Shared publicly  - 
#googleplus #protip #meta #hashtags

Lots of people have requested the ability to target content o their followers based on topic (i.e. only share content to people who are following me AND interested in, say, comics). Since the product doesn't support that kind of targeting, I'm just making something up, like I did with hashtags back in 2007...

So, if you see 3-4 topic hashtags at the beginning of my posts (like subject lines but for topics), they're there so people can choose to ignore my post if they're uninterested.

For general interest posts, I'm probably not going to use them.

P.S. On Twitter, I do prefer putting my hashtags at the end of posts to set context; on Google+, because we're not restricted to 140 characters and can go on and on and you can include context, these topic #hashtags should help people read their stream more efficiently.

/thx +Dare Obasanjo
Ronilson santos (Gaso)'s profile photoNikolaus Hruska's profile photosunil madhav .s's profile photoRainer Telpl's profile photo
I've been doing the same thing for a couple of days now. I've noticed that by far my most common tag is #meta. :-/
Someone could write a quick Greasemonkey (or user script of choice) that looks for posts that don't contain certain hashtags and mutes them automatically for you (at least until next week when Google releases tags and it becomes redundant, which is why I'm not going to write it :-)
Why do we still keep using the "push" paradigm in our speech about Google+ instead of the "pull" paradigm? Shouldn't the user decide which hashtags they are interested in?
+Kevin McCurley: The problem is really in having people adopt hashtags or classify their content. It's just not something people should have to do as publishers (some might, most won't). I do it for the benefit of my readers, but don't expect everyone else to do it.

I hope that the G+ stream does improve over time and that its gets better at reflecting your interests (as well as the people you most care about!), but I think that's still a ways off while there's value that can be achieved in the near term...
They already have Sparks topics out there. Being able to link a post to one or more Sparks would go a long way. You put people in a Circle, people subscribe to Sparks. You post to a Circle and associate to 1 or more Sparks. People will see your post if they're A) in your Circle and 2) subscribe to a relevant Spark. Bingo.
Might be interesting to have the hashtags be "hidden" and let google+ users choose the topics they are interested in via some sort of hash widget. That widget could change based on what tags are trending. I guess a little Twitter-ish. I like Jim's idea though, sparks+.
+Chris Messina
I like that you're using it as a means to help those following you mute posts that don't interest them with a quick skim.
I just wish G+ could provide a better looking option. The hashtag in FB updates (imported from Twitter) always looks so
sloppy to me. Until there is another option, I'll adopt the method. Thanks.
PLEASE no to targeted sharing. That's what circles are for. Just because I'm interested in #Comics doesn't mean I might not be interested in your #Vacation or #Cooking.

Tagging works - now let us create sparks for tags. :)
This plus one click muting would go a long way in reducing the noise complaints. 
Wouldn't the Circles themselves be a way to do this? I already have Space and Technology circles, for instance, but I rarely post to just those because I want my posts to be public. If I specify both Public and Space, that should indicate to G+ that everyone can read the post, but my Space circle will probably want to.
It's a nice idea, but I do think that we need better methods for G+. It's a more flexible data format than Twitter, there's room in the design for keywording or Topic Circles.
Yeah, to be clear, I'm not saying this method is perfect or the right one long term — I'm just going to experiment with it and see if it helps. If not, I can stop doing it and it took absolutely ZERO engineering effort! ;)

+Chris Radcliff: the problem is that you don't know who in the Public sphere is interested in, say, "Space". As long as you know EVERYTHING that the people in your circles are interested in (and maintain those circles accordingly!) you can absolutely use circles for this... but I'm too lazy to put people in circles based on THEIR interests. I'd rather post to a broad audience, and let the audience mute posts (keyboard shortcuts FTW!) that they're not interested in.
These #hashtags would be even better if they were clickable links to all posts tagged with key words.
Sure. Hashtags on Twitter started out without any native support though, and I think taking a similar experimental approach with G+ isn't a bad approach.
+Chris Messina
The issue is the difference between:
a) who do I want to tell
b) who wants to be told

In some cases, it's perfectly fine for folks to indicate their interest in particular topics. I like the suggestion of being able to post Public but also to a certain circle. I tend to look at who comments on a public + circle post and add them to that circle of interest if they've commented.

On the other hand, I can easily see instances where people might be interested in something I'm sharing with a limite circle but that I have absolutely no interest in sharing with them. For example, someone may have lifestyle issues that they're not out to everyone about, and only want to share that within a limited circle. In that case, even though others might be interested, it doesn't matter because the poster wants it kept more private.
This is great tips. Even better if the stream can populate the hashtag shown in the current stream, and let the user select or filter out hashtag to be shown.
Chris, like your suggestion thanks. It's interesting though that you start out with "Lots of people have requested the ability to target content [t]o their followers based on topic". I see the problem differently than that phrasing. It's not about the poster targeting which I agree is unreasonably presumptive (and therefore kind of dumb), it's about the receiver filtering.

I posted on what I see as the noise problem earlier this week:

I like that your hashtags suggestion provides an interim solution. I'd welcome your thoughts on my post.
I can't say that I like this.
A- one thing I love about g+ right now is it's elegance. It's clean and sparse. I'm sure that will change, but hastags are just not good looking.
B- Am I missing something here? Can't you just type in the name of a circle (bikers) which includes the people who care about biking and John Doe, Jane Smith and Morley Safer because you know those three people care about the post also? Is that not what you want to do?
Yeah, consider all the people commenting on this post. I presume that you all have some random or remote interest in hashtags — but prior to this post, how would I have known to add you to my (non-existent) hashtags circle? This is why blogs have categories — but I'm a little reluctant to start thinking about adding blog-like features to G+ when Google already offers a product that serves that need!

Also, hashtags, though quite popular on Twitter and elsewhere IN REAL LIFE (sorry, cross-post reference), are still kind of for lead users in the use case I'm describing. I do agree that they're not exactly pretty, and people said the same thing [1][2] when I introduced hashtags on Twitter, but heck, they work and everyone has a # key on their keyboard somewhere!

I've taken to posting (non-private) stuff to Public and a particular Circle. Then as people comment on a post, I add them to that Circle. If they don't comment or +1 or somehow indicate interest, I will probably not put them in that Circle. At some point, I'll stop posting so much stuff to Public. I may, like I did back on LiveJournal, post a notice occasionally that "if you see this and want to be in my xyz Circle, please comment here."
+Chris Messina I totally get that and see the issue you are raising. I just would like to see us (g+ users) find a more elegant solution than hashtags. They work really well on Twitter because with so little content on each post there, you need something to help reduce the size of the stream from the hose. But I don't think they're quite right here. After all, I read this post not because I care about hashtags. I read it because I care about how people are using g+. Had you filed it under hashtags as a category I would have missed it as much as if you had sent it to a hashtag circle.

So how'd I find it? My ability to skim the first few words of a post tells me if I care or not. If the answer's no, then I can skip on by pretty easily because there is so much more than just 140 characters that I can get context without reading the whole of every post so not having the visual cue of a hashtag is not a problem for me.

That said, I've been missing titles for some of my posts. I agree that we don't want to a lot of "blog" features, but that is one that might help solve this, if it is something that does indeed need solving. Maybe post titles could be optional the same way adding links, photos or videos is so that nothing would seem amiss if a post dosen't have a title, but when one needs one, it can be there?
Why not just write a headline using the known font variants (bold or slant)? That # is ugly. G+ is not as cryptic as Twitter with its pseudonyms and "RT" and "#stuff". G+ has real people with real language.
+Chris Messina I have asked for categories. I could do with hashtages but I want to be able to classify my content so I can publish #chichat or #deepthoughts or #parisianlife to the same circles.
My proposal isn't really a long term, "this is the final answer" solution. It's something I can play with today without having to wait for anyone to build and ship anything. When something better is built, perhaps I can stop using this convention.

I agree with much of the criticism here — it doesn't solve every problem, they're ugly, etc. But consider the mobile app use case — where typing full titles wouldn't necessarily solve the problem (especially if you're not good at titles!) — and, should search come to G+, you wouldn't be able to search on folksonomic categories (i.e. hashtags).

I see what you're saying, salim, about the difference between how people categorize things, but I don't see that as being a problem per se. Popular, geo- or community-fenced hashtags will rise and fall in popularity, and they're useful beacons for helping people join conversations without joining explicit groups.

FWIW, hashtags are also nicely cross-platform, so they can work in other apps, like Instagram [1], and metasearch engines could be built that coalesce content from multiple sources.

Anyway, I think we should all try experimenting and see how it goes. It's still early days, and it's totally valid that what works elsewhere maybe won't work here (or shouldn't be made to work here). I'd rather give it a good effort and learn, through trial and error, WHY it doesn't work than just dismiss it out of hand, y'know?

FWIW, I do like Anna's idea as well — except that whole thing where, by adding someone to a circle, you also end up following all of their public content.

@Valerie I am extroverted and add randomly of big name people and tech writers and now I find myself trying to figure out who is who when in the full stream
Any chance of having these picked up by G+ +Chris Messina? Sounds like if you hashtag something, it'd make a useful pivot for finding other content - maybe with the mouseover it has with people into circles. Mouseover a hashtag and see which circle (or all content you can see) have used it.

The 'shares' on G+ may well have a longer lifespan so is there a plan for searching at all?

With some much being shared, often repeated content, we need tools or a solution to make it manageable. Compacting multiple shares would also be a big help - though the threads of conversation from each share would be a UI challenge to use effectively...
Cross-network übertags to provide context and link discussion, nifty.
What I love about G+ is the flexibility. It enables us to do so many things that we couldn't do if the tool forced us to put them in. Like titles. If it forced me to put in a title, then everything would be a blog post. Sometimes I want to write letters instead. Or just a status update.

I love that I can decide on a case-by-case basis. I love that just because one way works for me, you aren't forced to do it my way. I love that we are not strangled by too many constraints, constraints that would prevent discovery and serendipity.

When it's necessary to provide context, I use a variety of conventions. Not all at the same time. Not all for every post.
-- On Public posts, I include a title in bold. This makes it easy for readers to scan their stream, using the j key shortcut.
-- On Limited posts, a salutation. "Firefly Fans" I let the audience know who I think is appropriate for them to share with or invite to the discussion. If sharing is disabled, I communicate that it is for their eyes only.
-- Hashtags. Like you, I'll put a hashtag in if I think everyone in the circle might not all be equally interested in the topic. Then they know whether it's #Important or just #LOLZ

Not everyone in every circle will be interested in everything you have to say. Should we try to block our content to them by building a complicated filtering system on top of circles. No. Just think before you share. But we should provide tools to help the reader decide if they are going to read your post or just press "j" to jump over it.

We do need a way of finding other Public posts by topic -- whether or not we follow the person. Twitter hashtags are a great solution because they are easy. It's part of the tweet, no a separate step. The concept has seeped into our vernacular. I feel confident that Google will implement some sort of tagging system for discovery.

However, I'm leery about using tagging to filter content. I think Twitter has got this right. Just because I search for content by hashtag doesn't mean it blocks me from seeing all the stuff that doesn't use that hashtag from the people I follow .
Google could map hashtags to human-friendly categories, and use the same +/@ type-ahead mechanism used to enter people's names to add human-friendly tags to a post.

Hrm, and if you type a hashtag that Google doesn't already know about, it could prompt you to optionally fill in the human-friendly version; and if it shows results that don't mean what you mean by #mean, then you could enter another disambiguated version. Google gets smarter about what hashtags really mean (if people are honest - heh) and could offer a high-quality hashtag vocabulary API for #bigbucks.

The metadata for the post would naturally offer up the raw hashtag so cross-network searches for #fluffypanda would still work. Not sure offhand how exposing a hashtag in Activity Streams would work, I guess it could just be another attribute on the Activity object providing a list of hashtags...
I think it s a bit early to bring hashtags to Google+. Maybe they turn out to be a workaround which is not necessary with Google's algorythmic powers in combination with circles.
+Paul: We can always stop using them if that proves to be the case ;o)
Well, sometimes its better not to start at all. It can be confusing. Google+ != Twitter.
I'm not sure how it would be confusing — it enhances searchability; that's a good thing, no? :o)
+Chris Messina , you say "I'm a little reluctant to start thinking about adding blog-like features to G+ when Google already offers a product that serves that need!" ... but it seems to me that more and more people are choosing to make G+ their blog platform of choice, or are using G+ in close-conjunction with their blog (i.e. "Hi G+ people! I've made a long carefully-formatted blogpost about $topic, check out my blog about it if you're interested. [blogpost link] #topic #subtopic #keyword").

Hashtags are great, don't get me wrong, they're been really useful on twitter. But seeing them here surrounded by certain other features which seem much more elegant, especially prepended to posts... I'm struck by this powerful feeling that G+ can and should do better.

It makes sense to me that an elegant tagging functionality absolutely has a place here on G+. I've been appending hashtags to my posts so that I can do an advanced websearch and find my own G+ posts on a particular topic, but I'd really like a tagcloud of all of my G+ posts, and for the tags on individual posts to be clickable-to-present-a-popup with the following choices: (1) posts by this individual using this tag which I have permission to view, (2) posts in my circles using this tag which I have permission to view, and (3) public posts by anyone using this tag.

Yes, Sparks should work together with whatever solution(s) come forth.

But I'm also thinking about Google's bookmarking functionality, and the notion of tagging bookmarks... I'm thinking of the sorts of functionalities and use cases of Delicious, and the (more limited, less portable) Memories functionality in Livejournal and its code forks, and Google Bookmarks. There's got to be some synergy to be found among those concepts. Perhaps somehow integrating a widget that adds posts easily to a collection of tagged, searchable bookmarks at the time of posting or reading... (side note: cutting and pasting long URLs while Multiple Login'd with multiple tabs open and the /u/1 oddity is a pain) ...

Oh, wait. Huh. Another idea: Currently, the G+ +1's Tab shows all the webpages we've +1'd, and I live in hope that it will also soon show the G+ posts we've +1'd, and maybe even the comments we've +1'd, as links. I'd find it immensely handy if there were built into that Tab the ability for me to tag those links any way I want.... select one or more link, add arbitrary tags that are searchable later... and also give me a tagcloud of how I've tagged all of those +1s.

I suppose at this point I should simply as G+ for a pony, too, but hey, it can't hurt to brainstorm, right?
Google should be able to show relevant posts to relevant people without you having to specify. It learns by looking at what circles you sent a post to. It learns by looking at the receivers en which postst he/she +1-ed. Then Google does some magic and should be able to determine if a given post is relevant for a aperson at that given time.

Maybe it will take Google some time to figure out how to do it but trying to get people stop doing something they are used to and see happening when browsing old posts is not something done easily.

There is also currently no searching of only hashtags possible.

We can pretty much assume Google did decide (and probably on good grunds) that using hashtags is counterproductive.

I would recommend asking them with a feature request instead of just starting to use some old technology. (Which is also used and understood only by a small group of people.)

This is only my opinion and i like debate. ( And i don't like hashtags but i guess i made that pretty clear already ;)
aw, c'mon, +Philipp Dunkel #hashtags are #awesome! for some uses at least. let's understand what they're good for, and use them for that, adding systemic support for those uses, and at the same time understand where they suck and come up with something completely different for that.
i would like to see Google+ stream with hashtags at the top and headlines we could expand if interested. 140 characters is a GOOD thing.

it's impossible to make time for everything we're all trying to read if Google+ remains in long form.

Also, all comments on a given post need to be consolidated in some easier-to-access format please.
But G+ does support that kind of targeting. In fact, it's the main thing, is it not? It's called Circles. So, I'd create a Circle called Comics and add people to it. Done. :) No hashtags for anyone to ignore. Um, but maybe I'm missing something...
+owen swain when you share a public post, all those in your circles get it regardless of the circle where they were placed
Chris, so when will we be able to search for hashtags within G+?
What would be powerful, is if Google could obtain access to Twitter's DB. Twitter has an extremely large set of data that has already been hashed. That is a huge dataset to draw associations, even if in only 140 character sets. Attached links could also be spidered and associated. Then it would be feasible that Google could utilize this set to auto-associate and "guess" at topics/interests.

As far as specific interpretations of say #art, it may be possible to implement a feedback loop using software in the spirit of recaptcha, one term we know #art one we don't a person's personal identification of art.

The filters/network could be modified by that specific interpretation and then become further personalized within art. You could also combine the data/recaptcha suggestions from that users art circle.

Great discussion.
@Therofrenz Yup, I get that. So my responsibility is to place specific content into specific Circles which is as easy as adding hashtags to a general post that others have to sort through - no?
You can only make something up once, maybe twice.
+owen swain doing that would make your post non-public.

And that would make you lose potential followers who will never find out what you posted.
I'm glad I waited to comment on this until this morning. (I started to last night from my iPhone, but the mobile page is so frustrating I gave up.) Anyway, I'm glad I waited because I really like some of the ideas that have surfaced. Initially I was just thinking that +Chris Messina 's idea of tagging posts seemed like a perfect way to integrate a user's interests, as they list under Sparks, into curated streams—so as to discover other users who are not already in their circles.
I apologize because I cannot find who said it now, but someone else (maybe I'll have to come back and edit this later to give them credit) I think suggested something that sounded like dynamic circles built around topics. (I think that sounds a little like the same thing, just fussing with the way it shows up in the UI). I'll admit, I like the idea of using Sparks better because it provides separation of sources (people I know or choose to follow versus random other people).
I also want to say I really like +Adele Shakal 's comments on the +1 tab. I think there is so much value in being able to go back and see what I've +1'd on G+. (What good is it if no one sees it right?)
My only other comment is on the aesthetics of hashtags. I think, if Google does something in the UI to capture the hashtags (turn them into tags on the post or highlight them like they do with names) it would help, but don't you think adding a separate field for tags is worse? Or using some other obscure characters just because they're prettier might make things more complicated than it's worth? (I don't want to have to type »something,something,something«.) Everyone already recognizes hashtags, anyway. I'm all for innovation and doing something better, but do we need to create a new way of doing things just because we have a new venue.

Anyway, that's my two bits.
The thing about hashtags, though, is this: They "sucked" in comparison to a hypothetical feature we never had. Same thing with @name addressing. Those conventions formed cowpaths in search that Twitter could later pave over with more explicit features. Even though features like this are adhoc and messy, it's very cool and generative when a system has the mojo to let its users come up with things and experiment.

At the least, I'd like to see keyword search and filtering on G+ - that would at least give us the toolkit to generate something like hashtags in the general community. The more interesting things will probably come with an API.

I also wouldn't mind seeing explicit tag entry along with the circles, but then I just really like tags. They let me explicitly express grouping / channel / search cues that may or may not actually appear in the rest of the content
Hashtags? No - Facets!

+Chris Messina - are you familiar with more fundamental proposal of Facets (Topic Circles) made by +Peter Arrenbrecht ? I would ask you for reading it thoroughly and thinking about it. See Peter's post here

A concept of Facets was then thoroughly discussed under initial post by +John Hardy . +Andrea Riva added there a comment with a very clear definition of what Facets are and how they may work.

Then in a subsequent discussion we agreed that in addition to Facets which would allow a user to advertise his topics (feeds) in advance, we would need short term tags (but not inline hastags like in Twitter, but rather something more like Labels).

Facets would allow to advertise my feeds and allow people to subscribe to Facets (associate them with their circles or overall stream, so that I for example could put your JavaScript Facet in one Circle and your g+ Facet to another.)

Tags would be usable in a short term (like mumbai tag) and a user would assign them as they create a post.
Hashtags are a bit more than IRC channels, when mixed with following/follower relationships and the fact that you can tag a single post with multiple tags. The containment of a discussion room doesn't quite cover all the angles

Also, just consider the #ff tag on Twitter as a "room" and imagine if every hashtag were that noisy:
Could public circles act like hashtags? I create/join a circle of topic interest that is populated automatically by those with the same circles?
Chris - I have been advocating for folks to not bring the bad habit of illegible tags from Twitter to Google+ ;-p

#GooglePlus #ProTip #Meta #HashTags
Obviously people are free to use hashtags on Google+, and that's a good thing. But perhaps it's like trying to speak Portugese in Spain - you can do it, and people may understand it, but something may be lost in translation. My guess is that Shared Circles based on topics are likely to supercede most text-based tagging in G+, and that third party apps and extensions will come along to map older-style hashtags into more accessible formats for G+, so that ad-hoc hashtagging can have a roadmap to broader accessibility.
I hope there's no Hashtag manifesto from this. Thanks.
That's my concern also. Shouting shouldn't carry the day.
Let me see if I can break this down a little:

• I like that hashtags are simple to create and start; there's no overhead. You just add a character to a word and boom — you've created a token with additional meaning.
• What they don't solve is the boundary problem — you can't go "into" a hashtag like you can a Group. Hashtags aren't a shared space with walls; instead they're more like the park — an infinite amount of public spaces that anyone can enter into at any time.

If we ignore the form of the current generation of typographically identified group-tokens (i.e. "#hashtag"), and think more about the kind of spaces we need on G+, and how porous their walls or boundaries should be, perhaps we can move this conversation forward?
I guess that is what I was trying to do in away, not meaning to shout or create any manifesto, but to say, let's create tokens that have easily identifiable meaning.

HashTags basically are code. whenyousmashsmallcaseletters it is harder to read for meaning than WhenYouSmashSmallCaseLetters.

Just suggesting this as easy meaning creation, writing for both the reader and the link. Some in the wiki world call it LinkLanguage - the ability to easily share meaning through writing and linking.
I suggest we leave your suggestion as what it is: a suggestion. But please do not make it a practice.

New discussion:
People who use hashtags on Google+ just do not understand Google+. 
This would work a lot better if there was a native search feature in G+
maybe the # will vanish like the + and a link will be created instead, so it won't look like a vandal's wet dream
+Chris Messina 0) hashtags are the easiest way to signify extra intent with just 1 extra character (as you also point out), which is extremely valuable for search.
1) hashtags are already the de facto tagging standard, not only on Twitter, but also starting to be in email.

2) they are a bit ugly, and since G+ already broke with the @ convention in favor of +mentions, G+ could in theory use the + for hashtags as well. Not sure if it would create too much collision/overhead for the people lookup.

3) Even with the # notation, I like the idea of automatic lookup, that would prevent some of the proliferation of completely singular and thereby largely meaningless hashtags. Those that are used more for sarcasm than taxonomy.

4) I like the idea that commenters could add hashtags to a post in the comments and thus contribute to the taxonomy work, obviously G+ Search would have to account for this by indexing full post pages with comments, but that's probably a good idea because, as my friend +Stefan Svartling would say: Comments are the content.

5) I like how the + mention UI in the comment/post box turns people into in effect buttons that stand out from the monotone of the text, and draw the attention a bit more than plain old links. This should be the standard for the entire post/comment display IMO. The same for hashtags or similar notation would be nice, especially if they all become clickable and went straight to G+ search, and if the search results had items from our people in our Circles first before everything else, and the rest sortable by popularity, etc.
/cc +Paul Simbeck-Hampson
Thanks Alex — just a quick comment on your #2 above: collapsing the person space with the tag space isn't a great idea because it blurs intent. Do I mean to talk to +Lady Gaga, or about #ladygaga? In any case, I think the @ and + symbols should be reserved for people/entities, rather than tags. #personalopinion
Chris, I'm still waffling about hashtags here. While they work well for Twitter, hashtags don't seem to fit with the overall feel of the tool. Realistically, however, Plussians/Pluskins need something to help cull the noise. If the eventual solution works for push and pull content consumption, that's preferable. Whatever the solution, it needs to fit with the overall simplicity and elegance of the existing G+ design.
Whether it be #Hashtags or whatever it be I agree that something is needed. Discovering content and posts without following someone or having someone you do follow re-share something is difficult if not impossible. It's like the lack of a +Mention tab or something like this. You can mention someone all day and it gets lost in the stream 90% of the time and never gets seen.
Meh, without 140 character limit you can just put in links. As far as I know you can't filter G+ posts based on content (i.e. tags, keywords, other meta information).
I think RSS feed integration would be better. If I could add particular feeds, the providers can decide for themselves how they want to generate them. Circles are fine for my friends, but hashtags sounds like only a patch for that, trying to create something for subscriptions when RSS already exists.
Will definitely make things easier to find later, downline, topic wise. A normal google search with whatever hash tags you want should bring them up. Great idea again +Chris Messina #hashtags #sort #search #meta
I noticed today that you've started using hashtags. It was actually able to reasonably easily google "google plus hash tag" and come up with this post, but in-stream search would really be preferable...

I am trying to find some of the early goo+ posts about how to use circles better and the googling sucks. How do I get some circles to float to the top of the list? The collaborative google doc is (shockingly) incomplete and I can't figure out how to edit it.
I was trying to use this tags system to organise thoughts and learned things as well, but apparently, the search in google plus does not work with your own private posts.
My message would take much less than a Mb: "GET TURING NOW."
Are there any web apps which search Google plus #hashtags like web apps which search Twitter #hashtags ?
And now its on as of October 12. Doubt that someone at GHQ saw this post tbh, but I'm glad that they got around to it at some point. #hashtags
At last I understand hashtags, thanks for this post
Add a comment...