Shared publicly  - 
There’s been a lot of excitement about our new “Suggested User” functionality in the last 24 hours... and a bit of speculation as well. But mostly I’ve heard from a lot of people rightfully wondering out loud about how they might get on the list, how the current list was constructed, etc. So I wanted to provide some insight and practical advice.

How can I get on the list?!
Be interesting. It’s your thing, do what you wanna do. Say something that literally engages people, and inspires them to add you to a circle, read your posts and +1, comment, and reshare them. Oh, and Hangout! Folks who are engaging with their community face-to-face-to-face are typically both interested... and interesting.

I’m probably the world’s foremost authority on extreme knitting... but you don’t have an extreme knitting category. What should I do?
Be interesting and stick to your knitting. ;-)

It’s true that right now we don’t have categories for every interest in the world, but we consider this a bug. A Google+ user ought to be able to find and connect to experts, interesting people, and compelling content in virtually any domain he or she cares about.

Isn’t this the “filter bubble?” Doesn’t driving a lot of attention to the same few users defeat the entire point of social media? Isn’t it “elitist?”
Today’s list isn’t yet personalized. At first personalization will be “lite” - users in different regions and languages will get different recommendations. But per above, we intend to allow people to deeply personalize and connect with like-minded people that create great content around almost any topic they care about. Just as Google Search helps connect you to web pages about almost anything, Google+ should help connect you to people who deliver content you’ll find interesting - on any subject. Stay tuned!

There’s actually quite a lot of diversity on the initial list, and I expect that very few of us had discovered all of these folks. I know I’ve discovered some great new folks I’d never heard of!

Won’t the “rich get richer” with any system like this?
Not necessarily. In order to retain a position on the list, a user will need to continue creating compelling content. But we should probably allow for folks to take an occasional vacation without concern about their rank dropping... ;-)

But more importantly - see above. Almost everyone is an expert in something, for some audience who trusts him or her... Allowing users to harvest that contextual expertise is a lofty goal, but one that we take seriously.

Did you use an algorithm exclusively for the initial list?
Google+ is still only weeks old, and we don’t yet have a long history with our users. Interesting users are joining every day. As such, in addition to algorithmic ranking, we’ve seeded the list with some folks we knew were either already creating great content on Google+, and/or were known to be interesting on other systems. Consider them hypotheses we’ll test. Inclusion in today’s list is no guarantee of placement into perpetuity (see above.)

You tweeted and said you wanted to talk to Twitter users with more than 100k followers? Do they get on the list automatically? I have 11 followers on Twitter. Don’t you want to talk to me?
We want to talk to users of all kinds. I’ve had no trouble finding people or talking to users with less than 100k followers on Twitter. There are approximately 6.5B of them on the planet! According to, there are only single digit thousands who have amassed that many followers. We’re curious about their experience and expect we have a lot to learn from them.

No one gets on the list “automatically.” But again, in the early days, we do want to make it easy for users to connect with people they might find compelling. If they prove not to be, justice will be served, and all will be right in the world.

And of course I’d like to hear from you... leave a comment! Start a conversation. Do your thing.

- edit:
Alida has a very nice perspective that states some of the above points... and more:
Gerhard Kaspar's profile photoRaymond McHugh's profile photoJeff Sullivan's profile photoKeith Barrett's profile photo
Tarah Gaa
If only I was able to knit... *sigh
How do you feel about Adafruit's use of Show and Tell Hangouts? Is that the kind of engagement you're referring to when you advocate using Hangouts more?
I haven't formed an opinion one way or another regarding these lists, but I do have to say I admire the open discussion about them.
You know who else had a list of people you should like? Stalin, thats who.
Chan Li
actually you can have the third part to do this job .
Thanks for sharing the background on the feature. More ways to find people with common interests will certainly enhance the experience. Wondering how many users are like me--not using hangouts at all. My laptop isn't equipped w a camera; and though I could see using hangouts for targeted work purposes, I can't envision making significant use of the feature. Perhaps I'm in the minority on this though.
Nick Wood
+Bradley Horowitz Will existing users get an update to their "Suggested Users / Find People"?

When I go to update my Circles, and I want to add more people, using the "Find People by Relevance" gives me really no idea who or why these people are displaying without having to click into each individual profile to view what they're talking about. Being able to see a snapshot of the posts that they've done recently by mousing over, and how many people in my Circles have Circled them would be a handy feature!
+Bradley Horowitz
G + the biggest problem, not interested in circle or interest group, further discussion group, everyone's interest in all don't know, no label from everyone, must be posted to see, because is the real name, also can't like weibo, twitter name in the case of that. The popularity of be affected by this,
some people play g + time, unable to find someone to fewer people involved in,
I just joined not start time more people will take time, trying to make his roots interested in people see posts, but soon, many were ignored information flow.
A want from g + find information not start. Some good post without further discussion on the information flow sank to
g+最大的问题,没有兴趣圈子或兴趣小组,深入讨论的小组,每个人的兴趣大家都不知道,没有标签,必须从每个人的发帖中去看,由于是用人名,也无法像微博,twitter那样由名字看出兴趣。 这个人气会受这个影响,
一个想从g+找信息的人无从下手。 一些好帖子,没经过深入讨论就沉入了信息流中
Instead of having suggested users in a separate section (which I have already forgotten how to get to), can't suggested users be inside Sparks? E.g. I follow "startups" in Sparks, so that page could list entrepreneurs, VCs, etc.

Also, on the page of suggested users, I can't click any of the users! I'd like to be able to hover their name see an "activity score" and how complete their profile is.
Although the list was very helpful for finding some interesting people to follow, it was very frustrating to find people on there without a single Public post and with a profile that is barely filled out-- I feel like if they are on the list, they should be someone who is actively using G+ and by viewing their profile you should be able to get a sense of who they are and if you want to follow them. If they are not someone who posts publicly, unless they go into your profile to see what you are into and add you to a circle, you will never see any of the "interesting" things that put them on the list.
Thank you for the insight +Bradley Horowitz, still not sure if I love or just like the suggested user idea, but I do love how you or someone from the team is always willing to step up and be accountable for the insight. You're probably aware, but that type of service isn't available everywhere.
+Bradley Horowitz your lists are fine ... except they are so US centric !! :/
is G+ US only ? (I know it's not! ) :-)
Google has been suggesting +Mark Zuckerberg to me for months. Does my computer have a virus, or has Google Gone Mad?
Any chance we'll be able to consult this list in another way?
The intro list for noobs will be a fine method to spark their streams until they can find more suitable candidates. Ignore all the whining from the egomaniac bloggers that didn't make the list. They still think the internet is all about them. You do need to remove the dead weight. Those on the list that don't post. Also if someone is not verified they should never make the list.
+Sai . good point and I like your suggestion for how to use an algorithm to focus on content.
+Marcin Ciszewicz yes you stated "unless you jest, here's my '-1' ". Since you have not given me your '-1' because I was kidding, I can only assume you will be keeping that '-1'. Thus the statement "have fun with your negative numbers" is suitable. Have a good day and try to stay positive.
+Bradley Horowitz Is it really true that ONLY people who are just signing up for G+ have direct access to this list? Odd. Or have you simply not yet hardened it enough for universal use, but plan to do so?
I really like how responsive the G+ team is. They are really listening to, and responding to, the concerns and questions of the users. Thanks Bradley!
+Bradley Horowitz Thanks for the info. Much of this is what I was wanting to see. Activity can only improve over time.
+Bradley Horowitz thanks for this information. +Robert Scoble and I were discussing this last night in comments on his thread. +Sai . had a good suggestion, also, for one approach to help surface and focus on good content.
I don't care about such lists. There are recommendes users from the start and I never added one of them. But I really would like to have public circles, where I can share content with mind-matching people to interesting topics. Perhaps using sparks for that??? There are lists by topics outside G+, but it's hard word to add the people one by one.
+Bradley Horowitz

I very much hope that SPARKS just g + user topic
Sparks, everyone didn't use. Because the only feel like Google news, the proposal does not news, to put a high popularity posts there, classification is user choice, then the official again selective examination, or let users audit report classification mistakes.
Quite a lot of Twitter users with high followers are just people who follow anyone back and fill their stream almost entirely with endless reciprocal #FF.

Then there's a surprisingly large group who have been exposed as buying followers from services, Politicians mostly.

Then there's the "Celebrity" who's entire feed is either completely banal or written by their PR company, quite often both.

None of these people are people I want to interact with, hopefully high Twitter followers won't be the only reason for invites.

There are of course lots of gems on twitter. Some of whom it would be really good to get here. Stephen Fry chief among them.
+huang zhen Sparks is a mix of news and blogs seach - not useful at G+. But it would be great to search by topic and find interesting people!
+Bradley Horowitz What about the users who just post a bunch of interesting stuff but not particularly about one thing! I post a lot about tech news and my opinions about them, but I also post photography and other interesting news and political opinions. So, I am not posting more about any thing in particular but something about everything. So, people like me (not particularly me) who post something about everything are not going to make that list. Did I understand you correctly ?
So, now that I'm checking verified profiles, I guess "famous" and people with a "big number" of followers is just another whimsical concept. All I really see is that we are facing a geographical/idiomatic G+ discrimination. I hope this functionality won't just add more to it. We no speak Americano!
+Bradley Horowitz

I very much hope that SPARKS just g + user topic . they are fresh and alive
Sparks, everyone didn't use. Because the only feel like Google news, the proposal does not news, to put a high popularity posts there, classification is user choice, then the official again selective examination, or let users audit report classification mistakes.
I guess this doesn't work on the safari browser o the iPad? I don't see any link for suggested users...
So am I wrong in thinking that Google+ is trying to make this a popularity contest? It's bad enough on FB when I see people collecting 'friends' just so they can have a huge 'friends list'; now I'm supposed to do all I can to be a 'suggested user'? Seems a little childish to me. And I agree with other comments here that some of these folks on your list very rarely even 'share' anything.
We need a Detailed Browser to browse users by regions and preferences. And we need to upgrade the Hangout to a visual broadcasting level. Where We could have the option to Watch only one screen and co host by invite.
Maren W
Sometimes it's good to be a worker bee. " long as they keep producing interesting content.". Wow! Only over-achievers R us need apply. I like the shadows, thank you very much. ;D
"Folks who are engaging with their community face-to-face-to-face are typically both interested... and interesting." This is good advice beyond G+ as well. Especially on your own blog.
I've been in social networks since MSN and AOL Chat rooms came out. I've seen and been part of every social network that has been made as soon as it was made. G+ is almost a fusion of all the social networks in one. #Team Work
I really excited about this feature.
G+ reminds me of Frankenstein. We have to SHOCK him to bring him to Life! LOL! (<O>,^,<O>) !
I hope this will not entice people to be "louder" just to "compete" and we don't find people regurgitating content for the sake of rankings. I'm already reading about the same things over and over here on G+ but maybe we'll get better ways to deal with that.
This doesn't seem to leave much room for eclectic posters like me, who are interested in lots of things and just like knowing things from lots of different areas.

But who, I think, are taking time to put some, as they seem to say nowadays, content, out there instead of animated cat pictures, though personally I prefer to just call it writing.

There isn't a recommendation section for someone who might write important things about the Diamond Industry one moment and about Leonard Cohen and religion the next

Can I suggest an Eclectic recommendation.
Let g + entered more users and back to the old way of users
1 Spark change
only the g+ user's hot topic, or to add another sparks

2 public circles
I really would like to have public circles, where I can share content with mind-matching people to interesting topics.

3 real name changes in policy
To allow nickname, let people who hate the real name will be coming.
Welcome more like the nickname.
Add my ditto to +Cora Triton and +huang zhen Sparks is totally useless to me: generic links to topics of interest, without identifying relevant G+ users to follow is not of value.
Having someone in your "posse" post for you does NOT qualify you for an "Interesting People" tag.
Sparks before the Frankenstein Shock. lol >NO PLANKING< pls!!!
Incredibly grateful to have made the suggested users list. Thank you. I am a huge Google+ evangelist. I just did a Huddle with three friends and I'm 30,000 feet above the earth on a transcontinental flight.
Betty, I'm using Gogo Inflight Internet access. Relax.
If you want to do this right, it would have NOTHING to do with the number of followers, or how well known a person is to the public. You'll create a mechanism where people can make their own recommendation lists and when you circle someone you can use that list.

This crowd-source method will cause recommendations to be customized to the person's specific circles and interests, and will give you a truer sense of who should be recommended in various fields instead of basing it on massive circle counts.
"Say something that literally engages people,"

How do you literally engage someone? Do you have to bring a wedding ring?
"Say something that literally engages people," is not complete thinking. I could easily create a massively engaging conversation by saying something about Hitler or dissing something everyone would hate me for. It's better to based recommendations on what people actually want to recommend, not what generates the most anything. I might want to follow Oprah, but I wouldn't recommend her.
Suggesting users could be useful but as it stands now, it isn't.
1. In addition to categorization, it HAS to be country/region specific. The current list is of little interest to people outside of the U.S.
2. Where and how it appears is important - It seems a lot of people would like to see it in Sparks and I agree...these are after all suggested users based on topic. Further to that, it should always appear and not just to new users.
3. When 'Brand' pages and Google Apps pages arrive - this whole concept will most likely change; How would Brand pages be recommended and how would Google Apps pages work?

Given Google's immense knowledge in Search and Search Trends, perhaps it would be better to use Search Analytics for suggesting users;
At present, there is only a "Find People" search in G+. Perhaps if Google adds a more generic search (or perhaps even a separate search in Sparks), users would then naturally search for 'Topics' and in turn create Trends. The Analytics from these searches could then drive the ranking of these recommended users (again, by Country/Region).
+Youssef Hachhouch +Joel Krugler has the link to the "Picks" (at the bottom)

There are two types of social interaction - one-way (from social giants to everyone else) and two-way (among smaller niche groups). With it's circles concept, Google+ initially appeared to be quite good at facilitating the two-way interaction and for the first few weeks of the field trial, it seemed to work that way. If people manage their circles well and post accordingly, then theoretically their "signal-to-noise ratio" should be higher on Google+ than on other social networks which lack the concept of tagging users or grouping them into folders/circles and would help set Google+ apart from the others. The early adoption by Photographers at least (4000+ in the Photographer's Shared Circle precipitated by Google+'s great ability to share photos and videos is a good example. Unfortunately, if the most circled users simply blast everything they post to +Public then Google+ pretty much degrades into yet another unidirectional type of network. And that seems to be the way it's heading and even is being encouraged with the "Suggested User List". I would have rather have seen a list ranked based on their "signal-to-noise ratio" rather than on highest number of circlers/followers, which other networks have already done.

And curiously, the terminology on the page with those users has shifted from Google+'s "circles" to Twitter's "follow" (in both the URL and the bold heading at the top).
Folks - when I said stick to your knitting, maybe that was too cute. You can and should feel free to talk about whatever interests you... ;-)

People will not be "pigeonholed." Already people can appear in multiple categories. And we recognize that you want tune into someone's posts about extreme knitting but not their posts about politics... working on it.
k, +Bradley Horowitz i'm curious about this, as one of those who has amassed over 100,000 followers. twitter put lots of ppl on their sul who had less followers, but were individuals whom they liked. for example, most, but not all, of what i discuss is political, being that i'm one of the ppl who helped start the national tea party movement. twitter overlooked all the "conservative" voices who were plugged-in, but promoted many "liberals" (no surprise considering twitter's love affair with gavin newsom) with far fewer followers and much lower influence.

so, my question is this: will google follow twitter's lead in ignoring conservative voices who are highly influential and have much reach simply because we have a different viewpoint than many of the ppl who work for google considering is principle business location? i mean, it's no secret that the bay area isn't exactly the most tolerant of views incompatible with theirs. however, there are many more reasonable voices on my side of the fence that should be promoted. if you want to discuss this, i can tell you who they are.

your initial sul political choices are politicians. this is the equivalent of tech ceos. this representation is too flat. you need more political ppl in the mix who are the equivalent of tech ppl like +Robert Scoble, +Chris Pirillo and the like. the political pundits, influencers, and activists need representation in your political mix. if you include these tech equivalents in your sul, you should include their respective political counterparts too.

if "liberty" is something that google takes seriously, then conservatives should have an equal representation in who you promote. otherwise, the existing perception, that west coast social media companies are in the tank for the democrats, will continue to foment, and you'll never gain the trust of the majority of the country in the area of politics. i'd rather google stay focused on positive and inclusive social networking experiences, and not one-sided social engineering like twitter did politically. however, i know how bias and paradigms work related to politics, and the reality is that if a group of bay area ppl, who are in charge of google's sul, don't like what i say, they're not going to include ppl like me.

it's going to be challenge for google to be objective... if objectivity is something google even cares to consider.

oh, and btw, i've also sold a few companies, including my last, withoutabox, an independent film-services company, to in 2008, so i'm not really a one-trick pony either.
My first reaction to this list is that I wondered what some of their plusclout scores were. I only thought that because although Mark Zuckerberg has his followers, he has a 0 plusclout score because he doesn't use Google+. I also agree with the importance of having a vetted, user recommended list, so we know it's not based on popularity or numbers. One of the problems I see for Google+ is that when the average Joe or Jane joins, they find it boring or lonely here and I have to 'walk people through' the steps of learning how to make it their own. I for one wont suggest this list to them until it changes. I would suggest some on this list, but not the list itself. I need to know more about how these folks landed on it, especially if they are not actively using the network. For me, it's not about follower counts or who is popular. I value finding a new person by recommendation from a user, by their original posts, and by the interaction/engagement they have with me. Google+ will grow and my gut tells me it will be from the users actively engaging and promoting it, because we love it, not because we want to gain status on social networks.
where can i sign up for the extreme knitting list???
have never intrested me in knitting ever, but damn whould like too have a few knitting friends now. Cause as you might have noticed its winter soon... am i off topic now?
oh man! oh well i am ready for extreme knitting!
+Brooks Bayne I refer you to the many articles referencing American's for Prosperity affiliated groups, and what an oxymoron that phrase is in context of who they spend money on behalf of, buying Twitter followers by the bucket-load from services that sell them, are you one of those?

If your total ignorance of the use of the caps key, abundant misspelling, no conception of the flow of language and gems among your posts like "why do women poke men on facebook? penis envy?" , quoted in it's entirety, are an example of what to expect from you, I can't really think of any reason to promote you.

Just to be clear on this, I follow and am followed by people on all sides of the political divide. Google are obviously not promoting any political philosophy, just people who they consider to be interesting, and they are definitely under no obligation to promote any viewpoint.

As far as your laughable accusations about Twitter ignoring Conservative viewpoints, the only thing going on with Twitter is that the vast majority of users are ordinary people and the wealthy do not get to make their voice heard above everyone's else by owning the ability to promote that voice, unlike most of the Corporately owned TV and radio in the US. I'm sorry your upset that it's not a place you can just buy a voice, no mater how many empty follower shells you have.
Hello, I was pointed here after seeing the list posted elsewhere.

As a New York City photographer who is currently followed by nearly 11,000 people and who has a really good amount of interaction on every single post (since I post my photography coupled with my writing), I am a bit baffled as to how I could get onto this list (seeing that some of my peers are on it but I seem to have been passed over).

I have also been baffled with the verification system as I have yet to be verified (despite seeing my peers with similar follower counts and content/interaction get verified). Perhaps the issues here are one in the same.

In any case, while it was admittedly heart-breaking (to an extent) to see that I wasn't thought about for the initial lists, I am trying to keep positive since I love Google Plus as a platform. I haven't had so much interaction regarding my writing or my photography on any other site I feature both on prominently. I am happy to hear that the list won't be static but at the same time I wonder how it will evolve.
In regards to what +Sharon Strandskov brought up in an earlier comment in this thread, I also find what she pointed out to be extremely disheartening.

I post my photography and writing daily. I have a filled out profile. I go out of my way to interact with the dozens upon dozens of comments I receive on my posts (and this amounts to quite a bit of comments since I have a large following here). Yet, there are people on this initial list with profiles that are barely filled out and with no public posts whatsoever. It's confusing to me and makes me wonder about the 'criteria'.
I would like suggestions made by content type. Similar content. Suggestions by 'interesting' is subjective.
+Amy McLeod i toured playing music for 10 years, produced music in nashville for many years, sold 3 companies, and helped start the national tea party movement. followers for me plateaued about a year ago, also when the mass conservative influx to social media plateaued (there are ppl who continually garner 3000 followers a day, so i know what you're talking about). i have many different "silos" of discussion. if ppl like what i say, even when i'm being silly or satirical, then so be it. it probably explains why my klout score is 70 and your klout score, and the klout scores of the types of ppl to which you're referring, is much lower.

regarding twitter's sul, you obviously weren't around back then or you would have known that their political suggestions were completely lopsided. they ignored the community even after being called out for the disparity repeatedly. google hasn't really showed us anything with regard to their political recommendations outside politicians.

you obviously don't like my politics. the tone of your response wasn't even what i'd call polite. if everything about me and my online persona bothers you, move on to someone else. after this one response to you, i'll be heeding my own advice.
I also tend to find these lists disheartening. Not because I'm not on them (I'm actually not on any one's suggested service), but because there are people on them with few posts, incomplete profiles, and less engagement than I. It's the degree of my commitment to G+ since the beta started compared to some of them, but they're getting the recommendation. There are people like myself who have been streaming G+ Hangouts, or +Mohamed Mansour who has been creating Chrome extensions, both activities work to improve the G+ user experience. Within the G+ universe they should be significant enough to get recommendations for newbies, but not if you base it solely on numbers or a celebrity role.
+Jon Pincus Amazing that they would even publish such a uniform list for politics lacking even an attempt at diversity. Nothing but North American white males.
Please add a 'HOVER' feature so anywhere you can add people to circles on Google+, you can hover over their profile not just to add them to a circle but also to see a brief summary of their profile to know more about them so you can intelligently decide if you want to add them. Just seeing a name and photo isn't always enough to decide who to add. It's critical to make it really super fast and easy to answer the question "Who is this person and what are they all about?" quickly to make a smart decision on who to add to what circles. Thank you in advance :)
I'm actually rather surprised at the first draft Politics suggestions. The lack of diversity by only suggesting North American white males (even though I am one myself) is amazing.
+Bradley Horowitz You generally welcome almost every celebrity on Google+ but I guess you missed this opportunity in case of +Taylor Swift. But on a brighter note, you can change all that by welcoming her right now!
Another Killer Feature for you. It would be great to see not only who you have in common with someone else, but to see who you have in common that also shares a common interest. For example, if you have x people in your circles and/or following you; and Bob is into photography; he'd be keen to know which of those people are into photography. The ability to identify people others are following or being followed and following not only that are in common but share a common interest would be huge. PS Rich Text commenting would be nice too.
...yet another idea... Tagging by interest. It would be nice if I could 'tag' people I add to circles with keywords to let others know more. Like I might 'tag' David Spade as 'comedian', and Tyra Banks as 'supermodel' and 'entrepreneur'. Tags would not only help future organize people in your own streams but also help others see at a glance a little more about the people in your circles via the tags (and of course you can make the tags visible by circle, but it would need to be a different setting, since tags need to live independently of the people they are assigned to; but you could control some at the circle level too).
...ok... so I'm on a roll, this is the last suggestion for today... not to be cynical sam or anything but.... Idea:
-1 Button.
The plus one button is AWESOME but -1 is also relevant.
Lets get real and not be too Pollyanna.
I think it would be healthy AND I'm sure good for Google to know no only what is voted up, but what is voted down (for page rank and beyond.
Its only logical.
This is the real world... +1 AND -1 should both exist.
Wax On, Wax off Grasshopper (I just find that Grasshopper part humorous but not demeaning so I hope you take it in good humor).
+Bradley Horowitz You said "In order to retain a position on the list, a user will need to continue creating compelling content" and here is the content generated/posted by one of your top picks Paris Hilton since August 26 (last 8 days):
1) "Packing for Vegas... what to wear? (with her picture in a room)"
2) "Just got to Mallorca! Anyone ever been?"
3) "Paris is the most beautiful city! Definitely one of my favorites. What are all of your favorite cities?"
4) "Best wedding I've ever been to, Petra made such a beautiful bride!"

Would you consider this is an example of "compelling content" to get on to the top picks list?
+Vivienne Gucwa One of the criteria used to add users to the list, among others which appear to be unknown at this time, was they'd consider you if you had 100K+ Twitter followers (!/elatable/status/109695085951729664). I did a search and couldn't find you on Twitter other than in one of +Guy Kawasaki's tweets.

+Steve Davis "Tagging", organizing users in folders and putting users into circles are all just variations of the same concept with different UI paradigms. As far as the back end goes, putting someone in a named circle is the same as tagging them with a text tag. In fact, it's theoretically possible to give the user the choice of which paradigm they'd like to see - I've created sites with the folders/subfolders and tagging versions - and in the latter case the tags were semantic tags rather than simple text tags. What you might be looking for, translated into the circles paradigm, is subcircles, which in technical lingo is also known as "facets". So Tyra Banks might be in your "Entrepreneurs" circle and your "Supermodels" circle and the "Supermodels" circle might be a subcircle of a larger "Models" circle.
+Robert Simpson I am on Twitter:

I can tell you for a fact that many of the other photographers listed do not have over 100k twitter followers (seriously) and have less than (even) me on Twitter. (I am sitting on a mere 1200 followers or so and in around 70 something lists there) So, no, their 'criteria' for the photographer category and for all the other categories was not based on that at all.

What they meant (or what I think they mean) by the Twitter comment is they are are looking for Twitter celebs to add to future lists and if you have over 100k followers on Twitter you are automatically put on a future list.
+Robert Simpson - The criteria for being on the list is: "Be interesting. It’s your thing, do what you wanna do. Say something that literally engages people, and inspires them to add you to a circle, read your posts and +1, comment, and reshare them. Oh, and Hangout! Folks who are engaging with their community face-to-face-to-face are typically both interested... and interesting."

As I mentioned to +Robert Scoble in a post about this: "not sure what more I can possibly do based on Bradley Horowitz's post as I have a semi-large following, have lots of interaction in the form of +1s, shares and comments and I go out of my way to interact personally with everyone."
I am sure everyone has their own idea about what’s interesting and what’s not. However, at the very minimum, an interesting person should at least post something public so that other can be inspired. I circled Steve Wozniak, he is on the list, and he never posts anything at all. Is this like a waiting game?

Edited: I was wrong. It is the waiting that is interesting. Everyone is waiting for Mark Zuckerberg to post something public. That will be the breaking news. I shall un-circle Steve and circle Mark.
Waiting for the oracle to speak.
Is it ironic that a company driven by algorithms, hand sorts a suggested users list?
I think its great that the list will be hand picked. I know it happens often now, but its still hard for me to believe algorithms can accurately reflect culture and art.
Perhaps "Artist's" should be separate from "Photographers" since photographers pretty much dominate G+ as it is...
Some of the people on these lists have zero visible contributions. Some have empty profiles. How can the "be interesting" assertion be anything but spin?
+Bob O'Bob - please see section around _hypotheses_… Indeed not everyone on the list has earned their spot yet. Time heals this.
Bradley Id like to work with you guys!!! I have loads to offer... marketing techniques, attracting celebrities and users. Id like to talk about features that MUST be implemented at the current trial phase before its too late!
+Bradley Horowitz I noticed you have a famous tech person on the list who have never made a single public post. I happen to find this particular person very interesting, and I have nothing against them, but I would never add them to my circles if they aren't going to say anything! :)

Why follow the "activities" of the inactive?

I suggest that Google not suggest people who don't post at least somewhat regularly.

If they don't post once in a while, why exactly is Google giving them such a high endorsement? What benefit are they to the average user? I'd much rather add an obscure person who actually posts interesting content!

Leo G
Well at least +Marshall Kirkpatrick is willing to be honest about what this new list will do for him and others on it, as posted at his blog entitled "Google Plus Just Gave Me Thousands of Dollars." "Google’s new social network Plus released a suggested users list today and I’m on it. Here is Alex Howard’s post detailing all the people listed. We will all now get tens of thousands if not millions of new subscribers to our updates on the network. We will have all the more incentive to keep posting to Plus and to say nice things about it. Those of us who make money doing these sorts of things, as I do when people click my links and view the ads on ReadWriteWeb or consider my consulting services through this site, will probably see a windfall of thousands of dollars. At least. For some new media brands, if Google Plus gets as big as Twitter, it could mean millions of dollars..."
Sometimes people does not have anything to do, so they just complain. These are Suggested lists. If you are just p*** off because you are not part of the suggestions, grow up. If you think they are useless, they were probably not created for you. Just don't use them. I find it amusing that the experienced members are complaining rather than the new members (which are the ones that will be using them if they choose to).
The problem with using site activity as a criteria for make the suggested list, is that many "interesting people" will simply hire a publicist to do the posting for them anyway......
I think it's a good idea and will be useful for growing the network, especially initially, but any social media list that doesn't include +Felicia Day is by definition flawed.
+Matthew Inman OMG, YES! +1B on the Campaign To Stop People From Erroneously Using The Word Literally. My head literally exploded when I read your comment. O_o
+David Eggert Yes, I don´t know how Felicia Day is not on the list and Jillian Michaels (nothing against her) whose last post is from July is on that list. I guess they´re handpicking some people.
+Glen Berry I addressed this in the post. Some people on the list are "hypotheses." See the "Justice will be served." notion. The algorithm will correct for hypotheses that don't test well (such as users that don't publicly post.) So in essence, I agree that people that don't post publicly should not continue to be recommended and that mechanism is already in place.
+Bradley Horowitz There is a bug on the side “Suggested User”. It is not possible with a click on a picture or the name of a suggested persons, to jump to their profile. So it is needed for new members to add a contact "blind" to a circle, without knowing somthing from this person.
I think this is the list they talk about:

I seems ok to me but you may consider to back down on this after having all these reactions. Making hand picked lists is the non-Google way of presenting search results and incompatible with the DNA of the Internet. You should just set the algorithm and let the system decide. I think this was the real idea behind the google's success so far.
Google +: the streamlined spam machine. No wonder FB doesn't feel a dent and D* is rapidly growing.
I personally find this competition-driven, free-market style, "work hard to deserve to be on the list" kind of approach a bit problematic. They always do this on FB and other platforms, give incentives to push people to share more, "like" more, invite more friends, play more games, spread more spams etc. There is this competition on the number of likes and twitter followers, none of them having a real meaning (except to marketing people). Maybe the thing about g+ is that it's a place people can interact with any person on the net in a very natural way. I don't thing we have to be (or pretend like being) knitting champions.
I found more interesting people to follow in this comment thread than in the g+ suggestions list
Shouldn't these people be suspended for not having their real names?
+Özgün Genç You raise a point worth mentioning... I expect that ninety-nine+ percent of users don't care about "attracting followers" or being on some list. They can continue to use the product in the private sharing use case, never ever posting anything publicly... and will have a fantastic experience. Given that our entire system is based on Circles, no one can "hurt" your experience. You decide. Somebody starts spamming, or over-sharing... you can stop following them.

+James Barnes Exactly. I expect that this list is not going to be the main means for people to discover great content. It's much more likely you'll connect to people through natural interaction.
G+ android app needs to learn how to follow g+ http links inside of the app instead of starting a browser. Sorry for off-topic comment but I just tried following link you edited in... 
The only problem I see with a "Suggested User" list is when I select the "X" to say "I really don't want to add this person", they can show right back up on the list when I refresh. It's like on YouTube. I liked the State Farm commercials, but I don't want to subscribe to their channel. Yet, every time I go to YouTube, they are the first suggestion in the list - no matter how many times I select the x to close.

If you can find a way to get rid of this harassment, then I'll be more receptive to a Suggested User list.
I would love to see Suggested User lists based on circles, so I can actually find some 'real' people for once.

So if I click on my doctor who/sports/friends circle which is full of people who like doctor whosports or are my friends, it will suggest people from their friends or with their interests and not just tech journos.
I'm sorry but I don't see how with this system "the rich doesn't get richer". I do not want to follow the top rockstar, or the cute actor. I want to follow people I share the same interests with. What is great content? If I'm interested in Social Media, anything related that is well written and informative might be great content. But if I am not interested I don't really care how interesting it might be for someone else. I understand you have divided this list into categories, but maybe the whole system might be improved. Besides...what happen to other languages? Are you suggesting that people are publishing great content only in English? How are we supposed to find great content in other languages?
Hi +Bradley Horowitz My blog among other social media accounts, provide interesting and very engaging content in the Latino social media niche. Check out my blog:

Please consider featuring my profile on the coveted Suggested User's list to add some diversity. If there's need to gather more influential Latinos, please let me know I'll be happy to help point the way.
+Bradley Horowitz This is a wonderful idea! I think it's a great starting point for people looking to engage in the early days of joining Google+. I would like to think I have been a fully engulfed and engaging person on Google+ since almost day one, I have posted many things to keep the community interested as well as contributed much information to people, and done many of hangouts throughout the community. So please consider me for the re-edit of the list for Photographers and Artist group. I am a daily G+ user, I love the community here, it has been a wonderful experience and I look forward to the growth and popularity of Google+ to rise!
Thanks for your time.
+Bradley Horowitz Is there a similar list for Latinos or other languages users? I think that with the unique opportunity that Google+ offers to share content with selected circles, it will be helpful to have a list of suggested users for other languages too. Thank you!
One thing that helps my "streams" is to be sure there are folks from a variety of countries and cultures in my circles. Of my 60,000 Twitter followers, a good percentage are from South America. It helps that I live in Chile, where "Hermano Geoff" is known. Could the list include leaders and thought provokers who live outside North America?
Please Bradley Remove Mr Scoble from the list, his family is worried, He can't focus on anything else since a couple of days. Yesterday all the family including his father and step mother could not ask about the children because of this the list the Scoble-list so you have to pay him something and he will be happy. :)
+Bradley Horowitz I find the list quite useful as I'm a follower rather than a followed and am learning lots from the people I'm following. But I do think it would be good if users could disactivate the suggested function to receive suggested users or not, or even cross users you don't want suggested to you again (eg Mark Zuckerberg - I get him suggested to me loads and the guy has 0 posts!!)
I believe having the list, even with its flaws, is better than not having one, particularly for new, not so savvy users. Even expert users may see a benefit to it. For me, it reminded me of people I wanted to be following but had just not gotten to it.
It's just a suggestion. There's no obligation or cost associated with following people.
I can see it's faults but honestly don't agree with people being so upset and disappointed about this. I felt the same about Twitter's list, even though I wasn't on it.
Check the list out, see if there's someone you like and follow them. If they don't add value or start bothering your, just remove them from your circles, ignore them or even block them. No harm done.
Just don't blindly follow people just because they're there.
I give Google the benefit of the doubt in that this will get much better. We're only seeing the beginning.
Would like those that I "X" to disappear.

Mandatory list rule: Anyone on the list should update once a week about copyright laws and G+ etiquette rules. Make it an opportunity to educate the social media masses.
However.... Please don't suggest
1. Strange men who only interact with hot chicks.
2. Women who post self portraits all day. Especially when they don't pick the dirty towels off the bathroom floor.
3. Anyone giving away free iPads.

Thank you and happy knitting.

As a photographer with millions of quality interactions with others on Flickr and over 6.5 million image views through Google's Panoramio, the most aggravating thing about the Google+ environment has been the rash of self-serving recommended user lists of top users promoting each other. With Google now even more loudly and narrowly promoting those same few early adopters (stacking the deck against 99.9% of Google+ users), it's now even more unlikely that more recent arrivals to Google+ will get a fair chance, and feel incentive for adopting Google+ as a major platform for their social interaction. Recommending users based on followers, feature usage (Hangouts, etc) and other things which can be "gamed" defeats the potential of the platform.

Flickr temporarily had a great algorithm for their Explore function, which features and promotes the work of a diverse base of 500 quality contributors per day. Most importantly, it's a sampling which covers all levels of system usage/popularity, so anyone has a chance at increased visibility and increased involvement in the community. One good test of any such feature on Google+ is whether or not a new, highly-qualify user could join and make the list without having a large Facebook or Twitter following to bring over.

You clearly heard the "filter bubble" and "rich get richer" issues, yet you've apparently overrode the astute members of your team and failed to design an unbiased system which promotes quality content, even going so far as to say that the rich won't get displaced, even temporarily when they go on vacation! Shouldn't that be exactly the chance for someone else to have 15 minutes of fame, or perhaps 500 someone elses who may deserve the top spot more than the very few you're bizarrely promoting (yet again) here? Listen to +Robert Scoble. The Google+ platform has so much potential to level the playing field and facilitate the promotion of quality content to rise to the top, but so far you're not just failing to achieve it, you're actually undermining that potential.
+Jeffrey Sullivan Thanks for the heads up on Flickr interestingness. It's definitely an interesting approach that I like a lot. ;-)

But please read my bio... or watch this video from 5 years ago: SIMS 141 - Bradley Horowitz: Yahoo, Director of Technology Go to about 39:50...

I was the executive that oversaw Flickr at Yahoo, and "Flickr interestingness" was developed under my watch. We launched it about 1.5 years after Flickr had been operating, and had lots of data to drive the algorithms. We're 10 weeks into the launch of Google+. ;-) Per my post, we're simply priming the pump. So I'm familiar with Flickr interestingness, and support the approach.
That's a fascinating byte of tech history, regarding your involvement with Flickr, +Bradley. An "interestingness algorithm" for posts, pictures and, perhaps, people sounds like a very Googley approach.
+Bradley Horowitz A suggestion: please add a Science category. A lot of folks (a LOT) on G+ are big science geeks, and it sometimes gets lumped in with Tech. Most of my G+ posts are science related, for example, as are a lot of the people I actually pay attention to.
There is a big bug in the suggestion list +Bradley Horowitz (
If I set the mousepointer over a Name or a picture then I could not see additional information and could not jumb to the profile of this person. This works everywhere in this way, but not here.
How should a (new) member of G+ decide whether she/he should add this person to their circles or not?
+Bradley Horowitz +Brooks Bayne +Amy McLeod Brooks Bayne (aka Brooks Martin) never owned nor did he found WithoutABox. WithoutABox was founded and has been run by David Straus, Joe Neulight and Charles Neulight. They with Fred Kramer, Director, have run the show at WithoutABox for years including during the period in which Brooks Bayne was an employee. They orchestrated the sale of WithoutABox to IMDB/Amazon in 2008. Brooks Bayne's tenure at WithoutABox was short. WithoutABox was never his and so it was never his to sell. WithoutABox is not associated in any way with Brooks Bayne. His statement above is an exaggeration, if not an outright falsehood.
So how's this strategy working for Google so far +Bradley Horowitz?  After 3.5 years, Google's favoritism remains one of the main complaints about G+ that I hear from my photo workshop customers (I can't politely repeat their actual language).  

It's no longer directly tied to the publicly-viewable list of course, that was obviously changed in mid-2012 to be more of a behind-the-scenes setting, via What's Hot and similar post distribution priorities, when people taken off of the list experienced no effect on post popularity at all. 

Since G+ posts appear in Google Search, that means that any bias introduced by G+ (such as selective prioritization of certain people over others) which cause G+ to deviate from an honest, open, fair system, directly contradicts Larry Page's stated objective of having Google Search be the Internet search choice with integrity:
”Advertising on Google is always clearly identified as a ‘Sponsored Link,’ so it does not compromise the integrity of our search results. We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust our objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.”

" short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.”

Is G+ really deriving great benefit out of selectively promoting the content of certain people, or, as +Robert Scoble pointed out, does it make G+ "elitist"?  And is the benefit to G+ of biasing the network worth the resulting  cost to the integrity of Google Search?

Don't you think that Google putting all of its weight behind severely biasing the tiny photographer market for 3.5 years is quite enough?
+Jeff Sullivan  You're replying to a post almost 4 years old talking about a SUL system that was removed over 2 years ago. The existing system just bases suggestions on your friends and friends lists, and the popularity of their content. It's no longer "promoted". If you want to be seen, do more that engages people.
Hi +Keith Barrett  I've enjoyed participating in some of the shows that you've broadcast and recorded for many of the appointed leaders on G+.  Nice folks; I wish them all the best.  I was in the Top 10 of contact growth among all organic (non-promoted) photographers on G+ through May 2012, so I think that I've proven that I know how to engage others on G+, thank you.

I stated that the problem is 3.5 years old; this is the source, surely exactly the relevant post to reply to.  Unfortunately, there was never any major change to the system which prioritized the posts of many selected friends of Google, as was clear from the continuous results of their posts over 4 years.  (I've sent you a more detailed reply in a private post.)

So with all due respect, having watched this all very carefully for 4 years now, from everything that I see and experience, it appears that you are mistaken.  

If in fact G+ is now run as a fair, free, accurate network, it will be simple for a Google employee to respond and state that it has been completely, unequivocally unbiased in featuring users, awarding contacts, prioritizing posts, and enabling features for X months or Y years (and therefore G+ supports the integrity of Google Search).  

They can also clarify the values for G+, just like Larry Page did for Google Search.  Problem solved.
If you want an unbiased, less corporate driven platform, Ello is a better fit for those requirements. It's also enjoying quite a lot of popularity with photographers currently.

Google+, Hangouts, and SULs are completely different today than when they started in 2011. Some have changed 3 times since then. What you see and what I see are different because G+ recommendations and Google search are tailoring results based on your local context and friend relationships. You also can never see yourself on G+ lists. In order to see what a newbie sees you have to make sure you are not logged into either platform as a user (clear all cookies and browser history) then examine the search results and lists.

Your following is almost twice mine, which I believe is based more on the unique content than anything else. The best thing you can do to help "the little guy" is share their content to your following.
Add a comment...