Re:Zuckerberg’s Not So Subtle Dig At Google Circles
by MatthewPhillips on Thursday July 07, 2011 @08:06AM
(#2738125)
It's not the same sharing relationship. You have to be friends with someone before you add them to a Facebook List. Google+ has no concept of "friends". How you see someone is not necessarily how they see you.
Re:Zuckerberg’s Not So Subtle Dig At Google Circles
by BvS on Thursday July 07, 2011 @06:02AM
(#2737914)
Yes, they are, but both might be wrong answers to the question of how to share to a limited number of people.
For example if I would like to share with my colleagues I would much prefer a centrally organized group instead of everyone keeping their own "work circles" up to date (eg when new interns come and go).
Re:Zuckerberg’s Not So Subtle Dig At Google Circles
by dfxm12 on Thursday July 07, 2011 @09:06AM
(#2738261)
Big words especially considering you can't search through the people who "like" the same interests as you in Facebook. What's the point of social networking if I can't actually connect with anyone who is interested in the same things as me?
Social networking is about connecting with new people, not a virtual front end for people you already know...
Re:Zuckerberg’s Not So Subtle Dig At Google Circles
by BvS on Thursday July 07, 2011 @05:07AM
(#2737806)
"The definition of groups is... everyone inside the group knows who else is in the group"
Pretty good point in my opinion. Maybe groups are a better solution for people who want to share with a limited number of friends. It also is much less work since only one person has to set up the group.
Re:Zuckerberg’s Not So Subtle Dig At Google Circles
by wccrawford on Thursday July 07, 2011 @07:42AM
(#2738067)
I would definitely like to see Google add groups as pseudo-people... And then you can put that group in a Circle and share to it.
People in the group can see who else is in the group. Groups could be curated (need approval to join) or just open to anyone, and moderated (need approval to post) or not depending on the choices made by the group owner.
This is a slightly narrow definition, the visibility of a group should be an attribute.
Dan Gillmor cites a good use-case:
"I'm considering a circle called "insufferable" for people I find personally annoying but whose work I feel obliged to keep track of, in any case."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/...
For example if I would like to share with my colleagues I would much prefer a centrally organized group instead of everyone keeping their own "work circles" up to date (eg when new interns come and go).
Social networking is about connecting with new people, not a virtual front end for people you already know...
For most people I know, it actually does exactly that.
Pretty good point in my opinion. Maybe groups are a better solution for people who want to share with a limited number of friends. It also is much less work since only one person has to set up the group.
People in the group can see who else is in the group. Groups could be curated (need approval to join) or just open to anyone, and moderated (need approval to post) or not depending on the choices made by the group owner.