Shared publicly  - 
Good morning.

Someone over on Facebook asked me "why do you like Google+ better for conversations than Twitter or Facebook?"

Here's why:


See, I can search for all associated items here. I can't over on Facebook.

"That's it?"

Oh, there's more.

For one, photos look better here. For instance, I shot this photo on the deck of the aircraft carrier Nimitz. +Guy Kawasaki got me an invite to that and it was the most incredible experience. My photos are here: about that. Guy's writeup of that day is here: Inspiring people all around.

Why does Twitter suck for conversations? Because you can't easily bundle tweets together. +Craig Kanalley and I were chatting about that over on Facebook. Twitter is just fine for signaling something important is happening elsewhere, but if you really want to have a back-and-forth conversation? No way.

So, what's Facebook good for? Well, today, Facebook has more people, so conversations with your real-life family and friends will probably happen over there unless you get them to visit here, which is possible. I'll try to do that with this post.

One other really interesting thing about conversations? Over here you can do them in video with the Hangout feature. You can't do that on Twitter or Facebook.

Another person asked me why I keep pointing back at Facebook? Well, because I don't believe most people will leave Facebook. Not a single one of my wife's friends have left yet, for instance, so I want to make sure you know to find me over there. And, when you're over there, I like to link to over here.

I do that as sort of a backup. If Google has a catastrophic failure for some reason, you'll know where to find me to continue the conversation. It pisses people off, I know, but tough. I won't have my conversations held hostage by any one company.

I'm watching the conversations pop up on my screen on Google+ this morning and realizing just how special this is. Thank you for making my morning coffee so much more interesting than it otherwise would be.

Google+ is definitely the conversation leader right now. Do you agree or disagree?
DIPU DS DIVAKARAN K's profile photovatson armstone's profile photoSpencer Holguin's profile photoJarosław Brecht's profile photo
Good morning, and I agree that G+ is the leader.
Agree! I know one friend from FB that left, he suspected they were censoring political posts. I may leave fully once they implement their lame "timeline" privacy invasion crap. agree..btw, nice pic...I worked V2 division, those guys in your pic are the same - greenshirts, I used to wear one,...Arresting Gear and Cats...hard hard work.
Well said. I do not think you will find a single person here that would disagree with "Google+ is definitely the conversation leader right now."
Huge agree. You just put into words what I've been thinking for quite some time.
"I'm watching the conversations pop up on my screen on Google+ this morning and realizing just how special this is. Thank you for making my morning coffee so much more interesting than it otherwise would be."
+Robert Scoble Couldn't agree more.

Loving the photos, too, although the link's not quite right, I think you left out a space between the end of the link and the word about?
I agree +Robert Scoble, there is no place else you have the depth of conversation with such a broad spectrum of people. I am thrilled that the civility has remained as it has grown. I was afraid that it would decline into discussion forum level behavior.
Totally agree. Google plus is much better for conversations which is the attribute most often cited by its proponets.

twitter is good for broadcasting.

facebook for maintaing contacts with people that you know or knew. 
+Robert Scoble The problem is that they sell all that info to advertisers... I am not putting my entire life up for the public to see...
I agree, I have much more interaction with people I actually care about on Google+
Google+ - - It is all about search!
I notice my facebook profile link has fallen below my Google+ Name Profile to page two since I joined Google+
My limited experience is that conversations are far more frequent on G+ than on Facebook. I am attributing this mainly to the fact that G+'s recent launch status means that a greater proportion of the userbase is highly engaged. Also, with G+ being new there is not yet an established culture that dictates what is and is not acceptable conduct, so people feel less inhibited. I'd never pop into some random guy's Facebook stream to comment on something he'd posted, but I do that all the time here on G+.

Simply put, the social dynamic here is totally different. I forget who it was who said it (maybe it was you), but it really does seem to be that Facebook is where you go to stay in touch with old friends, while G+ is where you go to find new ones.
Good analysis, thanks! I've had some good convos on FB but they get buried after a while and unless I chase them down, they're forgotten. Will be shifting my focus to G+ now.
So i first met you Robert via FriendFeed and I am new to Google + but it reminds me of what i enjoyed about FriendFeed. However, I still enjoy Facebook and Twitter. 
Cuz G+ has the "plus" for a reason ;)
Agree. Also, with G+ there is much more opportunity for serendipitous connections.
Well, most of my not so tech savvy friends and family use Facebook so the fact that they only check their updates like once every other day doesn't help. Also the process for talking to and meeting random people is a lot easier on G+.
For me, Facebook is for real life relationships, Google+ is for topic centered exchanges, and twitter is not all that useful. 
+ here is the leader of quality conversations yes, I agree to that. I'm trying not to say that some of the comments over at FB are not conversations - so...the sheer quantity of comments there is clearly in the lead. Seeing more noise here too, just in the short space of 3 weeks since I've been on board, I've noticed an almost dramatic shift.
+Robert Scoble Out of curiosity - if there was a (third-party) layer on top of Twitter that allowed for better conversations (i.e., bundled threads, integrated media better, etc.) ... would you use it? Assuming that others used it too, of course. Or, do you only plan to use apps / features that officially come from the Big Three?
Absolutely! For me, G+ offers 2 compelling advantages when it comes to conversation and photos: (1) Opportunity for real long-format/content sharing, and (2) photos look WAY better here. Heck, even the way conversations LOOK looks better over here - bigger, easier to read.

Even the fact that I can put paragraphs in my comments is much nicer than on FB, where AFAIK that is not possible. Over there, it's like every paragraph has to be a separate comment - very irritating.
Interesting points. Nice photo. However I am very new to Google+ I am finding that it is full of for want of a better description, techy, nerdy, geeky types that keep going on about how brilliant Google+ is.

However I am finding that there are very few poeple that interest me enough to follow them. I have family & friends on FB. Celebs that I stalk and news & sports feeds that I follow on Twitter. I'm not sure whether Google is really that good. At least not until more ordinary people adopt it.

IMO It's a little too geeky and niche at the moment.
You should be hired by Google. I´m getting to know Google+ more but I´m sure it wll be the best. I´ve been on gmail since 2005 and I´ve always spread the idea of how user friendly Google is. Well, I´ll try all the resources. Your phot´s great.
G+ is the conversation place with people I don't know in person. But Facebook is where family and friends will always be. But the subscribe feature has changed that alot. I basically have more people subscribing to me than I hace friends. Which adds an odd element to my Facebook posts now.
Thoroughly agree, complete sentences, no acronyms to try to convey a complete idea, at anytime a previous post or conversation receives a reply all parties can continue to share ideas, this list could go on... I only maintain my facebook for the birthday/ contact sync...
I agree. I don't remember the last time I had a conversation on FB that didn't consist of short sentences with little content. On FB it's small talk not real conversations. That is why I spend an average of 10 minutes a day there and 10 hours here.
Great term, conversation leader. FB may have more eyeballs, but G+ has more engagement.
I've had a similar conversation with +Craig Kanalley about Twitter also. This is rich because people don't feel compelled to comment because they know you, rather because they like the content. And the ethos here is different. Was talking with +Mark Traphagen in a different thread about this a little while ago. FB seems stuck on the one-to-one relationships and I think most people will only use subscribe for celebs and other high profile folks (like you). G+ is more like Twitter, but without the conversations being disjointed.
And there is an app on Facebook called 'Social Hangouts' that lets you video chat with multiple people. Works great. Been using it for months.
I'd love all my friends and family to move here, so I can leave FB behind. Don't like the new time line, don't like all the rubbish in the stream there.
Absolutely agree with you. I'm one of the old school folks who even preferred Buzz to Facebook because of the quality of interaction. On Buzz (and here to some extent too) I would post questions meant to spark discussion just for fun. It never even occurred to me to do anything like that on Facebook. 
If it threaded conversations it would completely rule. This +Judge Crater syntax is lame and doesn't work half the time.
Google plus is also much better at allowing you to engage in conversations with topics that interest you irrespective of whether you know the person. Google plus has managed to take the best parts of twitter and facebook and combine them into something that works. 
I agree completely. The fact that most of my facebook friends are not on Google+ does not bother me at all - in fact I find it helps the experience because here I can hold conversations with people who are like-minded rather than simply thrown together because of geography / relations.

I might be slightly anti-social, but I really do not care about whether someone I knew in primary school is currently preparing dinner for his three kids. I do however love seeing new photos, photographic techniques, discussions about technological innovations and, yes, sometimes I even enjoy the odd animated GIF.

Long live google+ Even if the number of users does not increase, as long as the quality remains the same, all the Facebook lovers around can snigger every time I mention it, however I know which will be getting all my free time online.
Completely agree. I've met so many new and interesting people here, and the threads/conversations tend to be generally of a higher quality. When I'm here, everything is better...I laugh louder, think more critically, and am exposed to more meaningful information here on G+.
This isn't an original idea, but, I've found that on Facebook conversations are more chit-chatty and inane (I am guilty of chit-chatty and inane comments on FB as well) and over here, it's CONTENT. The Content on G+ is much higher quallity, very few status messages are 'OMG so <adjective>' and there are less RSS-type feeds from groups and companies. I love it.

FB is the place for the social network I showed up with.. Family, Friends, former classmates, a few business associates. Google + is the place I am building the social network I choose to have.

I like that there's a difference in the two.
I do think both Facebook and Google forget one important thing - most people are not techy at all, some with virtually no real understanding of computers far less social media. So many layers are being loaded on these people find it all very confusing. They may have mastered the old Facebook but the Timeline era one and Google Plus my be too much for them. I like both, but its best they dont rule your life ...
Quality, my friend, depends on the participants., interesting people talk about interesting issues, you finish this for all of us!
I agree and will share this +Robert Scoble post. I'd like to editorialize a little, too. Google has said it is now Google+ , so I don't think it's going anywhere. I like the idea of linking back here, so that will be exactly what I will do too. so thank you Robert and happy conversations to all.
Agree 110%. The conversations and content on G+ are SO much richer and thoughtful and thought provoking. It's actually had a positive impact on my outlook on life. 
Or bought by it. Tweetdeck for example, was a third party solution.
Perhaps you are right, but you are also a power user which means you're doing a lot more with G+ then the average users. Twitter is perfect for quick shout outs, but it is also amazing for finding and following folks. FB is great for friends and I am using it less and less. I hope to find that G+ is great for a serious method of publishing content and creating conversations and not just a FB 2 product
Twitter is the snippets of conversation on a crowded subway, Facebook is the sort of short callouts/responses that you'd get around a family table where everyone has heard the same statements made by the same people 100 times before so you only really need so speak in half sentences because there is not much new ground being forged.

Google Plus is more like a real dinner party with lots of interesting folks that you may know partially or superficially with real topics of conversation being explored (with a bias towards certain topics like tech and photography).

They all play a role in life - but G+ and in some cases twitter tend to be more stimulating. Facebook is often the same people saying the same things sad to say.

Twitter is interesting but the notion of conversation over there is a bit of a stretch. More like a lot of people broadcasting their own facts or opinions which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it isn't really a conversation in most cases.
seems to me like there are a few factors involved, mostly these:

1) breadth of messages
2) likeliness of a response
3) overall tone of the place..

1: twitter is shortest, obviously.. quick n simple comm is all that u can do like this, so it is least useful, followed by facebook where 2/3 the messages are game-related requests (boring), here on g+ it is more intellectually stimulating & overall more thorough and professional

2: twitter: least likely to get replied to, fb & g+ tie in this, imho

3: fb is for games, or silly jokes, g+ for facts, and news, and twitter is just useless really, sharing links with super-short descriptions is about all you can do.
+michael d. Moffitt you are talking about a game changing apologize, but then what is left of twitter? Only an underlining platform. 
is there a one-minute post update lag on G+ nowadays? I don't see the Scoble effect anymore
I'll definitely agree that its easier to carry on conversations here than it is on the other networks. On Twitter hashtags and reply to's only work so well until someone inevitably breaks the chain and doesn't reply "properly". The only "problem" I've seen is that sometimes conversations/replying in threads gets too noisy which causes me to mute conversation, which kind of sucks. Growing pains I guess. As for Facebook, really not a fan and haven't been since my college days (graduated 2004). Since then its lost its luster for me and new layout really sucks IMO. Not very intuitive and getting crowded.
"I won't have my conversations held hostage by any one company." I learned that lesson well from the days of Pownce & have never forgotten it. I've went so far as to apply it to areas other than conversation, like music sites & apps specifically. I'll not comment as to which I like the best. I diversify in all of them and just added Diaspora to my diversification yesterday.
Don't worry Robert. If anyone of us decides to leave Google+, Google gives us the ability to pack up and take all our things with us (data liberation). Google+ supports an open web. The open web is where the conversation is at.
On Facebook most comments and discussions are related to "lifestyle" - trips, kids, concerts, etc. On G+ the discussions are about topics people are interested in. Twitter and G+ are the same, but you can't say much with only 140 characters.
Anyone with kids can easily get their families to use Google+ more. Only post pictures and videos of your kids on here and post links over at FB.
I don't converse much, but I get many times the conversation here as opposed to Twitter (I have deleted my Facebook account, I got nothing out of that other than pointless announcements).

I am also, like this, more likely to engage in conversation here. I assume my @ on twitter will get lost in the noise. Here, things happen. Conversations happen in the comments (would nested comments be a good idea?). The design is just so much more conducive to the conversation.
Most definitely agree...G+ is kinda like Twitter...on steroids...!!!
Well said. I'm enjoy the conversation on G+ FB is getting to be more like My___ each day. I've got a ton of "Friends" that were find a few weeks ago, but now I get a bunch of cutsie junk I don't want. I've been cutting people like I was a butcher cutting beef
Most people on Facebook don't even post anything to theirs or anyone's walls. Like my girlfriend, she only uses Facebook to look at friend's pictures, status and things like that (sort of as a read only service) Facebook has a larger audience demographic, while over at G+ I'd dare to say over 80% are tech-geeks of some sort. I'd bet most of your followers fall into the latter as well. Geeks tend to be more engaged in conversations while others are more reserved on what they write on the internet. Google+ as a service it's pretty amazing, and I prefer it over Facebook, but we overlook that for people to switch over to G+ something else most happen. Something must be offered for friends of friends to create accounts here and start posting, so that others follow. Let's not forget that a big majority of people joining Google + have no idea how to even start using the service. Facebook started slowly introducing features, while G+ came out with pretty much everything available.

So in a nutshell, I agree with your "Google+ is definitely the conversation leader right now." in the sense that Google+ has more potential for more engaging conversations that Facebook does. But I do not think we can call it a leader yet, when Facebook has a heck of a lot more users sharing every day.
It's sort of interesting / unfortunate that most of the problems people are voicing with respect to G+ vs. FB vs. Twitter (e.g., +Charles Payet +Gary Payne +Steve B) relate to formatting. If this were a true model-view-controller model, you could "view" your stream however you wanted, independent of the source network. Is it that people are unable, or unwilling, to separate the delivery protocol from the content display? Or is the issue deeper than that?
Totally agree. I changed my profile pic on fb to an image that says "Moved to Google+" Check my public photos if you want to grab it for your fb. Most people here on G+ probably left their fb accounts even if they use them less or not at all. It would be nice to have them send a clear message about their network of choice, encouraging others to join G+
G+ is better for conversations, but so far it's mainly populated by bloggers like you and it's good for anyone who actually wants to express his/her views by means of typing text. In Facebook I've seen a lot of people that don't want to express their views in direct words but just by sharing a link, liking it or recommending it. Basically, Facebook is less demanding in terms of cultural level and effort required, and I don't see G+ getting there until there will be a more articulated way of sharing links than the mere "+1" appearing more and more often across the web. So far I mainly see G+ as what FriendFeed always wanted to be, but there's still a long way before it can be as popular as FB.
+Giovanni Sarbia I agree entirely, there are an awful lot of people on here who use it as an extension of their blogs. Some are much better than others. But an awful lot are just bloggers.
Engagement. It's that simple for me. Take a look at my stream here and take a look at it over at Facebook (link in profile). I easily get 50 or 60 +1's or comments per post on G+. Facebook is the ghost town.
I agree. As you said, most everyone will remain on facebook and weather the constant changes. However, the only lengthy conversations I have had on facebook have been one-sided and full of vitriol.

Facebook = Talk-radio? What would that make Google+?
+Mike Taylor , +Giovanni Sarbia I don't think this is inherent in Google's design, though, and I don't think G+ has to be used in this way. I follow dozens of people who pretty much just share links. G+ isn't "more demanding" to these people, they take an open system and do what they want with it.
Google+ is more the relevant conversation leader. People here follow one-another because they care about the content the other users provide. It is not a 'let's be friends' system, but instead it is derived from the idea of holding a conversation.
Totally agreed! For discussions like this Google+ is perfect, but for a bit more fast conversations Twitter is still the best.
In 9 minutes as I type this post generated 100 comments. Wondering if G+ will disallow posting of monosyllables, requiring, let's say a minimum of 5 nonrepetitive words to create a post. This may reduce the noise level?
The text limit on FB is a pain at times, as it is on Twitter. They aren't technical limitations so they must be "choices of design." That being the case, why? Most people are busy. Most people can't post on FB or Twitter all day long and if they can it has to be short. Both Twitter and Facebook understand this reality. Goor decided it either didn't care or it was a way to be different.

Most people don't read the NY Times or the Washington Post either; they read their local paper or USA Today. Those articles arw typically much more concise. People don't have time to read several thousand words.

FB forces posts to be short on purpose. That gets more engagement not less engagement. Obviously it works.

G+ went the forum free form path. I'm not surprised. Nothing wrong with it, but long posts such as this one scare the average person.

Hopefully my family and friends will spend time on G+, but I'm not holding my breath. G+ isn't an every man social network yet.

Oh, and since it is free I assume Google will sell all my information and posting habits to advertisers eventually. They are for profit, not for geeks. They don't care about us any more or less than FB or Twitter. 
I do believe that twitter as a social mechanism its overrated. Its a publishing platform.
G+ is better for conversations and meeting new people (especially since the introduction of circle sharing). I can see G+ being the best of breed of both Facebook and Linkedin.
I don't think it's useful to think in terms of how many people will leave facebook for G+. It has been pointed out many times before that google+ is different and shouldn't be a FB copycat. I'm sure most people in here have both accounts, just like you +Robert Scoble--and twitter, quora, etc. The number of users on G+, however, continues to grow and the adoption by the main stream like your wife will be slow but eventually it'll be unavoidable. The question should be: how valuable will the platforms be to me? The end user. I'd say that Google's obsessiveness with the end user experience will give it advantage over the long run!
+Delwin Campbell I agree it isn't inherent in the design of G+ however it does appear to me that at present a significant %age of people involved at present are bloggers, Tech gurus or media publishing types. It's early days so we just need a variety of people to get into it.
I'm liking everything about G+ so far....
I'll be migrating to here full time in the future, it's way more intuitive and fluid.
I enjoy conversations on G+ more because it's aesthetically pleasing to view and I have significantly more control over my stream. I also prefer the way G+ notifies me of updates to the conversation.

The only real downside for me, which you touched on, is the sheer number of people on FB. The people I have on FB are mostly IRL people to which I have historical ties. There is only a small percentage of those that I interact with in a manner that I could transpose to G+. Most of them I would "uncircle" because their content means little to me. Their "friend" status on FB tends to be tied to our interpersonal connections (family, work, school) rather than value of relationship (respect, admiration, connection).
I agree that Google+ is better at conversations centered around a topic (which may include people you don't know but have an interest in that topic), and Facebook is better for conversation based on friends and acquaintances.
I like being able to find, follow, <b>and comment</b> on posts by people who wouldn't give me the time of day on FB.

+David Brin, is a great example. He writes great SF and presents interesting, topical observations backed by a high degree of knowledge. A slew of journalists and scientists populate this space too, and they point out things that I find fascinating. The shear number of technologically savvy people that anyone can follow bring the G+ conversational level to a point that FB simply cannot match.

I retain a FB presence because many of the people I know - mostly non-technical types - are comfortable there and it's a way to keep up with their lives.

But after I've found out about FB friends' family members, or the cute things that their dogs did, or where they went for the weekend, or read some political snark, I come here for some thought-provoking conversation.
+Amit Morson I'm not convinced that Twitter intends to be anything OTHER than an unadorned messaging platform. What UI features have they introduced in the past few years? They seem to be interested only in serving unfiltered streams, and apparently opened up their API with the hope that others will "fill in the gaps."

The result, I fear, is that they're destroying their brand. As +Robert Scoble testified, nobody is willing to use an alternate portal - users want their content to be signed and delivered by Twitter proper. What's tragic about all of this is that the effort to add the kind of functionality that people are talking about is absolutely minimal. Maybe they're waiting for the best tools to surface, and then will buy them all up when the time is right.
Yep, I agree the convo's here are better. I think people feel less inhibited here because they have the necessary controls to not only filter conversations to see what THEY want to see, but also create posts that are private and not defaulted to public like FB is.

Yes, I know, FB has the same controls, but - 1) they are difficult to use and 2) they were hidden for so long that people didn't know they existed, and nobody is going to take the time to go and manage that now. This means the habit on FB is public, so people self censor, or just click the "like" which stifle the conversation.

On an unrelated note, I'd love to hear your take on FB's patent application on tracking people on other websites?
google+ is more unexpected - I can not connect easily with twitter - it is sort of like flirting in a foreign country, whereas FB is almost like flirting at home - this environment has the right balance of interest and familiarity without dictating the experience and the followups to your posts connect you to minds that you do not already know as well as ones that you without crossover unless you want it.
+Delwin Campbell Here you can share links by pasting their URLs in a field, with FB you have lots of "likes" and now also "recommend" available across the web. Moreover, in FB there's an entire "ecosystem" of pages dedicated to quotes and common beliefs, so a lot of people just share other FB pages to make statements. But, indeed, we'll have to see what G+ will become when more types of people will join it. So far most people here are of a "talkative" kind and probably the current feature set of G+ is both the cause and the effect of such user population.
+B Holroyd - "read some political snark". :) That's one of the things I have really enjoyed so far about being here. Significantly less snark.
Well, the thing I love about Google+ is that circles let me group like-minded people together so I can follow and interact with them, which I do consider being more akin to Twitter than Facebook, only you can actually have sane conversations — both because you can actually express yourself, and because G+'s features make it easier to follow the conversation thread, whereas on Twitter everything is disjoint.

For me, this ability to have interesting discussions with people that share the same interest as me, regardless of knowing them or not, is what makes G+ so appealing. I do turn over to Facebook to connect with old friends though, but even following new replies to a topic are difficult over there.

+Charles Payet You can, actually, insert line breaks in a Facebook comment by holding down shift and pressing return. Obviously, it's not anything near intuitive or comfortable to use as the G+ comment box, though (and I'd be amazed if half of the facebook users knew about this) — I still get myself pressing this even here on G+, which I do consider a terrible habit of mine.
I have to agree with +Robert Scoble because I feel almost exactly the same way. That doesn't mean I'll be leaving Facebook or Twitter anytime soon. But conversations are much easier here. It's like THIS Is the way conversations on social networks SHOULD've been. And for a network that just got out of field trial and still in Beta, G+ is doing pretty good ;)
+Robert Scoble You missed most important point about Facebook. If your profile got disabled in Facebook (for foolish reason) you must be a Celebrity to get the valid support from Facebook people.

Otherwise everything is lost. Do you really need that network to have community engagement?
When there's a chorus of 130 comments within a space of one half hour, who's reading all of them? Some of them? Only the last 4 displayed??
I definitely agree with the "hostage" bit. But I'm still a Tweep, first and foremost.
Okay, I like Google+ better, too, for many reasons. And, searching is one of them. Now...

Picture caption:
"So, that stalk there has your windshield wiper and cruise control. You turn the radio on year, and there are volume and station selectors on your control column. The red button? Don't ever press that, or pull on the yellow lever! Oh, and don't forget to use your turn signals!"
I'm unresolved. As more personal contacts are on FB, the question is really what kind of conversation are you seeking. Whiteboard, spitboarding... public forum...G+.

Facebook, snarky banter like a dinner party... yeah.

Twitter. Town crier, Placard wearing reactionaries.
One thing I don't like about Google+ is that if I fumble-finger a comment, I can't go back and correct it like Facebook.
Funny thing is you ask the question on Facebook which platform is better and most will say FB. Ask it on Twitter and they'll say FB.. These comments and reactions are to be expected seeing as the conversation is on G+.. G+ is great but IMHO FB is more social, especially with the apps and etc. G+ is now my resource to find out tech related news. I love them both, but they are completely different to me. People should stop comparing them..
+Robert Scoble I think you accidentally set off a small charge of "FB hate" this morning.

The more posts i read on G+ the more I see just hate towards FB. Someone, like you or +Carter Gibson, gives constructive criticisim of FB and I quickly see hate of FB flow forth.

Here's what is unfortunate about that, it will turn off those that like FB but are checking out G+.

50 million users, so what!?! FB is on it's way to 1 billion! Which is better? I don't know but neither is evil and one is only weeks old.
I haven't found that G+ has been a social network for me like Facebook is. I'm using it more as a content aggregator and in that way it is incredibly effective. I'm finding it a bit more like the conversations I used to enjoy on Friend Feed a few years ago but far more advanced. I can sort my interests. I can keep my private nonsense private. But as of yet I have not found it to be social in the "friends and family" sense other than the early adopter friends who came and went quickly.
This is the major issue in my mind, and you hit the nail on the head. Google Plus is the superior product even in it's infancy, but the barriers of entry for family and friends is HUGE. There is no easy conversion, and most will just stop using Facebook as they muck it up with new features. I've tried hard to get others to use Google Plus, but so far I have failed. This place seems like a gathering place for those who like the new, latest tech and not afraid of change. What could make things interesting is if Google makes an easy importer of Facebook data. It should allows users to customize it before data imported is finalized, so users could create circles from their list. Most importantly, allow users to delete any content they wish Google not to have.... I am sure it's on the roadmap...and that's when things will get interesting...
But if you type the same post on Facebook and on G+, the conversations will feature different people and therefore they will be 2 different conversations on the same topic, but different. It's not like you will "continue" one conversation from one service to the other because you will be making different points and arguments with different people. That is twice the work and probably twice the amount of similar arguments and twice the amount of noise. I don't think it's worth the effort of keeping up with 2 different forms of the same topic like a chameleon putting one eye on each corner of the room. It feels like a waste of time.
leo kun
+Mimi Drake , i read them, at least most of them. good point. i can summarize, most if not all agree with +Robert Scoble , including me. and second, the pros and cons all have to do with the geekiness: good for conversation, difficult time for the non-techies.
Do conversations really happen though. Or is it simply a collection of people commenting on a post made by someone who is in 150k+ circles. The average new user will not have many conversations happening on their streams.

Also I find it quite difficult to find people to follow. The suggestions pages are very US biased. Need similar but for other areas like the UK.
Agree.Joined facebook now after joining google+!!!.But didn't like it much.
As for people leaving Facebook, I deleted my account yesterday and I feel great. I spent way to much time in a place designed to keep you online as much as possible, and I had a lot of friends with whom I didn't interact that much with anyway. I think G+ has some benefits over FB but I see a "craze" of oversharing and piling up "Followers" and sharing circles here which results in people having a number of people in their circles larger than they will ever interact with, and they will soon come to realize that they've gone way more open and social than they ever wanted to. I am sticking to friends and family here. I don't want Followers, because I left facebook ov er the whole "Subscribe" feature and the privacy issues. The fact G+ removed all private profiles in July was a major letdown for me. I'm giving G+ a 2 month probation period to see how it evolves in the meantime and if I get too spammed by strangers, I'm cutting loose from here too. I have other ways to stay in touch with my friends, as do most of the people who claim they have too many friends on Facebook. A lot of those also have e-mail, Youtube accounts, Twitter, tumblrs and the sort and they can still use those to stay in touch with the vast majority of their friends. But they disregard this because they don't know how to be social. Facebook has made them lazy about being social and they have grown too accustomed to FB.
+catherine helzerman Tweets can be locked to a select list of people who follow you, G+ cannot enforce the real names policy, and i know a lot of people here are using aliases, just like Facebook, and here more than on Facebook people are using circles to target different interest groups according to their circles like "Photography" "Science", "Homebrewing"...
+Carter Gibson I agree, I just think it's starting to get out of control. It's becoming like the Android vs iOS debate; or the old Windows vs Mac OS debate of old. If it keeps up most will just stop listening and G+ will suffer because of it. Maybe in the end, that's what many users today want. They want to keep the "riff raft" out of G+.
+Ryan Wenneker Me? Troll? ;)

Seriously, no, not a troll. Just trying to make a point that there /are/ some things that FB does better. And, that's to be expected. Google+ is new. FB has been at it a while, and at one point, had a very nice platform for conversation and fun. It was working, and working reasonably well. It wasn't broken. So, they decided to fix it. We all know how that goes... :)
Here's my 2 cents: I like being able to see what people are saying in response to one another, just like this, in real time. I don't know any of you that I'm talking to, but that doesn't stop us from bouncing ideas off each other.
I think precisely because Facebook, for the most part, is collection of "friends" is the reason why it does not facilitate objective discussion about "issues" as we seem to be witnessing here on Google+ and directly addressing in this comment thread. Unwittingly but perhaps with a little hope, I occasionally will post a "spark" in earnest with material that I do not consider to be "inflammatory" in nature. The result is usually rather muted. The reason for this, I believe, is due to the fact that we "know" our audience more intimately than we "know" people we've never met before. This is a barrier of sorts due to the fact that differences in opinion or perspective, be they political, religious, etc., are mostly muted amongst the people we know in this manner. When someone decides to engage in conversation, they make it knowing there is a certain risk involved that might have an impact on the "friendship". Another way of describing this disposition would be: "I just don't want to go there...[with you]...because I will most assuredly see you face to face at some point." The result can be awkward. It's subtle but I argue it's there and is a not-so-insignificant factor that leads to the "quiet" that exists in these scenarios. Here on Google+ (at least for the time being) conversations don't suffer from this "silent contract" due to the level of knowledge that we have about other members of the community. I'm sure it will evolve or devolve as the makeup of the membership shifts but for now, there appears to be a perfect balance that is struck that prevents extremities of situations that we have seen occur in other communities (YouTube commentary strikes me as an extreme example of mindless bombardment. Slashdot seems to be insulated from devolving into a YouTube example and there are varying degrees of utility in other social communities.)

Hope that makes sense. As I read these comments, it makes me wonder if perhaps we are expecting Google+ to be another Facebook. Is that wrong? Maybe not but I think significant differences can be teased out between the various social platforms.

My apologies for the stream of consciousness rambling. Carry on.
+Geren W. Mortensen, Jr. you can edit after posting on Google+, if you need help on how to do that message me separately.

You cannot edit your sharing settings after your post, like you can on Facebook. (not sure if I prefer that or not - privacy policy is better if you CANNOT edit the sharing after the post goes up)

now you'll see i've edited my comment by adding this line.
Your post basically cements my perception that facebook is more about connecting, and g+ is more about discussing.
I feel like the circles in g+ are centred around ideas, while the groups of people on fb are more about digitizing existing social groups.

I really wish fb wouldn't see twitter and g+ as competetors: there is a lot of value in having the ideals of both simultaneously, but the way fb is pursuing this drive to be everything that people need, they are losing sight more and more.
+Ryan Wenneker Thanks, I'll be in touch on the comment editing.

Regarding changing of sharing settings ... I regularly share posts from my blogs, videos from YouTube and pictures from Flickr. All of these post as some form of "private" or "only you" by default. So, because of other tools that I use, I need to be able to change sharing settings on Facebook.
+catherine helzermanI have had some VERY personal conversations through this forum, as the privacy is more secured is been very useful for that versus facebook.

I think we just have fewer of such intimate contacts on here, and so the opportunity for such less likely to occur spontaneously.

Of course I've also witnessed a young woman, whose hope and spirit were crushed by a family member's sudden shift in health struggle (semi) publicly with coming to grips with the the prognosis and finite time with her loved one.

And I saw, felt so much support and love for her. Guidance, empathy, ... what to say about that.

Of course this is self serving, but I find that in general the people on here are really amazing, deep people, with great hearts and a great capacity for very real conversations.
I don't agree, google+ is not even gonna have 10% of love in comparison to facebook.
Aside from all the obvious reasons because of FB's 'behaviour' and one sided 'enforcements' and controversies... With G+ you have a higher character limit per post. It (should) encourages you to write with more detail which elevates conversations to a higher level and less meaningless 'junk'.

Posts on G+ now are starting to look like blog posts. The circles method gives far more control over a post's visibility. Opening uo to the public and interacting with more people is much easier and feels natural. Discussions are easily divided between new people who you don't know (yet) and your friends/family.

It's good to know that a whole team is trying to create something which a lot of people feel comfortable with rather than an organisation which treat their users like individuals who are supposed to conform to the organisation's own 'standards'.
While I agree that relative to others Google+ is better at conversation, I think it is still terrible overall. There needs to be some way to distinguish a good contribution from a bad one. +1ning is along those lines, but why can't I sort by # of +1's? I think the ideal conversation system would be something like reddit, but perhaps only with 1 level of recursion in comments.
I am totally in agreement with +Robert Scoble 100%. The best of Facebook has been discovered and seen already, but, the beginning of the best of Google+ is yet to start. Just watch and see.
Dead on the conformity issue +Nelson Schaegen. I refuse dictatorship in all forms. I have been telling all my family, friends etc that I will be Facebook free and possibly Twitter free by the end of October and they can find me on +Google or they are still welcome to use the phone, text or email. We keep in touch no matter what

I do love my +Google and am hooked. I need to simplify my life with one social networking site and this one has garnered by attention for many reasons.
I find that FB is great for contact with the people you know (friends) and that G+ is terrific for contact with people you'd like to get to know. The extended conversations here with new people are a real +.
Agree. I mostly use FB for family interaction. A bunch of 60 years plus family members have just started using FB within the last year, so I'm not really looking for them to start something new anytime soon. But if I could get everyone on Google+, I would.
Yue Qi
so true, I use g+ to follow ppl, fb for real life friends, and never used twitter! too much noise over there..
The initial reason I jumped on the Google+ bandwagon so early was due to an experience at Facebook. I have a fan page there for my website. It has 775 fans which isn't a lot but I used to get good interaction when I posted. Now my fan page has turned into a ghost town. I have a feeling that Facebook filters are burying all my pages posts. I even posted to ask how many actually saw the post and wound up with 6 likes. That experience is what initially fueled my passion for Google+, finally an alternative to Facebook!

After I arrived at Google+ I found so many more reasons to love the service. It was so easy to network with people who share my interests. I have more peers that I actively interact with on Google+ than I've met in my lifetime. I was at a point where I had lost motivation and was questioning my own dreams. Now I have a full resource of peers, whom I can learn a lot from, if not through questions, just by simple observation.

Anyway, I'm saving the rest for my book which will be called "Why I love Google+".
Couldn't say it better than +Kelly Martin so I won't even try. But I will say I haven't spent more than 5 minutes on facebook in past 3 days which is significantly less than usual. Content so much richer and more meaningful here. 
agree with sourabh. i think it is because people dont want facebook to dominate the market and jumping to the new good product... but ways to go before google+ is my daily conversation medium...
Think you put it in a nutshell.....richer and meaningful:-)
I agree fully. Family & friends who are not really interested in techie aspects shall maintain Facebook for familiarity, but I do not think that it lends itself to involved discussions, mainly due to early trends of use. G+’ers seem to be people who want more ( I know I do). I am inspired to write more on here than I ever have been on Twitter or Facebook. Different people want different things from social media gateways. I have every confidence that Google+ shall be extremely successful in it's own right, but not necessarily through killing Facebook, which shall continue for people who are satisfied with what they shall provide
Google+ is definitely better but it takes time and patience to find and build good contacts.
Agree with you wholeheartedly.

I only started with social networking 3 months ago.

I investigated and decided against Facebook.

I do use Twitter but find that 140 characters limits my style of writing.

Then Google+ appeared on the scene and had everything I wanted with the potential of more to come.
AGREE completely! You always sum it up just right. This is the explanation I've given folks a dozen times now. I've been saying that Twitter will not survive Google+. I've been done with the community since the Celebrity Noise hit, and that was just a personal choice. But it was also the restrictions the conversations constantly carried. And no 3rd party middleware made the experience any less exhaustive.
Well, +Adrian Speyer, using SGPlus on Google Chrome is already streaming your facebook on your Google+ page, which I see as way of encouraging Google+ users to stay up in Google+, rather than going to facebook, twitter or LinkedIn. It is a BIG plus for Google+ and thanks to +Zane Claes for creating the application.
It is truly good to have the choice - remember 2001? Right!
Totally Agree, the interaction I have had on G+ has been amazing.
Chan Li
always agreed , google should offer you a job , lol
I have to agree with you, + is where the conversation is at.
Yes I have a bit of time at this very moment and this topic is so intriguing, that for the moment I am following it live.

This comment roll (is that how you name this?) is a great example in itself to show that conversations on G+ is far superior than on FB.

I'm sure many who are on G+ have had the conversation of G+ vs. FB IRL. Every comparison at this moment is just for this moment. I hope that people realize that G+ is at its infancy and will grow through time.

I find it remarkable to see how Google tries to be transparent and every (major/noticeable) change is mentioned through their blog. Suggestions are taken in consideration and implemented when it's feasible/possible. Bugs are easily submitted through their 'Send feedback' option.

G+ is new. Within their first 12 weeks they have added/changed 100 features and are mostly based on their users' wishes. Their 100th change is opening their doors to the general public. They might not be better than FB on all accounts at this moment, but they sure are trying to match up and/or get better.
I really like Google +. I am finding Google + to be very exciting!Every day I am discovering how to use it more effectively.(I have enjoyed adding you as someone who I follow. Your content is informative, breathtaking and humorous as well.) I still use facebook as well since that is where most people are posting their shared info.
My family is spread all over the US, there are 8 sibs + mom. IF I can get them to all be available at the same time, we could have a family reunion and "Hangout". I can't wait. My 84 Year Old mom uses email to communicate with all of us. It is her pleasure to send email back and forth. I can only imaging how rewarding it will be for her to actually be able to hang out with some or all of us........
Thanks for adding your public posts.... things were pretty dull on here before I added you.
Our son is on the Google+ team ....... (proud parent share!!!!!)
I hear what you are saying. Facebook has paved the way!!!
I find your answer with seesmic in my twitter time line then I jump to google+ and I ask myself : your answer is on g+, is it on Quora too ???
I've never gotten into Facebook other than to connect with Family who use it instead of email, etc. The walls around Facebook make me feel like I'm using AOL. No part of the web is off limits with G+.
I think the different conversational dynamic on G+ might be a function of who is on the site. Many people do not have IRL friends and family here and so discussion is more general. You post on a topic and meet/engage new people and get both diverse and new points of view. Public posting is key to that.
However, Google itself has said that many people post privately rather than publicly even at this point.
Also I have seen people complaining that they don't post publicly because they do not want to spam friends with general topics.
I think this is an issue G+ needs to solve if it is to maintain the level of discussion here. If everyone only posts privately then conversation will become more walled-off and less interesting.
We need some tools to filter both our streams and outgoing posts with more granularity.
I need to be able to cut the noise in my incoming stream.
I also need to be able to post publicly but exclude some circles from that.
My family doesn't want posts about the latest kindle or web programming. And I need a way to make those posts public without hassling my family.
Without such tools I think the discussion and discovery quality on G+ will suffer as more and more IRL friends/family come on board here.
+Donny Velazquez I do like StackExchange and I can see why you'd say that. I spend a lot more time on Quora however.
Google+ is where real conversations happen, like this one. LinkedIn as a great groups set up where it happens ongoing as well and I find that very useful with peers in business discussing things of mutual interest and problem solving.

Here you can actually have paragraphs and extended posts. Much better format. FB nice for quickie notes to friends, that about it.
G+ is usually about something usefull, Facebook is about what your friends are doing. Mostly that's about what they are eating, practicing, linking or disliking. Now I wonder if the content would change if my friends move here, instead of the early adapters that are here now and talk sense :)
In my mind g+ is better organized as a social medium and facebook, of course, has the benefit of being around longer and has more people. I think that will change over time. It took facebook years to go "mainstream" and get the average person involved. G+ will do that faster but it will still take a few years. In that time facebook will innovate and compete.

I personally hope that both G+ and FB survive as competing social networks. Competition drives innovation so we will get better technology sooner. Also if no one company owns the entire social graph that limits the amount of shenanigans that could happen.

Twitter is done. It was new and fun for awhile but it's just too superficial and disjointed to survive. FB and G+ are more engaging. That's where most people will end up.
I disagree that Twitter is dead. The sports world has totally embraced twitter and its the easiest way to follow sporting event conversation
Agree that Google+ is the conversation leader now. I would not say Twitter is dead but it is true I spend less time on it.
The only reason I go back to FB and Twitter is because most of my social network is still over there. The interesting people I follow on Twitter (mostly golf and football stuff) aren't over here yet. My FB network is all friends and family and they haven't made it over here either.
Absolutely agreed. However, I will say that the volume of comments is currently still augmented by the "shiny object" factor, because people are still showing up here for the first time. That element will wear off as time goes on.
I agree. This allows me to engage in more of an intellectually based conversation and thus far, people are more respctful of differing opinion. (Though that may change with more people). I loved the hangouts and can see lot of practical applications for it. (Hard to collaborate on Facebook). I will keep cross posting because Facebook is a social network but this one has given me more to think about and consider.
I was actually liking the latest interation of FB, but based on this observation of yours I will log back in to my + account and give it a second look I suppose...
One of the major differences I see between facebook and google plus, is the fact that facebook implements changes to better the marketers and business types, where google designs for the end user. I have had a fair amount of social interaction on here, but at the same time I find I have people I have never met, that I have a lot in common with, which sparks intellegent descussion I couldn't dream of having on facebook. Google plus is in its first stage of evolution I see it going a lot further with this, they have near unlimited resources 
Curious, why do think photos look better on G+? Less manipulation?
+Tonia Addison-Hall Now, if they implement censorship on Facebook, we wont easily come to know. That might be a motive as well. They can selectively highlight certain messages for whatever reason including business reasons and give no explanation
I think here got a limit of 1G photos to be stored at Google+?
I agree in many ways. I'm just starting to use G+ FB has been really confusing of the late. clear....and so si,
agree its simple and best thing is it has very good privacy . I hope google will integrate google+ with Youtube & it should add birthday feature which FB has .
Conversation's definitely better here. Or shall I say, it exists at all here.

Was going to shut down my fb account but decided to keep it for the same reasons...
Not only conversation's,but learning about everything and anything,with the right and interesting people!
Interesting. I was under the impression black space was better than white. I do agree - photos look better on G+.
I think that conversations are superior on Google+. Why? I think the underlying reason is something you wrote about a couple of weeks ago -- the interest graph. The conversations on Google+ tend to be among people interested in the same topics. Whether they actually know each other is mostly irrelevant. In fact, sometimes we can be freer and more open with strangers than people we have to deal with or live with.
Rita L
interesting thinking. :)
I agree. I am actually seeing friends on FaceBook trying out G+. I has been interesting to watch. So far, only the more technically inclined have been doing more than setting up an account.
I first thought Google + was named so because it's like Facebook + Twitter in one.
I thought the Facebook GUI is so hard to use, but then came Google+ thingy, and it is equally bad really. I am guessing that when someone makes something that is actually easy to use, we will all leave the existing ones. Or am I the only one that just ‘do not get it’?
Searching on Google+ is fantastic. Also, the depth and level of conversations ---I can barely describe. Google+ makes me want to write more - I am inspired to write more!
I much prefer G+ for intelligent conversations.
And Im starting to look for people with same interests (in my case aviation) by searching for words like 'Pilot, aviation, aircraft'
So if any pilots or aviation enthusiasts want to find me, im going to post on my page some aviation related words.
Asking on Google+ certainly is going to show a self-selecting bias, but yes, "I agree". On FB, I mostly have personal friends, a few family and some acquaintances. I've got a great group of FB friends, but Google+ is where I learn more. I experience a lot more viewpoints and I can easily pursue my interests. As an example, this article came up on one of my "sparks". I've also been able to add people to my stream, who I would otherwise never meet or engage with. The photos, articles and poetry I've encountered this way in just a day tower head and shoulders above what I see in a week on FB.
Add a comment...