Hacker News Reader

"Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests."

I totally disagree with that. Facebook sorely lacks such a feature, and the lack of it has led to "spammy" messages from so called "friends" you barely even know, or care about in your list.

Google+ seems to solve a lot of issues with Facebook. And I think even non-techies can be relatively easy convinced to use it once they see how it works. Basically, Google+ looks like a huge leap over Facebook because of all those neat products tied together. People will switch from anything as long as there is a big leap in benefits, and I think Google+ offers that.

I think Facebook's biggest failure is that they've never educated people on how to use Facebook well, and honestly, they have likely inadvertently encouraged bad practices with their emphasis on growth.

For example, why do you have friends on FB you barely know in reality? You should only have your genuine friends on Facebook. This simple rule solves the "annoying status update from someone I don't care about" problem, which is the most frequent complaint I hear about Facebook. I actively delete people a few times a year who I don't expect to see again.

They used to strongly discourage adding non-friends.

I remember when adding people you had to enter something for "How did you meet this person?" and if you checked "I don't know them", it would close the box and say "Well why are you adding them?"

That sort of thing goes out when advertising and paying for games and such via the system come in. People having many connections means that if someone lets you app in or "likes" the page directed to by your ad then you get a change to advertise to all those people on that one person's list of contacts. This is attractive to the advertisers, and makes paying money to facebook a better value proposition.

Facebook want you to be connected to as many people as possible because this network of connections is essentially what they sell. Just like Google, with facebook you are the product that is sold to the advertisers (the difference being that currently with facebook your friends are the product too, though that difference is set to vanish if Google can get the social thing right enough to attract a critical mass of users).

"Facebook want you to be connected to as many people as possible because this network of connections is essentially what they sell."

I agree, but I also think that eventually, this devalues Facebook.

It's like you had this party with all your friends, and then all your coworkers and former classmates and people you met at conferences and people who share your interest in banjo music all showed up too.

And eventually, it wasn't a party anymore; it was just a random collection of people. And you started thinking, "wouldn't it be nice if I had a place for just me and my friends?"

> And eventually, it wasn't a party anymore; it was just a random collection of people. And you started thinking, "wouldn't it be nice if I had a place for just me and my friends?"

Aye, I think that is what Google is going for. They might be early to the game though: have enough people got to that stage that FB will see a large number trying Google's offering just for that reason?

It's a failure in interface design and there's no reason to innovate the interface because it strikes at the core of their revenue stream which is all about hyper connectedness when the real value is in the type of the relationships.

It reminds me of search engines proclaiming "2,800,000 results returned". Really? Most searchers never go beyond the first couple pages in the query result set. Who cares? Likewise, other than playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, who wants to see all these tertiary relationships that mean nothing?

I instantly dismiss people who complain about this as morons. Why add people you don't know and _then_ complain about it?

If you only add your actual friends, Facebook is a pretty good experience. It's not perfect, you still have a to block a few apps, but once done it's not a bad place.

If you are in the high school - college - internships - jobs life stage that lots of Facebook users are in, you have a high friend turnover rate. You meet lots of people who you want to add on Facebook, then later maybe you want to keep them around so you can see what they're up to but don't want their posts mixed in with posts from your current close friends. And there's a thousand variations and stages in between.

Well I respectfully disagree. I don't think it's too hard to figure out if someone is really a friend or just someone you've met a few times. And if add them just to "see what they're up to" then sure, you're going to get noise.

I also think if you're adding people to your Facebook that have anything to do with your employment you're insane.

But maybe it is because I am 30+ that these distinctions to me seem very clear.

"If you are in the high school - college - internships - jobs life stage"

Read: Not you.

so, you regularly reject the friend requests of people you've recently met and/or people who you see from time to time but who you do not consider one of your BFFs?

I do, yes. I email or message the person to tell them this and why. A few people find it strange, most aren't bothered.

It would seem I am majorly in the minority in how I use Facebook. I figured fellow hackers would be similar, but it apperas not.

The whole problem is that the word "friend" has about a hundred shades of meaning in life, work, and love. Facebook's biggest problem -- perhaps their only problem -- is that they refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Indeed. If you don't use Facebook (and I was one of the last hold-outs in my social group), the "friend" terminology will lead you to believe that the people you attach to are actually friends, of which you can only have about 20 real ones. Then you hear that people have 120+ on average, and you think the whole world has gone mad. Facebook friends are, as a whole, just people who have meant something to you at some point in your life.

Twitter was better about this, in that following someone is a one-way connection, not a two-way one. Google+ lets you have it both ways: putting someone in your circle means you'll see their public posts (Twitter), if that person puts you in their circles, you'll see their private ones (Facebook).

Don't you just hide friends with consistently boring messages? I do, and people I know do. It's a big stick, compared to some more subtle faceting, but it mostly works fine, while putting some pressure on the reader to accept a certain amount of tedium in those people I still want to listen to. There's also event spam, but that one category you can filter out separately (i.e., "ignore events from person X").

Facebook already has a conceprt of groups. I frequently share my updates/pictures with only to select set of groups. It's just that it is a bit hard to use it. Nothing that facebook can't fix. Don't know what is so great about this.

The problem is that friend groups in Facebook are an afterthought at best and horrifically broken at times. To the point that they're nearly useless. I've had multiple instances of Facebook deciding to ignore my default post settings for a type of post or album, posting it wide open when it should have been restricted to a certain friend group (mobile apps are especially bad about this, IME).

Things I want to share with friends of family may not be things I want coworkers seeing. I don't want to share photos of drunken antics with bar friends with my grandparents. I don't want updates about a sick relative to become office gossip.

Yes, the feature sort of exists in Facebook to kind of get this functionality, but there is a massive appeal in a network that treats the idea that not all acquaintances are equal as a core concept. And because it's a central value of the network, I have a lot more faith that it should actually work than the Facebook model, which has already failed me plenty of times in the past.

The problem with FB groups is that both you and the friends that you want to share the link/photo/message with have to agree to be part of that group. I usually put my friends in multiple groups/circles, i.e. they could be a work colleague but also a eating out enthusiast. This multiple categorization can easily get messy and definitely doesn't scale to hundreds of friends.

Hopefully, with Google+ Circles my private categorization of my friends is not shared with them. They should only see what I share.

It's actually called list. Groups in FB is something different. Try creating a friend list and then you can share it with only that list.

You can't share with lists alone. Facebook sharing options are friends, friends and networks, Friends and their friends and so on. Or you have to add each friend individually. It's just weird how lists are pretty much useless in facebook.

Sure you can. In the status update thing, click the padlock and choose "Customize" and then "Specific people", and you can enter lists of friendlists.

(Granted, it's not very discoverable)

Yep, my default sharing option is "Friends Only; Except: Work"

Only bummer is that you can't do fancy options like that with the Facebook iPhone app. You can only do your default, the normal options like Friends Only, or specific groups.

Although the feature is not as advanced as circles, you can make wall posts on Facebook visible to only certain groups of friends. Google+ forces you to pick a circle (or everyone), rather than just defaulting to everyone.

Google does have powerful friend grouping features, and you can hide your information/posts/photos/etc from any category of friends you want. You can hide them from specific friends, and you can hide individual items in the same way. And the news feed can be filtered easily as well (although without as much fine grained control as content you produce).

Overall, I think that Facebook needs to do a better job of educating its users about these features, and make them more prominent, but I find these features are certainly quite adequate.

Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches. When I am on facebook I behave like I am in public. I don't hope for the best and write secret stuff anywhere. But with all the google searches I make through a day, I am giving google a lot of very personal information that I would not like anyone to see. I would hate to see something that I was searching for somehow show up in a stream for my friends to see because I accidentally clicked a +1 button or similar.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think Google+ looks pretty neat. It's more along the lines of what I am looking for in a social network than Facebook is. But I do not plan to use it for the exact reasons you mentioned.

My searches are private. Anything I do on a social network is public. I do not want the two of them mingling. I don't want the possibility of an accident. I don't want a single entity to "own" my search and social data.

I really wish someone else had created this.

"I really wish someone else had created this."

You mean like any number of startup social networks each year that fail because they can't get the traction which Google is more likely to? It's sad, but that's the way it is - there are innovative and good social networking sites out there, but without the backing that a Google product has they keep failing.

The solution is simple: move away from using Google for searches. There are alternatives like Bing, Yahoo and Duck Duck Go.

Or if you like Google's service, as I do, but care about your privacy, as I do, you can use Scroogle: http://www.scroogle.org/

It's a secure (SSL), anonymous (no cookies), ad-free Google interface. You can make it the default in your search bar in any browser either by hand or through an extension. Note that the results are much more minimal (no links to similar articles, cached versions, etc.), which you may prefer, as I do, or not.

Don't Yahoo and DDG use Bing for their search results? If so, Bing is the only alternative on your list.

Hm, looks like Alta-Vista is still around...

The results come via a rebranded Yahoo! search, which itself consists of rebranded Bing results.

I believe DDG uses a variety of sources for results, including but not limited to Bing.

I'd add https://ixquick.com to the list.

Also, using a search engine directly is not the same thing as using it through one of these intermediaries (especially while logged in).

or just use Facebook.

>I really wish someone else had created this.

I'm with you. If anyone but Google had made this I would be ecstatic. Heck, even MS.

Google is in no way targeting people who are happy with Facebook. Neither do they need to compete with Facebook. They are enhancing their existing products very intelligently across the board. Mass adoption isn't necessary, that will come over time with people using more heavily integrated Google software. Eventually they'll get everyone, via mobile / Google Mail / Google Docs / Google Search or some other venue. Facebook is in no danger _right now_. But long-term they have no chance.

It's too early in the morning for this kind of doom and gloom.

Hangouts is going to drive adoption. It's chat roulette without the roulette.

Actually it's just Stickam. One that encourages you to be a leet idler.

or tinychat

i just got an invite and am instantly bored. i already have a news feed, i already have a way to share pictures, i already have a place to share links and i already have a way to chat with friends.

on the + side (hah! get it??), the ui looks nice, so hopefully this means google with start paying more attention to the look and feel of their applications.

I distrust Facebook so much that I dont have a news feed, I dont have a way to share my pictures (because who wants to share 1024x768 resolution pictures with their friends? ffs why do I then have a 15mp camera?) and I have skype to chat with friends.

Google+ is refreshing, it shows social networking can be better.

as a camera buff, why dont you just use flickr?

also, if you distrust facebook, what makes you trust google? they've had plenty of privacy issues in the past in regards to social networking (buzz, etc).

Google+ launched an hour ago in private beta, isn't it a bit early to call it refreshing and better? :)

I use Flickr, but none of my friends who aren't photographers do... so when I update my stream nobody sees it (unless I use a Flickr-Facebook bridge app, which is clunky and doesn't plug in nicely).

There's a lot to be said for having your content pushed to your network in a way that's easy to use.

In fact, Buzz's integration of "external feeds" is much better done than FB. I'd hope this applies to Google+ also.

Its refreshing with competition, perhaps even on the privacy parts different actors could make each other respect their users more.

I dont like the UI of flickr (cant even use it, and Im a comp-sci major) and it doesnt integrate well with Facebook (tagging), where most of my friends are, sadly. I guess flickr might have improved since I last gave it a chance, but still something doesnt feel good about it. The same for picasa.

Yea I dislike Picasa as well. I was disapointed to see Google+ integrating with it. Although there really isn't an alternative...

> because who wants to share 1024x768 resolution pictures with their friends? ffs why do I then have a 15mp camera?

Hundreds of millions of people, apparently. Anyway, you can download the high res image nowadays via the link below the picture.

I too noticed that people don't seem to care about their picture resolutions, or perhaps they just do not know about it, they dont see resolutions. The hundreds of millions see pictures.

Couldnt agree more with you. Perhaps this is the thing for us non facebook users to use amongst ourselves :)

There are certainly many people who avoid or hate facebook.

All Google needs is a beachhead, right? For Facebook it was Harvard and then Ivy League schools. Perhaps for Google their beachhead is the Anti-Facebook people.

Once it grows a bit, people start writing apps that abstract FB and G+. Think: iPhone app with a Newsfeed feature that just seamlessly merges your FB and G+ feed.

The existence of apps like that will make it trivial for people to have a G+ profile in addition to -- even if never instead of -- their Facebook account. And then it's up to Google to grow more and more mindshare.

Maybe it'll always be an also-ran. A Facebook lil brother. But I wouldn't just write it off. We've seen this story before.

Hm...what's wrong with sharing 1024x768 resolution pictures with friends?

any words on how you got that invite? is there some place one can sign up?

Ah, when using a vpn, plus.google.com offers a "give us your email here" field... didn't on my cell a few hours ago

I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about the wall being a place for vanity. But it's still a self-censored place for vanity. I guess the question is whether people will go to Google+ to tell that dirty joke they don't want to say in front of their aunt, if they'll just not say it, or if they'll say it anyways, on Facebook.

>Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches.

well G watches your searches anyway, even tunes the search results to your search history, as its cookie dependend, not log in dependend. see http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=...

You make a really good point about the fear / miss-conception people will have about having search tied to their profile.

I really hope Google realizes that and draws a big fat line between searches and social profiles, and then makes it really apparent to their users.

Making people think they're sharing their everyday searches with their social circle is enough to completely kill this before it even gets started.

I really don't think this will be an issue. Think of how often you browse Facebook just looking at people and reading info. This is not information I would like to have public any more than I'd like people knowing about what I search for.

People won't give this a second thought, and hopefully Google will do a good job in keeping the concepts clearly separated.

Facebook browsing habits don't even come close to the level of personal that google searches do. Even hardcore facebook stalker behaviour pales in comparison to some of the questions people ask google.

Anyways, I don't think it's necessarily something people will be alarmed about, I just think it's something that should be made extremely clear because on the off chance people do start to worry, and how fast FUD can travel. It really could kill what looks like a great platform it that happened.

I don't think the news feed/wall is a place for vanity. It really depends on the user. Your example of the guy trying to look smart+cutting edge makes sense. For me though, I like to keep my Facebook free of tech/coding stuff even though that is a large part of my life. It has no relevance to my Facebook friends so it should not be there. I put that type of stuff on twitter, and on twitter I do not follow people who I am Facebook friends with (and do not allow them to follow me).

In other words my entire online life is compartmentalized. It makes sense for me to do this even though it can be tedious. Circles would make this a lot easier by the looks of things, giving me one place to post everything, simply choosing who sees what content.

Getting people to use Google+ when they already use Facebook and/or Twitter though is Google's biggest challenge.

Personally, I've got about half a dozen interests that I only want to share with people who find it relevant or interesting, like your example about tech/coding stuff. I don't share that either but I would if I could better control who it goes out to. This feature sounds great to me.

That's exactly what I was getting at. And I think most people are in similar situations. But Google+ and Circles will only work right if all your friends use it. Otherwise it'll be just another network to update with specific content.

They've got an answer for that: you can add someone who doesn't have an account to a circle, and they'll get your message in email.

First start by telling them they don't have to switch. There's no reason one can't use both. Facebook would never have gotten past Myspace if users had to switch.

I think the whole thing is more about finding new stuff. New people, new interests. So you don't have to convince your non-techie friends.

Everybody reading you posts is like nobody, or at least nobody new. You have to get it to them somehow and here it won't happen just because you have a cool profile picture.

Your searches? It won't show up in your feed, it will only count in your interest. Deeply hidden, like it is already. Google seems to be good at this.

They are targeted so right on the spot, where the whole social discovery-networking can get better, that I think it could fly without everybody exporting and etc..

Maybe it could get everybody laid, as it won't be starving on your current friends of friends network. :)

on a side note, the mobile app is live in android market. https://market.android.com/details?id=com.google.android.app...

I find I feel a sort of stage fright at the thought of posting something for my 800 facebook 'friends' to read.

Why not group your friends, and restrict your posts by default to people you actually care about? The rest won't be aware they are even being filtered.

That's essentially what Google+ does. Twitter isn't designed for posting to different audiences, and Facebook won't let me show certain posts of my wall to certain people but not others.

Facebook does allow you to do that. It takes a bit of work to filter people out individually or put them in groups, or "circles" if you like. For example, some of my friends are excluded from all my facebook posts as a group by default. I include them only when I want to.

I think Google+'s problem might be that it takes too much work to curate circles. Most people might just settle for Facebook because you don't have to think!

If it makes you feel better, most of them surely have their wall set to only show the friends they interact with, and not all friends.

"Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches."

I think Facebook does the same - or at least attempts to, through the use of cookies (via embedded apps, and the Facebook comment system).

--

I think it's about time Facebook had some serious competition - and I'm hoping that Google+ could provide a good alternative.

In relation to the Myspace, Facebook provided an iterative progression. Since its introduction, social networking has obviously become so much more important. I think it's far more difficult for Facebook to iteratively change the paradigm its developed because its users aren't used to change. User re-education is difficult.

From what I've read, Google+ is going to offer some valuable features missing from Facebook. The circle idea appeals a lot - and I like the sense that the platform seems to be geared as one tool in a suite of social utilities, rather than an all encompassing monolith.

--

"Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests [..]"

I don't agree - some people might want everyone to read their posts, but I think that's a small subset of the general population.

Re. your example; on the flip-side, I think an awful lot of the non-techies will quickly get bored of hearing about about Android API woes. Circles will provide them with a way to choose, and choice is something which is almost universally lauded.

Yeah, google sucks at marketing. It looks like "circles", "hangouts" and "plus" are all kitchy code-words that the engineers thought up.

They have no "Unique Value Proposition".

Their value proposition is - don't let your mum see what your college roommate tags you in.

If Google has enough money to develop self driving cars, there has to be some for the development of remote seduction.

Yeah, but who wants to seduce a car?

I think it would be a good practice to decouple it from google accounts - I think most people see a distinction between gmail and twitter/facebook . Most won't lose crucial information if their facebook account is stolen, in contrast to gmail. I for one don't want the two accounts to be detectably connected. Gmail=serious/work stuff, Social=fun

Also, the one thing i that could hamper its adoption is that google tends to make its products overly complicated ("for the computer-literate, not soccer moms")