Shared publicly  - 
 
Try this on:
* Facebook is for relationships
* Google+ is for sharing
* Twitter is for broadcasting
* Blogs are for writing

But it's not as simple as that, of course.
Problem with that taxonomy is that Facebook most certainly wants to be about sharing.
Google+ will have relationship data gleaned from conversations.

How would you categorize/characterize them?
121
94
Timothy Shey's profile photoJason Brown's profile photoAdam Gurri's profile photoCsaba Moldován's profile photo
116 comments
 
Google+ is for organizing and searching your relationships. Eventually, at least.
 
Social Media is always for relationships!
 
Google+ can be for relationships, sharing, broadcasting, and maybe even writing all in one. It is in the process of replacing Twitter and Facebook for me for sure.
 
* Google+ is for sharing
* Twitter is for broadcasting
* Blogs are for writing
This looks better.
 
Google+ is for searching what's interesting.
 
How about Google+ is for everything? Public posts are for broadcasting, Circles can be interest groups for writing, share to relevant groups, etc..
 
Seems a bit soon to lock down where G+ is going. This is just the start. It could very well be about all the above. I certainly expect that it's going to be for sharing and relationships--at least.
 
Google+ is what you make it. Let's not shoehorn it into fixed usage scenario.
 
Considering how easily and casually you can add folks, at the moment. This is very Twitter ish. Plus the rest.
 
Twitter is a headline and quip service (and I don't mean that even slightly badly). Google+ will support more extended conversations (see this thread). Blogs are your own place. Facebook is for people with nothing to say
 
+Joël Annot I'm looking forward to getting my writing group on Google+. We haven't been able to get consistent chats with IRC since everyone has different skill levels. Anyone can hop on G+ easily and join a chat with the writing circle.
 
Facebook - more and more irrelevant, since nobody uses these annoying lists. So say, I don't want my soccer friends to know stuff about my political views, I'm going to post less and less which in consequence degrades Facebook to a "Hey, don't forget Colin's Birthday, it's today" version of a constantly updated Calendar. And chitchat of course. But there are no more big guns, people are just too diverted over there.

The way I use Twitter it is for relationships, sharing & broadcasting
 
It is nice to see such conversations and discussions when Google+ is in closed Beta (Alpha?). We will have to see if people still engage to the same level once it opens up. There is definitely not this level of engagement in the other platforms
 
I've been using twitter as my public feed for sharing ideas, asking questions, publishing links. Facebook I regard as my more private feed. I like the way I can do both with Google+
 
I think Google+ and Twitter are actually closer brethren than we thought. I think Google+ is setting itself up to be the central hub through which a number of different services, both Google's and third parties', make their content accessible. And up until now, that's exactly how I thought of Twitter. (As Jeff said after the bin Laden killing, Twitter has become our digital Times Square - isn't it easy to see Google+ in that position now?) Blogs, therefore, are one of the services - alongside photo and video hosts - that will use Google+/Twitter as a main artery to connect to the world.

Google+ and Twitter are for connection.
Blogs are for content.

I honestly don't know where, or even if, Facebook fits into that model.
 
Facebook is where I see what my family is doing, and twitter I get news and information, and g+ id like to do both 
 
And I'll add that I would have unfollowed Jeff Jarvis by now.. 
 
It's simplistic, but it's clean too (and that's why I like it). And agree with you. Twitter is not just broadcasting, of course, but with the increased numbers on Twitter (and with the basic flow not built in to the tool), Twitter, for some, eventually just becomes broadcasting (and sometimes - often, even - just of their Facebook and blog entries!).
 
+Arquib Ismail, I don't think that Google+ is (to paraphrase Henry Jenkins) the "black box" social network. That would be like saying the iPad is the one computer to replace them all.
 
Any of them can just as well be about conversation. Also the way we curate our thinking for different audiences.
 
@jeff jarvis you forgot youporn ;-) regarding on generated traffic and pageviews it is one of the bigplayers regardless the content
 
I think g+ has the chance to be best for all four.


"Facebook is for relationships," except that it doesn't make it easy to segregate one relationship from another. Important.

"Twitter is for broadcasting," but I don't want to follow every aspect of your life -- only those in which you and I overlap.

"Blogs are for writing," but g+ is orders of magnitude more powerful in terms of reaching an audience. Blog/g+ integration will solve that.
 
While most of these services can be for anything, that's kind of pointless to say. You could use a VCR as a document scanner, but it's not a good fit and few people (if any) ever did. You could release a novel through tweets, but that would be considered clever, not useful.

It's hard to predict how or whether people will use G+, so it's hard to say what reach it will have -- and reach is a big factor in determining its practical use. But it's certainly a more flexible tool than Twitter or Facebook, and I think the Google team are some of the best innovators around.
 
Until G+ is open to all comers it still feels more like a broadcast medium. Different for some, such as +Leo Laporte +Jeff Jarvis et al as so many of the people here are also friends so they are getting the benefit of having a very high proportion of 'real friends' here.

I'm looking forward to getting more of my less tech aware friends on here so that the social aspect will increase for me too.
 
Google+ also has potential to canabalize gmail ;) and thus also doing what email does now.
 
I've started using G+ as a way to manage my research students
 
It's been out for three days--do we need to already box it up and neatly classify it?
 
+Jeff Jarvis, I think you're right about Facebook and Twitter. Google+, however, seems to be aiming to be everything to everyone. With so many circles and differing privacy on every post, it can broadcast, build close-knit relationships, and share.

The question is, will Google+ face a "Jack of all trades, master of none" problem? Less geeky users may find the depth of choices paralyzing, where we find them empowering.
 
So far I see nothing that resembles the life-sharing information of Facebook or real-time news updates of Twitter - it's more of a conversation starter.
 
I'm not sure whether G+ is for relationships or not. LinkedIn is clearly for business relationships. Facebook for social relationships, though with new apps like BranchOut there are people trying to extend it.

My issue with G+ so far isn't what is inside of G+, it's about how easy it is to publish into G+ from outside (where's my Chrome sharing extension) and how easy it is to publish out from G+ from inside (where's my RSS feed I can integrate into my blog).

The Circles concept is great and it can give some strong granularity to the sharing levels, but if I make something "public" on G+ shouldn't I be able to push that back out to other mediums where I might already have an audience or who find my blog/tweetstream/Facebook activity stream better for them?
 
I wrote a blog post earlier today along a similar theme, focusing on the style of each
Facebook is like a family/neighborhood picnic
LinkedIn is like a business reception
Twitter is like a conference or news event
Google+ is like barcamp
http://www.orient-lodge.com/node/4576
 
I think Twitter is more than broadcasting, but I see Jeff's point. I have conversations with Twitter and Facebook, doesn't seem to work as well with G+. Mr. Hines may have a better way to describe 'em to a layman.
 
I've always said that LinkedIn is the business meeting, Facebook is the hallway conversation and Twitter is the cocktail party. Where does Google+ fit into all of this? Maybe Google+ is the new cocktail party...
 
Imagine if they were all seamlessly connected together?
 
+Jeff Jarvis - Don't pigeonhole g+ too quickly (I know, it's sort of your schtick). Quoting you quoting Zuckerberg: "We don't know what it is yet." :-)
 
+Jeff Sonderman I don't think G+ comes across as paralyzing/confusing, especially compared to Google Wave, which I had no clue how to use. Computers themselves are very powerful, deep tools that most people don't understand at all -- but they figure out how to use them for what they want and ignore the rest.

I believe the bigger risk is an over-portrayal/oversimplification of G+ as being "like Facebook." Sure, a few people will check it out just because they hate Facebook, and some will check it out because it's new and could be a Big Deal. But the rest will see it as a lowercase "big deal" -- they have no great reason to switch or try it on. I think it may be a long slog, like getting people to switch from Internet Explorer.
 
+Steve Banfield That functionality already exists in chrome extensions, and will become more widespread after a few more days of use. There was an extension for pushing public posts to facebook and twitter the first day that Google+ was released
 
I would have said Facebook is for stalking. Twitter is for preaching.
 
G+ is several family reunions, weddings, and birthday parties mistakenly booked for the same time at one venue with a lot of rooms.
 
"Facebook is about relationships" sounds more like a marketing slogan than the reality; these days Facebook seems to be "about ignoring other people's game requests", as well as being "about behind-the-scenes encroachments and intrusions", on Facebook's part. "Twitter is for broadcasting", sure, but "Twitter is" also "for mostly ignoring other people's broadcasts."

I'd hate to limit my understanding of what the site is "about" by prematurely coming to some sort of coarse-grained pigeon-holing of what it's "for".
 
The power of the internet is that it is what you make it. This appears to be the potential strength of Google+.
 
+Micheal Brown Thanks for pointing that out. I'm going to have to spend more time trolling the Chrome Web Store, but surprised the Google sharing extension for Chrome hasn't already been updated.
 
I don't think that Google+ (as it looks now) will replace blogs for the same reason that Facebook notes haven't replaced blogs. People won't see them as an appropriate space. Blogs have a different feel, a different look, more personalization. They're cozy.

That said, Google may well allow for themes and customization and more interesting personal spaces on G+ down the road. We'll have to wait and see.
 
All of them are for conversation. And more conversation is never a bad thing...
 
Please, no user designed themes. Themes would be ok if there were a a set number of professionally designed ones to choose from. 
 
It's not about the tool you choose for the task; it's about the integrity of the relationships you create. That being said, I think it is interesting that 90% of the responses here are >140 characters...
 
All may be for conversation but G+ is much better than twitter for this purpose. Since it is all collected here what I say has a much better chance of being seen by the origional poster, and others not following me
 
Facebook is a place for brands.

Google+ is a place for relevance.

Twitter is a place for shouting.

Blogs are a place to pontificate.
 
Jeff, I have made a lot of new friends through Twitter, and zero new friends through Facebook. So to me, Twitter is definitely about relationships (as well as sharing and broadcasting!)

I would say that the first three are about all three of those activities; they simply take different approaches to them.
 
+Jeff Jarvis, Quoting as long as the concept of "remixing culture" is factored into it.

+Arquib Ismail, if they integrate some of the other products, would Google+ be different than Facebook and their app structure? Why or why not?
 
+Adam Gurri, that's been my experience too. Facebook feels way more cliquish and for maintaining existing relationships than building new ones. Twitter and G+ are far more social; both encourage you to jump into conversations. And right now I think Twitter does a better job of it because of hashtags.
 
+Jameson Penn I don't have numbers - like everyone else, I'm eagerly waiting for the first batch - but based on the activity level I've seen in the last 3 days, I don't think Buzz had nearly this volume of uptake, much less with such speed - and this is still technically invitation-only. Google+ is clearly resonating with people in a way that Buzz never did.
 
+Brandon T. Ballenger, I would argue that the individual acts as the hashtag of the conversation. #meta
 
+Paul Prijs, however the + sign doesn't work. Case in point, this post since I typed it in the mobile app.
 
jameson, can't you +1 Comments, I can
 
+Arquib Ismail True that FB apps require permissions on install, but wouldn't 3rd party apps be able to create a "circle" of app users (everyone who installs an app is a circle) so you can limit communication and therefore spam to just that community who care about that app/game/etc?
 
+ jameson Penn - just testing the + username thing. 
 
Guys, why didn't the user name show up in blue? What am I missing?
 
+Shane Tilton, I think that's true, but it has less reach than a hashtag, doesn't it? People aren't like keywords: You can't always guess who's talking about something and you'd have to be following them to be exposed to the conversation.
 
Speaking off the subject a little. Where is the list of comments and posts I have +1'd located? The +1 section of my profile only lists off site actions. 
 
Seems early to try to pigeonhole Google+, but at this point I would argue it's way more about 'group discussions' than 'sharing.' Comments dominate my stream, and then there are the hangouts and huddles. Funny, but the namesake feature - 'plussing' is the thing that makes the least sense to me at this point.
 
Sorry if this gets off topic, but, as I read all these comments is how wonderful it is to have a place (G+) to have such thoughtful discussions! Never happens on FB anymore. Can't happen on twitter (to worried about how many characters I can write). It's just so refreshing!

Maybe it's because the subset of users currently on G+ isnt representative of the world. But all I know is that I have never been so willing to read so many comments about a post. The reason is that the overwhelming majority of comments iread has merit, value and thought put into it. It reminds me of the first few days of wave. Lots of intelligent people with great ideas, willing to share them with anyone... I can't help but wonder if the quality of posts/comments will degrade significantly.
 
+John Romadka Some of us were talking about this last night. I think it's relevant that the people who comment in these threads are the kind of people who follow Jeff Jarvis, Gina Trapani, et al. I have a feeling that Snooki's comments will be somewhat less engaging. ;)
 
+John Romadka +Michael Engard I was thinking this too -- I was happy to see people with a grasp of grammar, much less a conversation where many people had interesting thoughts. Like the difference between an undergraduate class and a graduate one. Happily, I think circles will preserve the possibility of this kind of conversation better than Twitter or Facebook can.
 
Twitter and G+ are for sharing and conversation. G+ is, more than anything else, Twitter done better
 
I get my news from Twitter (literally replaced most of my other news sources)

Facebook is my phonebook; I just use it as a fall back to be able to reach people I really don't communicate with that often but need someday

I am hoping Google+ will be my place for relevant sharing and communication, a place that stimulates conversation with friends, family and people of similar interest.
 
+Brandon T. Ballenger I think that one of the major problems that Google+ may need to address is a filter system. I would like to see the "public feed," as that is one of the methods I use to find out what happening within the network. Otherwise, the method of filtering and "the public feed" within Google+ comes from the celebrities who had reach outside of Google+.

The question regarding the purpose of Google+ is "what type of conversations are being creating within the network?" For the most part, they are one-to-some. However, in the case of a public figure, it is one-to-many with the public figure acting as a channel/mode of communication between the members that follow that individual.

I'm trying to find the balance of thought between a public feed and mass broadcasting.
 
Google+ Stream is everything FaceBook can do plus the ability to compartmentalize the sharing and stream of data...

Google+ "Following" Circle has been my Twitter replacement for people I'm following...

Google+ "Incoming" is similar to the Twitter feed (have you checked there for Wimbledon news?)

Google+ is not a blogging platform, but it does a fine job at replacing FaceBook, Twitter and Skype... all wrapped up into a single, simplistic interface.
 
I would argue:
* Facebook is for managing personal relationships.
* Linkedin is for managing professional relationships.
* Google+ is your digital hub. Public consolidation of your online presence.
* Twitter is for real-time broadcasting.
* Blogs are for sharing idea/opinions.
 
I can agree with that but I think google + is capable of all those things and more. Twitter was just for status messages, facebook was a profile system for college buddies... It's how we here choose to use google + that will determine its future.I'm seeing deep discussions, sharing of not only thoughts but experiences, and genuine journalism. I think your sharing thing fits, but way too limiting at this point.for all we know, it could wind up all about business, or interaction, fun...porn for that matter. Just too soon to tell.
 
+Shane Tilton That's interesting, I'd like to see how that would work. Otherwise the people with reach are news orgs, and -- yes, even moreso -- celebrities.
 
Sharing too often is the same as broadcasting. How about "conversation" instead?
 
A lot of my facebook peeps would never use Twitter. But they happily Fb all day.
 
+Leo Laporte +Csaba Moldován I like conversation/discussing for describing G+ but it's almost too easy! Imagine the noise on these kinds of superstar threads if they open up invites a week from now? Still, at least with almost every Googler facing the same problem, we know they'll find a way to fix it fast. I guess the real question is -- just because you can quickly converse & discuss, does that mean you need to do so, or pay attention to all of it? Is enough enough at some point?
 
Oh yeah, LinkedIn can be replaced with a "Business Contacts" circle...
 
I used to say Twitter is my id and facebook is my Ego. ;)
 
Google Plus is also for workgroups and collaboration.
 
Hi +Jeff Jarvis

* Facebook is for personal relationships
* Google+ is for professional relationships and sharing
* Twitter is for news and broadcasting short 140 character messages
* Blogs are for longer form writing

Kind Regards

Simon
 
+Leo LaPorte, so what type of conversation are you talking about? This platform seems to lean towards many one-on-one conversations, unless, like you who has a strong following outside of Google+ can create community conversations or conversations of engagement.
 
I think it is very unlikely that many will successfully use G+ for broadcasting breaking news. The irregular format with images and verbose text will prevent the rapid eye scanning of information we see on twitter.
 
+Michael Weaver, honestly I'm not concerned with Breaking News since Twitter's "Headline" format is better to serve that purpose (yes, spam and all). However, would Google+ be served by having a search feature to look at all the public posts and use Sparks as a filter system of those posts and the web at large?
 
How about my twitter account as a circle. Would that work?
 
+Jeff Jarvis , I think you're close. Here's my take from inside and at the edge of higher education.

Before G+,
* Facebook is for relationships
* Twitter is for broadcasting
* Blogs are for writing

First, let's agree that we don't know what G+ is. But initial signs strongly suggest that G+ is moving into the 'relationship' and 'broadcasting' spaces, and it is doing so with the new value-add of taking FB's vanilla social graph and allowing its owner to categorize (in a one-to-many way, even) members according to how they are related to the owner. G+ brings contexts to the table. So chances are, G+ could turn out to be a tool for sharing information in context-sensitive ways. It could also be for broadcasting in context. So G+ might be moving into the FB and Tweet spaces.

Currently, people are finding ways to force the round pegs of FB and Twitter to solve the square-hole problems of context-specific communication. (The NYTimes On-Line had a story about this phenomena not long ago; alas, I can't find a link to it.) I have two FB accounts, one for my family and personal friends and the other for professional relationships which include students. I also have two or three FB Groups, one for each of the NSF-supported projects that I've run in the last five years. It's tough to maintain and contribute to so many separate facets of my online presence, so the secondary outlets (e.g., the FB Groups) mostly sit unused. Which is a pity, because their audience is interesting and important to me. Now, with G+ and its baked-in Circles, we may be seeing a solution to this problem.

So, G+ may not change the social networking landscape in a way that shifts our FB/Twitter/Blog paradigm. But G+ may change the way we use these tools. All users with nontrivial social networks and players who provide networking tools should be intrigued by that.
 
Breakfast is for winners! Beer is good food.
 
+Shane Tilton That sounds interesting Shane. I think the exciting development here for me is that G+/+1 data enables google.com to display more personable search results with more avatars.
 
It's not an either/or situation. Here's how I see it.

Facebook & Google+ are for relationships
Twitter & Google+ & Facebook are for conversations
Blogs & Google+ are for writing (currently)
Blogs are for professional writing (it's good to own your content)
LinkedIn & Google+ are for business

I don't think one service has to die for another to succeed. Facebook isn't going to be dropped by everyone because it's extremely good at cultivating close relationships and Zuckerberg is extremely proactive at fighting competition (look how he mimicked Twitter and FriendFeed when they were new); Twitter will still be great for short bulletin broadcasts about everything from Bin Laden being killed to Lady Gaga polling her Little Monsters; LinkedIn will still be a somewhat boring place where people go to see resumes and make business contacts; and blogs will still remain because people want to own their content, though I'm sure a few hobby bloggers will continue to convert to social networks. The power of Google+ is that for those who choose, it has the potential to fill all of these roles (and others) in a fairly satisfactory way.

There is a lot of work to be done, but Google is on to something here. I think we'll find out what as soon as a more diverse set of users join.
 
I will also augment that with the fact that Google+ has marked the first time a social network has truly engaged me with peers of equal interest. On Twitter I follow and no one follows back. There aren't enough characters to have a deep conversation. And on Facebook no one ever friends those they don't know in real life. The freedom to add anyone to a Circle without fear has enabled me (and many others) to add (Circle?) people who look interesting, if only as a trial. I like that open, experimental attitude, and I hope G+ doesn't lose it over time as the initial fun wears off. If it continues, that fact alone will differentiate what Google is doing.
 
facebook is for completely self obsessed blowhards
 
I don't understand point one, Facebook is for relationships. I felt the point of having relationships on facebook is to share/converse with "friends". I am finding that I can now (with Google+) have more relevant conversations with those I am in relationships with. Family v. Coworkers v. Friends
 
Pardon my interruption, but I'm on my mobile app and for the life of me I cannot do the + username thing. After I enter the + no user name is suggested. Anybody else experiencing this on their phone? 
 
+Matt Ross, I'm having the same issue that the user I'm referring to will not link in the mobile app. It could be a glitch in the app.
 
Thanks guys, glad to know it's not user error. Very impressed with plus. I can't recall having this much interaction on a social networking platform before.
 
I am not sure "* Facebook is for relationships" is accurate, I have been using the Google + beta for a while and have had better interactions and relations with people than I have in all the years of Facebook.
 
If Twitter was for broadcasting i wouldn't be there. What makes Twitter valuable is the conversations, not the replacement of an rss-reader.
 
I think it might be too early to define Google+....when it is "open for business" it just might take another turn
 
It's quite possible that G+ can co-opt Facebook's functionality and its place in user's lives and completely "MySpace" them.
 
Not sure I agree that "Facebook is for relationships", given that - for the most part - everyone is categorized simply as a "friend", which is what I think is so awesome about G+. My initial impression is that G+ is about "life" (and no, I don't work for G).
 
Google+ is for sharing with the option of controlling who gets to see which is....a plus
Twitter is for voicing thoughts to as many people
Add a comment...