Shared publicly  - 
Social Media First 100 by Relevance - shared on request

I went today to my Social Media circle which has about 627 people in it (great people by the way), sorted them by relevance, selected the first 100 and made a circle out of it.

Add also +Chris Lang, +Michael van der Galien, +James Barraford, +Grace O'Malley & +Daniel Sandstein.
So, here it is:
In this Circle:
Add people
Gerry Grant's profile photoIvan Raszl's profile photoFelicia Walson's profile photoAnthony Trinh's profile photo
Thanks Gabriel! Great crowd in here; I'll be re-sharing!
Great and thanks again, this is a very productive day :-)
Nice Circle! Some good looking people. (ahem).
And Mom said I'd never amount to nothin'!

No, that's not true. My mother is very proud and supportive of me!
Thank you, +Gabriel Vasile ! Truly a honour to be included with such an illustrious circle of people who make Google Plus the highest value, and fastest growing social network in the world.
Thanks for sharing this. It looks like a great group of people to have in my own Circles. Thanks, also, for including me!
Delighted +Gabriel Vasile to be part of this. The great thing looking at the taglines on those in the circle is that many of us - me included - are coming at social media from a variety of angles, job titles and applications. Hopefully this helps reduce the chances of groupthink :)
Much appreciated! Great list.
+Jay Zalowitz If you want to rank in Google+ search for something, it needs to be in your profile About tab. For example, you have "reddit" there prominently. When I search in Google+ People and Pages for that term (not logged in), you are #6 (#5 of People).
I am honored to be included in this circle with such outstanding members. Thanks Gabriel.
I´m surprised to see myself in it, but happy that there is a new trend in circle sharing the last few weeks.
From the so 2011 way of getting ´best of everything´, ´greatest persons on earth´ etc style of 500 people, we now see small hand picked circles pop up based on some common streak.
Exactly what i have been pleading for, so thanks +Gabriel Vasile for setting the tone for new style circle shares!
+Mark Traphagen does the ranking only look at the profile/about tab? It might have a good weight, but doesn't Google also factor in the content you post to determine relevance within Google+?
edit: is "circle relevance" determined differently than "post relevance"?
+Gabriel Vasile Thank you so much. I agree with +Rod Dunne , there are so many different perspectives, sure to create great discussions! +Gregory Esau We have to stop meeting like this. People will talk ! ;')
+Martijn van Beek From the testing we've been doing, it would appear (sadly) that at this point internal Google+ search is heavily dependent upon keywords in the About tab, then factors in things like number of followers and recency and frequency of posting. But one does not appear to have to post about the keyword to rank for it.

Here's a great example. I have "google+" prominently in my profile. post often about it, and I rank as the #10 non-Google employee for that term in a non-logged-in search. But celebrity model David Beckham ranks above me for the term, yet he rarely (if ever) posts about Google+. The only difference I can see between me and him (aside from the fact that he looks way better in a swimsuit) is that he has tons more followers than me.
+Mark Traphagen interesting and thanks for the explanation. Did you also test if there is a difference where in the about tab you put certain information? In other words, does "google" in the Introduction-field rank differently than "google" in the Occupation-field?
+Gabriel Vasile I guess you wanted to address +Martijn van Beek but typing +Ma brought up my name :)
Thats´s also a part of the relevance algorithm: Google tries to guess who you´re are likely to address so a mistake is easily made.
+Martijn van Beek Based on my testing, as well as that by people like +AJ Kohn and +Ian Lurie, there does not appear to be a discernible difference between positions, BUT, the places where keywords are picked up are Intro, Employment, Education or Places.
+Martijn van Beek the relevance algorithm is a personal one based on your interactions. +Brendan Thesingh is very high in my relevance list while we rarely meet in the same topics. However there was one TV program in the Netherlands in which the slow-chat over the season created thousands of posts. All hosted by +Brendan Thesingh so G+ thinks he is highly relevant for me, which of course is not the case ;)
If you make a circle the top one spot will also be for the person you interact most with. In +Gabriel Vasile ´s case it´s clear he mostly talks to himself as he is his own best friend ;)
That is all true +Max Huijgen, but we were discussing something a little different. Not the relevance ranking in your personal circles, but the rankings in the Google+ search.
Sorry for the confusion guys.
+Gabriel Vasile I do share in English, but your point is well taken! I will share more to my non-Dutch circlers ;-)
+Mark Traphagen You can never rely on what you see in Google Universal search and definitely not on Google+ search.

Bottom line, search is so highly customized due to your own interaction that expecting your own searches to show you true rankings is a big mistake.
+Chris Lang I fully understand that. I'm not looking for or talking about any sort of mythical "pure" search rankings. But...the non-personalized searches at least give a benchmark of how well you're performing for keywords. The better you show up there, the more likely you are to rank higher in your friends' searches. Even though you will already have a boost by being in their circles, if there is competition (i.e., a number of people in their circles show up for the search term), then the un-logged-in rankings are probably a good indicator of your "power" to outrank the others.
+Chris Lang +Mark Traphagen to get a ´neutral´ view of G+ and Google´s search I rely on Iron, a chrome fork which is certified free of any prefs. If you are logged out it should be the most objective view you can get of Google if I´m not mistaken.
That's a good one +Max Huijgen. As long as you keep in mind that such "pure" results should only be used as an objective benchmark; they are not what most searchers actually see, as +Chris Lang was pointing out.
True +Mark Traphagen I fully understand the issue. However if you want to do evaluations and tests it makes the most sense. You need some baseline to refer to.
There will never be pure results on a G+ search. Forget about that one.

What I do to get clean results in Google Uni search is use a computer not affiliated with me, by machine, browser ID or IP address.

For that I go to the Internet cafe at my condo, and search from public computer. Non techie friends houses work well and I even have a junk laptop that I use only for searching at public WiFi spots.

+Max Huijgen Good points!
What decides relevance, really?
Check out Iron +Chris Lang It´s a specific build of Chrome intended for privacy purposes. If you compare it with Chrome results under the same circumstances you could be surprised.
Thank you. From a painter in California.
Yep. I'm not arguing with you +Chris Lang about pure results. I fully agree. I'm just talking about useful benchmarking.
Thanks so much, +Gabriel Vasile. Great group and honored to be in it. Sorting by relevance as the slice before a share of a circle is a great, great idea.
Cheers +Gabriel Vasile! Thanks so much for the inclusion and the share. Found so many excellent social media gurus in there and added them all.
Not sure how and why I got included but you won't hear me complaining. I'm not a 100% English poster tho and do not see myself as a Social Media expert or something. Will try and post a bit more in English (luckily all Dutch can understand both the same).
*beam* Flattered, +Gabriel Vasile! I'm honored to hold the ranks with such esteemed individuals! You all inspire me to continue to produce engaging content. Thanks for setting the bar high. :)
+Euro Maestro as always... today is not Your day. ( :
You have to jump higher and talk louder to be more "relevant" ...
If be serious. Good circle. Respect to all people.
Have added some new googlers. Thx, +Gabriel Vasile
This was one powerful circle share! I passed 7000 followers just yesterday afternoon. Now less than 24 hours later I am already more than a quarter of the way to 8000.
Hey +Max Huijgen we go together like fish 'n' chips. I feel there is this natural bond between us that no one can break.
In that case can I be the fish +Brendan Thesingh? I once complained that there was no a lot of fish in ´fish ´n´ chips and a real Brit explained to me it´s was just the batter to keep the chips together ;)
+ Nice! Add me please~ :-) I am a lecturer of Google+ and Facebook in japan!
Would apreciate to be added to your circle. I am smm manager at Forex brokerage agency.
How do I follow your circle?  When I try and follow it my account adds all of the people in the circle and maxes out my daily follow limit.  thanks for the help
Cool! Now let's show all those new followers and interested people how it's done.
What great company!  Thank you!  It's an honor.
+Gabriel Vasile I just realized that I'm in this circle due to the Mashaable article. Thank you and much appreciated!
Nice list! I had 60 of these 100 on my own social media circle, so very relevant!
Check the date guys. Mashable finally discovered G+ but it took them six months to find this specific circle ;)
+J.C. Kendall I would bribe a future curator in case Mashable will do a 2013 revision...
+Chris Lang I'm in the Engaging Brands circle..  I just said I would have to rescind my neg comments re Mashable!! LOL.. So are you and +Margie D Casados  home yet?  I am still shocked.. 
+Elaine Lindsay Back in #Denver  and hit the ground running, got two shows lined up and more to come. Just missed a birth at PubCon but got tons more invites right now. 

Thanks for your concern +Elaine Lindsay and thanks for all your help!
I agree with +Max Huijgen Mashable have been playing the page view game for a long time now.

Every business that takes on those kind of short term tactics has an uncertain future.
I for one am pleased to see that older posts (even though it's circle shares) are still getting some attention. With this real-time- freight-train rolling by day and night, you might feel what you do today is gone tomorrow. This reshare (on Mashable this time) shows it's not.
As far as the Linkbait goes, it is a fine line between writing a catchy headline and a linkbait headline. I think we are all guilty on this to a certain degree. Finally, being bashed doesn't feel good, nice to see some positivity.
+Martijn van Beek I agree that it is good to have older posts see the 'light of day' when the info in them is 'Evergreen'... however, shared circle-type posts are not the kind I consider to be evergreen. Posts like this (i.e. +Mashable shared some from 8+ months ago) in Social Media time are ancient!

I've written how-to posts (how to interact well on G+) that are still valid as they were principal based... these shared circles would have been much more valuable if they included the new people that are active still etc. IMO. Most publishers of these types of things have updated shared circles.
Point taken +Ronnie Bincer , agreed that it would have been more valuable with recent circles, but that's also why I added the "even though it's circle shares", was just trying to make a point in general.  
I am looking for ideas for social media and events. How to get people to share photos and event information while at the event. This would be for a Yoga Festival called Bhakti Fest.
Thanks for including me! :)
Thanks for sharing this +Gabriel Vasile! Great community of people - looking forward to connect with each and one of you.
Add a comment...