is a relatively small complaint, and I imagine that more features will be added as the service develops. But maybe I'm a minority on the issue - you say that this is "too much and too confusing" but I find the idea really intuitive: labels like "Friends" and "University" aren't the same, so why are they displayed the same?

They are the same. Two groups of people. What you share to them is what makes them different. You just want specific indicators.

 

[gerg]

They are the same. Two groups of people. What you share to them is what makes them different. You just want specific indicators.

"University" tells me nothing about how well I know someone. A term like "Friend" (in comparison to "Acquaintance") does.

They're not the same types of label.

You're right in that they're two groups of people. But they're two groups distinguished in different ways. This distinction is shown through the different content I share to them, but the content that I share is itself not what makes them different.

 

[kehs]

I use * to signify someone special. <3 For people I love and + for people I'm interested in knowing more about. - for annoying people and $$$ For celebrities I follow.


Friends *
Friends $$$
Friends -
Friends <3
And of course
Friends $$$*<3-



.......

 

[gerg]

This is the way that I would display the Stream text:

Family________| University
Friends________| Secondary School
Acquaintances__| Synagogue
______________ Japan

(So, imagine two columns delineated in this manner.)

Secondary School might include people not in Friends or Acquaintances. For example, I have teachers from my secondary school as Friends on Facebook, and although they're not "really" friends inasmuch as my relationship with them isn't the same as my relationship with my proper friends, they're certainly not acquaintances either.

But maybe Acquaintances is really just a crappy circle.

Eh... I dunno'. You're probably right - this really probably doesn't need to be included.

 

[Emerson]

So are invites not working right now? The main page says they're over capacity and I was supposed to get one from a friend which hasn't arrived.

 

[Pachterballs]

FYI imported the vcf into my google mail contacts into a neogaf group. Then dragged the lot to the neogaf circle. Insta 260+ circle.

 

[Terrell]

So are invites not working right now? The main page says they're over capacity and I was supposed to get one from a friend which hasn't arrived.

I've still got the option to send invites, so it doesn't appear that they've locked people out, no.

 

[Emerson]

I've still got the option to send invites, so it doesn't appear that they've locked people out, no.

Hmm, weird..... spare an invite? haha

 

[Terrell]

To more accurately represent real social relationships, like how Google+ is doing already.



I wasn't particularly talking about micromanaging Circles like that. It was more to do with how they're shown.

Don't get me wrong, this is a relatively small complaint, and I imagine that more features will be added as the service develops. But maybe I'm a minority on the issue - you say that this is "too much and too confusing" but I find the idea really intuitive: labels like "Friends" and "University" aren't the same, so why are they displayed the same?

I think you and I are sort of in the same boat on this... you're looking for circles to show you your social graph in a way that applies to how you interact with them and how it all stacks up and fits together at the end of the day.
It's perhaps too soon for what you're looking for, but yeah, I could see them including an optional layer of abstraction like that in the future. Key word being optional, of course.

 

[Terrell]

Hmm, weird..... spare an invite? haha

Wrong thread. And if you use too many in a day, Google thinks you're flooding the service with people you don't know (or that you're trying to monetize invites) and revokes your invite privileges. I already sent a bunch today, so... invite thread you go.

 

[gerg]

I think you and I are sort of in the same boat on this... you're looking for circles to show you your social graph in a way that applies to how you interact with them and how it all stacks up and fits together at the end of the day.
It's perhaps too soon for what you're looking for, but yeah, I could see them including an optional layer of abstraction like that in the future. Key word being optional, of course.

It's nice to find someone to agree with me, but I was definitely overblowing the issue. The problem is just one of tiering and a few slight UI fixes to accompany that would solve it for me.

 

[Terrell]

It's nice to find someone to agree with me, but I was definitely overblowing the issue. The problem is just one of tiering and a few slight UI fixes to accompany that would solve it for me.

I just see so much opportunity for G+ to hit the ground and sprint past Facebook and Twitter, but because they're still collecting their first batch of feedback, we won't see new stuff for a bit.

 

[Emerson]

Finally got in and played around with it. I like it, and would honestly be pleased if it overthrew Facebook. It's not perfect yet but I like where they're going. Sadly none of my real friends are on it yet, and I fear that they never really will be and it will die off.

 

[Soma]

yo quick question about hangouts and youtube.

sorry if this has been asked/answered a million times

is it possible to load a video playlist in the Hangout so that like

uhh say

we wanna watch a movie but it's in segments, so can we make a playlist so we can seemlessly (or almost seemlessly) watch a segment right after another?

 

[Nemesis_]

yo quick question about hangouts and youtube.

sorry if this has been asked/answered a million times

is it possible to load a video playlist in the Hangout so that like

uhh say

we wanna watch a movie but it's in segments, so can we make a playlist so we can seemlessly (or almost seemlessly) watch a segment right after another?

That's a pretty cool idea.

 

[soultron]

I just took photos with my Galaxy S and then came home to see they were ready for sharing on Google+.

Facebook RIP.

 

[Pachterballs]

I just took photos with my Galaxy S and then came home to see they were ready for sharing on Google+.

Facebook RIP.

how is that any different from all the apps on iphone/ipad where you can "share to facebook?". or you can just email to that special email you have for yourself and it goes right to FB/mobile uploads? (the latter method is how all my photos are uploaded now - go to outlook - drag pics I want to share: email to FB. uploaded).


.
Obviously we're all tech inclinded and male; but I think convincing people to jump over is going to be tricky. Who would want to another means of social media?

I already have FB/Twitter/LinkedIN. While I'm amused by the NEOgaf circle thing; almost nobody I know in real life has a google+ right now.

 

[kehs]

how is that any different from all the apps on iphone/ipad where you can "share to facebook?". or you can just email to that special email you have for yourself and it goes right to FB/mobile uploads?


.
Obviously we're all tech inclinded and male; but I think convincing people to jump over is going to be tricky. Who would want to another means of social media?

I already have FB/Twitter/LinkedIN. While I'm amused by the NEOgaf circle thing; almost nobody I know in real life has a google+ right now.

They upload automatically as soon as you take them without having to do anything.

 

[soultron]

how is that any different from all the apps on iphone/ipad where you can "share to facebook?". or you can just email to that special email you have for yourself and it goes right to FB/mobile uploads? (the latter method is how all my photos are uploaded now - go to outlook - drag pics I want to share: email to FB. uploaded).

I don't have to go into my file directory/gallery, batch select a bunch of photos, and then hit my menu button and then hit "share to Facebook."

You can also set it to wait to upload photos until you're in a WiFi hotspot in order to save your phone's data usage.

I just log onto G+ and then select which circle I want to share them to. That's it.