Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Will facebook ever be the same?

<< < (5/6) > >>

40hz:
Thanks for the Proust nod. Everyone has their literary loves, but Proust is mine simply because I would have loved to lived from 1870-1914 with one big qualification: If I were rich!
-zridling (July 14, 2011, 12:05 AM)
--- End quote ---

@Z- That's a good qualification for living in any era.  ;D

Also +1 on the 1870-1914. I'm a big Sherlock Holmes fan for precisely that reason. Like the character. Love the stories. But I adore the period. Probably why I like Steampunk, Verne, and Wells so much too.
 :Thmbsup:

Jibz:
I can see the profile info including the About page plus all the posts made; I can also click on the people in their Circles - and do the same with their pages...and the people in their Circles...

Is all that info out in public by design or can you elect to restrict who can see it?

I was under the impression that stuff was only available to G+ members and was restricted to those who were in your Circles.
 :huh:
-40hz (July 13, 2011, 06:49 PM)
--- End quote ---

Like rgdot said, the profiles are public, so you can always see people. The posts you can see are any posts that person chose to share as public, that is posts that are shared with anyone. The same goes for the information on the profile, you will see what pieces of information the person has chosen to share with everybody (except for name and gender which are currently required to be public).

For instance, if you go to my profile you will only see a single post there, which is certainly not because I haven't written quite a few, but because that is the only shared as public. In the same way, if you were in my family circle you would see my address on the about page.

Showing who is in your network and who has you in their network is optional, I figured showing who has me in their network could help identify me and find others in the current phase, whereas I chose not to show publicly who are in my circles.

To clarify... I don't know the proper "circle etiquette" (having just got there), so I don't want to just start adding names I recognize blindly and end up looking like some weirdo stalker.
-Stoic Joker (July 13, 2011, 10:22 PM)
--- End quote ---

I think part of the beauty here is that adding someone to your circle can mean different things. If your favorite actor was on G+ you could add him to you 'Following' circle to be able to keep up with any news on his profile, even though it's probably unlikely he would follow you back .. here it works much like following someone on twitter. On the other hand you could add your college buddies to your 'College' circle and they will (hopefully) follow you also, and then it works like being friends on Facebook.

In other words, at the moment I wouldn't be too worried about making a DonationCoder circle and adding whoever you find from DC to that. Other than a sharp increase in posts on your stream nobody will be offended I'm sure :Thmbsup:.

zridling:
Anyone else impressed by the coding of G+ so far? I can't imagine the complexity. Had an old friend who pissed all over the idea and hates Google (no beef with that), but he used it for two days and has since said he's been playing with it for 24 of those 48 hours. Go figure. I think the first impression for a lot of folks is how it will replace blogging. But it will need a robust linking framework to be effective; that is, make a post and it auto-posts to Twitter as Wordpress does. I'm sure someone's already written an extension unless I'm missing the obvious.

JavaJones:
When you add someone to a circle it notifies the person that you've done so, but does *not* tell them what circle you've put them in. This is key. You can put people into your "Annoying people who I don't like but occasionally want to share something with" circle and they'll have no clue, they only know they're in *some* circle. So no worries about starting to add people to whatever circles you want.

What Zuckerberg did with his G+ account is interesting. The headline implies he *removed* his account, but no, in this context "closes" means he closed it to public access. He's opting for privacy, basically, which of course is also possible on FB. Not surprising really, but an interesting move given he's testing the service and has a potential opportunity to be a voice for FB on there.

- Oshyan

Stoic Joker:
What Zuckerberg did with his G+ account is interesting. The headline implies he *removed* his account, but no, in this context "closes" means he closed it to public access. He's opting for privacy, basically, which of course is also possible on FB. Not surprising really, but an interesting move given he's testing the service and has a potential opportunity to be a voice for FB on there.-JavaJones (July 15, 2011, 03:51 PM)
--- End quote ---

Maybe he's testing for leaks... :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page