Hacker News Reader

Comment by martythemaniak | Hacker News Reader

You add it to a circle. Why should you only have people in your circles?

It's a social network isn't it? I'm only really social with people.

I'm not on Facebook, so if they're importing the concept of being social with abstract things from there then it just went whooosh, straight over my head.

The idea is to follow the updates of an entity, where Google I/O is going to be run by more than one person, all of which could and should provide updates for the single entity. Would you rather follow the updates of otherwise disconnected employees of Google who happen to have updates for Google I/O? Who's to say the updates are even from Google employees and not out-sourced organizer? Should we really request the organizers to use their personal accounts to give updates for the event, while disinterested followers -- friends, family, or otherwise -- are inundated with Google I/O updates?

You can grind your Facebook axe elsewhere, but unless you have a useful solution to add to your problem, can you grind your unrelated axe elsewhere?

You were doing well until that last line. I have no axe to grind one way or another. I'm just not very good at social networks and beyond very basic use I find them confusing to use. The idea of a 'page' talking to me still seems bizarre, but thanks to the posts of yourself and others along with my fumbling around I understand now what to do and why it is that way.

I care what people think. I don't care what inanimate objects or marketing abstractions think.

Seriously? Do you think Google I/O is inanimate or simply a marketing tool? If so, you can ignore the page, this thread, and anything labeled as such. Seeing as you are here, and assuming you have an interest in Google I/O, be assured that the Google I/O page is run by real people and their collective thoughts. Do you really expect to follow otherwise random organizers and for them to use their personal accounts to update us with Google I/O information?

Also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3287147

That sounds like an arbitrary limitation to me. Other social networks allow for organization accounts. Do you apply the same criteria to those networks or just to Google+?

I just don't want to see everything turn into email again. I shouldn't have a message from a friend next to the message saying my bank account is overdrawn next to my Daily Jimmy Wales Photo newsletter.

The systems must be able to split categories between "This is a person with independent beliefs" versus "this is a marketing organization with a focused message trying to manipulate me" versus "information, but not personal."

Though, since corporations are people, none of this may matter anymore.

Google+ has exactly what you are describing. You can view those you follow separately by placing those followed into circles defined by yourself. Place all "person with independent beliefs" in an "Independent Believers" circle, and you can view only updates from your "persons with independent beliefs." The same applies to segregating "manipulators" into their own circle, defined by you and "tagged" by you. Note: you can place those you follow in more than one circle, in the event you have an independent believer that also seeks to manipulate you.

Yes, that's exactly what circles are for.

If you don't care about what inanimate objects or marketing abstractions think, isn't that equivalent to saying you don't want to follow them?

It's different levels. I care about marketing in a check-the-rss-feed-once-a-month way, but not in a omg-what-is-pg-having-for-breakfast way.

So create a marketing circle, and check it once a month?

So, you do care. You just don't want to check it as often. Put it in a circle for things you care about but don't want to check as often.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com