Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

[ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

Handy!

Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

#gplus #gplustips

What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-09 11:14:11
    Finding your stuff and reshares of your stuff on Google+
    I've been playing with search in +Google+ a bit more. I've known for a while that you can search for things that are From you (screenshot 1).

    But I've found it a bit unreliable. It doesn't always turn up things I know I've posted on a given search term.

    This morning, and I can't think why I haven't tried this before, I used my G+ ID as part of a search term with From everyone selected (screenshot 2).

    And lo and behold, it returns not just my posts but also all public reshares of my posts: https://plus.google.com/s/103363186582409589918

    [ Update: and comments on posts in which I've posted a full URL to one of my own posts; go to plus.google.com/s/ to see the search options shown in the screenshots (thanks +the g+ resource) ]

    Handy!

    Put your ID in and give it a whirl (the 21 figure number in your profile URL).

    #gplus #gplustips

    What would be really good too is if there were a syntax for searching the date-time stamp. I haven't figured a way to do that yet, but I have some ideas for Google: plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/L9qFH4PdLpY.
  • 8 plusses - 5 comments - 26 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-18 16:07:33
    How Google Circles interact with Streams, Incoming and more: an overview for newcomers

    Although Google Circles are really easy and intuitive to create and edit, figuring out how your own Circle decisions interact with those of everybody else's is not so obvious.

    Plenty of folks are writing their own guides to G+ [1] but, like Google's own G+ Help [2], the focus tends to be on words when visuals could be more succinct.

    So I've used Google+'s own Photo album options to put together a slideshow [3] that attempts to visualise the way Circles interact between users more clearly.

    Share freely – all feedback welcome, especially if I've got something wrong!

    ---
    Footnotes to the above

    [1] eg: +Ben Parr has written a comprehensive 4000 word Mashable guide to Google+ http://goo.gl/1qDvx.

    [2] Google's own Circles Help has a nice video intro (http://goo.gl/Hufhi) but is surprisingly text dependent from that point on.

    [3] This post is a successor to my previous flawed version last Friday! http://goo.gl/KOh7m
  • 5 plusses - 7 comments - 22 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-27 09:01:13
    Communication failures in the Google+ 'name' debacle need fixing fast

    What happens when:

    A. You leave your policies open to interpretation
    B. You launch a product that is a runaway success and then say nothing on your public blog about it afterwards
    C. You communicate only through the product itself, a product which has no global messaging system at present

    Yup, that's right, misinformation, distrust and paranoia step in and spread like wildfire [1].


    Blogging

    To look at http://googleblog.blogspot.com, you'd think that nothing had been happening inside G+ since they launched it nearly a month ago.

    If the 'field trial' status of G+ means they don't want to say too much on their corporate blog because it would overshadow everything else that they do, then create a dedicated blog – their audience is not just all G+ users but all potential ones as well.


    Communicating inside G+

    It's great that +Bradley Horowitz said what he did on Monday [2] but that only directly reaches people who have Circled him, or through the lens of people who share that post (who may themselves be distrustful of it).

    I mentioned yesterday [3] that G+ is poor for "friendly permalinks, findability of content, and semantic formatting and readability of lengthy posts".

    There really ought to be a mechanism for important global messages to appear prominently and then be easily dismissed. 37Signals do this pretty well in Basecamp.

    There also should be an easy means to find the Google execs with whom the buck stops, but via a list that is maintained by Google, not members of the community [4]! That should be on the blog as well.

    [1] +Alice Cabrera https://plus.google.com/u/0/100772959431098862192/posts/dzbBT43Bx3r
    [2] https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU
    [3] https://plus.google.com/103363186582409589918/posts/Tk9c3mTK4r8
    [4] +Craig Kanalley https://plus.google.com/103399926392582289066/posts/LX4g7577DqD

    Violet Blue's article below found via +Jake Sharman and +Mark Davidson.
    PS: is Violet Blue on G+ or is she also a victim of the Pseudonym crackdown? Guess I should have looked, she is!
  • 4 plusses - 5 comments - 21 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-12 17:46:47
    Everyone's a noisy geek

    So, soon it won't be just us web and social media geeks here. Our other Friends will be here. And then maybe our Family, eventually. And they'll be geeks too -- in their area of expertise.

    And then there'll be less parochial discussion of the mechanics and dynamics of G+ (which I'm guilty of) and more really interesting stuff from both our professional and personal realms. We'll all have the option to post:

    1. Non-work stuff publicly
    2. Work related stuff publicly (knowledge sharing and direct and indirect marketing)
    3. Personal stuff with a limited share
    4. Work stuff with a limited share (project/deal related stuff)

    Stuff like 3 and 4 go straight to the relevant people so there'll be a high degree of receptiveness to it. But stuff like 1 and 2 is highly likely to be viewed as noise. Some will embrace the noise, some will tolerate it, but others will find it a real annoyance.

    An example of noise of type 1 that springs to mind is all the people who are pissed at +John Gruber's baseball tweets…

    "If you don't like the baseball tweets, there's a big fucking UNFOLLOW button over there." http://twitter.com/gruber/statuses/5355696463

    In theory, the noise of type 2 problem could be solved by us creating multiple Google+ personas a la Facebook Pages. But doesn't that then fragment our identities in a way that Google+ could avoid, at least for those of us who are knowledge workers striving to be 'authentic' (http://goo.gl/JHdu6)?


    Circles is a great idea but is it enough?

    Circles is clearly the G+ big idea at this point in the 'Project'. But it provides a mechanism for filtering who we are listening to not what they are saying, so it doesn't solve noise of type 1 or 2 above does it?

    All of which means we need the option of content filters not just people filters don't we, or have I missed something?


    I'd love to hear your thoughts.
  • 5 plusses - 17 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2012-02-08 16:19:25
    At school today a class mate of my daughter said, evidently in all seriousness…

    Isn't France in England?

    A shame that natural curiosity is allowed to atrophy to the point that this can happen :(
  • 5 plusses - 14 comments - 2 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-10-27 09:50:07
    The promise of feed-posts in Google+
    Further clarity on my hopes for Google+, Reader and blogging

    cc +Alan Green +Vishnu Suresh
  • 4 plusses - 13 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-28 11:39:55
    Google+ noise control: Circles, Contexts and Volume
    A proposal for a Google+ 'personal mixing desk'.

    The basic premise of this is that, given the right tools, humans are better at making noise filtering decisions than machines. It needs work but I feel like I've got the basis of something worth considering here, so I'm just going to throw it out there and see where it lands. I'd love to know what you think.


    Background: going round in Circles

    If like me you've got misgivings about how useful Circles actually are, you might want to read +Brian Shaler's excellent reflections on the failings of G+ as it stands [1] – it's a long post but worth it, hopefully this is too!

    I think Circles solve one problem really well: scalable privacy (caveat: it's not entirely clear to me how reshares to extended circles [2] affect this).

    But as anyone who has spent much time here already appreciates, when it comes to content in your Stream (incoming content), Circles only affect who you are listening to, not what.

    If you are anything like me, once you've figured the full implications of this, you realise that your Circles are already a mess: the way I've categorised people is just not going to work long term. And that's a headache because I know I'm going to have to go in and completely rethink how I've set them up. In short, I have more Circles than would be necessary if there were other filters that combined with them.

    So, what other filters?

    I propose that for each person we follow there are Volume settings on a finite set of Contexts that combine with 0 or more Circles for optional privacy. Let me explain…


    A. Standardised Contexts

    I reckon most of us post stuff that falls into a small number of what I'm calling Contexts. Here are some suggestions:

    1. Personal life (family, close friends and domestic stuff)
    2. Fun (quirky, silly, entertaining stuff)
    3. Personal interests (sports, hobbies, fascinations)
    4. Professional interests (vocational focus and skills)
    5. Society (politics, culture)

    I'm assuming that everyone would have a workable shared understanding of what content is appropriate for 1, 2 and 5.

    For 3 and 4, imagine that each of us had the option to fill in a field on our Profile for personal interests and professional interests.

    Then, when each of us chooses to add a person to 1 or more Circles, we create volume settings for each of the 5 Contexts…


    B. Volume setting

    Note: I mean 'volume' here in the sense of amplitude (hence the 'mixing desk' analogy).
    Volume 0 is 'off'; volume 10 is maximum – no need for a Spinal Tap setting [3] of 11 ;)

    Here's an example…

    I follow +Robert Scoble. I don't know Robert personally but he is consistently interesting and engaging. So imagine if in choosing to follow Robert I could give him the following volume settings:

    Personal life: 0
    Fun: 2
    Personal interests: 3
    Professional interests: 7
    Society: 5

    Let's work through that…

    I'm actually really interested in most of what Robert has to say on his professional interests but I'm not going to set him at 10 for that Context because he is pretty noisy!

    The settings I give him are global for my relationship to him (the way I choose to consume his content) regardless of how many Circles I choose to put him in.

    Robert has declared his personal interests and professional interests in his Profile. I guess the field could use tags like LinkedIn's Skills [4] but it could work just as well as plain untagged prose, because we humans are pretty good at understanding intent and scope without the need for a binary classification system.

    And hey, if I feel I've misunderstood Robert's declared interests or feel that from my own perspective he has misrepresented them or misinterpreted other Contexts, I can go back and change the volume settings for him at any time, for all 5 Contexts.

    Suppose that Robert hadn't filled out his personal interests. Then my default setting for him for that Context will be 0. It's an incentive to each person filling out their Profile. If Robert subsequently fills that Context out, I get a notification so I can go and edit the volume setting for it if I wish.

    Another example…

    I have a friend (who isn't here yet) who is a Portsmouth University Librarian in their Map Department. His kids and my kids are good friends. We both read the same papers and have a similar political outlook. I might have his Contexts as follows:

    Personal life: 8
    Fun: 9
    Personal interests: 5
    Professional interests: 2
    Society: 8


    Applying it: posting stuff

    When we create a post, we choose 1 or more of the 5 Contexts it is suitable for and we:

    1. Send it out to the world as Public or
    2. Send it to 1 or more Circles

    Note that because we now have some useful content filters our Circles can be defined more clearly for their primary purpose of privacy, and are therefore likely to be fewer in number and easier to manage.


    Applying it: receiving stuff

    Here's where I haven't fully figured things out but I sense that the above can be useful and workable.

    The volume settings I have for a given person's Contexts affect the probability and/or the default manner of display of one of their posts in my Stream.

    And, along with a menu of Circles on the left as Stream filters, I also have a menu of 5 Contexts as filters.

    If you've got this far, hope this has been worth the read.
    Discuss!


    Notes

    [1] The honeymoon is over, and I'm a little nonplussed about G+ by +Brian Shaler https://plus.google.com/105741610296406100064/posts/c57jv2vk4e4
    [2] Google+ help for extended circles http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1257347&answer=1302427
    [3] YouTube Spinal Tap - These Go Up To 11
    [4] LinkedIn Skills http://www.linkedin.com/skills/
  • 0 plusses - 25 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+
  • Jonathan Schofield2011-07-28 11:39:55
    Google+ noise control: Circles, Contexts and Volume
    A proposal for a Google+ 'personal mixing desk'.

    The basic premise of this is that, given the right tools, humans are better at making noise filtering decisions than machines. It needs work but I feel like I've got the basis of something worth considering here, so I'm just going to throw it out there and see where it lands. I'd love to know what you think.


    Background: going round in Circles

    If like me you've got misgivings about how useful Circles actually are, you might want to read +Brian Shaler's excellent reflections on the failings of G+ as it stands [1] – it's a long post but worth it, hopefully this is too!

    I think Circles solve one problem really well: scalable privacy (caveat: it's not entirely clear to me how reshares to extended circles [2] affect this).

    But as anyone who has spent much time here already appreciates, when it comes to content in your Stream (incoming content), Circles only affect who you are listening to, not what.

    If you are anything like me, once you've figured the full implications of this, you realise that your Circles are already a mess: the way I've categorised people is just not going to work long term. And that's a headache because I know I'm going to have to go in and completely rethink how I've set them up. In short, I have more Circles than would be necessary if there were other filters that combined with them.

    So, what other filters?

    I propose that for each person we follow there are Volume settings on a finite set of Contexts that combine with 0 or more Circles for optional privacy. Let me explain…


    A. Standardised Contexts

    I reckon most of us post stuff that falls into a small number of what I'm calling Contexts. Here are some suggestions:

    1. Personal life (family, close friends and domestic stuff)
    2. Fun (quirky, silly, entertaining stuff)
    3. Personal interests (sports, hobbies, fascinations)
    4. Professional interests (vocational focus and skills)
    5. Society (politics, culture)

    I'm assuming that everyone would have a workable shared understanding of what content is appropriate for 1, 2 and 5.

    For 3 and 4, imagine that each of us had the option to fill in a field on our Profile for personal interests and professional interests.

    Then, when each of us chooses to add a person to 1 or more Circles, we create volume settings for each of the 5 Contexts…


    B. Volume setting

    Note: I mean 'volume' here in the sense of amplitude (hence the 'mixing desk' analogy).
    Volume 0 is 'off'; volume 10 is maximum – no need for a Spinal Tap setting [3] of 11 ;)

    Here's an example…

    I follow +Robert Scoble. I don't know Robert personally but he is consistently interesting and engaging. So imagine if in choosing to follow Robert I could give him the following volume settings:

    Personal life: 0
    Fun: 2
    Personal interests: 3
    Professional interests: 7
    Society: 5

    Let's work through that…

    I'm actually really interested in most of what Robert has to say on his professional interests but I'm not going to set him at 10 for that Context because he is pretty noisy!

    The settings I give him are global for my relationship to him (the way I choose to consume his content) regardless of how many Circles I choose to put him in.

    Robert has declared his personal interests and professional interests in his Profile. I guess the field could use tags like LinkedIn's Skills [4] but it could work just as well as plain untagged prose, because we humans are pretty good at understanding intent and scope without the need for a binary classification system.

    And hey, if I feel I've misunderstood Robert's declared interests or feel that from my own perspective he has misrepresented them or misinterpreted other Contexts, I can go back and change the volume settings for him at any time, for all 5 Contexts.

    Suppose that Robert hadn't filled out his personal interests. Then my default setting for him for that Context will be 0. It's an incentive to each person filling out their Profile. If Robert subsequently fills that Context out, I get a notification so I can go and edit the volume setting for it if I wish.

    Another example…

    I have a friend (who isn't here yet) who is a Portsmouth University Librarian in their Map Department. His kids and my kids are good friends. We both read the same papers and have a similar political outlook. I might have his Contexts as follows:

    Personal life: 8
    Fun: 9
    Personal interests: 5
    Professional interests: 2
    Society: 8


    Applying it: posting stuff

    When we create a post, we choose 1 or more of the 5 Contexts it is suitable for and we:

    1. Send it out to the world as Public or
    2. Send it to 1 or more Circles

    Note that because we now have some useful content filters our Circles can be defined more clearly for their primary purpose of privacy, and are therefore likely to be fewer in number and easier to manage.


    Applying it: receiving stuff

    Here's where I haven't fully figured things out but I sense that the above can be useful and workable.

    The volume settings I have for a given person's Contexts affect the probability and/or the default manner of display of one of their posts in my Stream.

    And, along with a menu of Circles on the left as Stream filters, I also have a menu of 5 Contexts as filters.

    If you've got this far, hope this has been worth the read.
    Discuss!


    Notes

    [1] The honeymoon is over, and I'm a little nonplussed about G+ by +Brian Shaler https://plus.google.com/105741610296406100064/posts/c57jv2vk4e4
    [2] Google+ help for extended circles http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1257347&answer=1302427
    [3] YouTube Spinal Tap - These Go Up To 11
    [4] LinkedIn Skills http://www.linkedin.com/skills/
  • 0 plusses - 25 comments - 0 shares | Read in G+