Shared publicly  - 
Julian brings up an interesting point. Should you share a mega-popular person's posts? After all, most people will see what I, or Guy Kawasaki or Pete Cashmore or Vic Gundotra write. Won't they?

That said, looking through who follows Julian and who follows me, there are at least a few people who aren't following both.

But, what do you think? Or, better yet, will you share this post with your circles? :-)
Julian Bond originally shared:
I'm now running a "one strike and you're out" policy on social networks. Here's some things that will result in an instant Un-friend, Un-circle, Block. Invite me to Branchout, farmville or anything similar on Facebook. Post kitty animated gifs. Spam my chat and Skype. Do just one stupid thing and you're gone.

I'm a little more lenient on the next level but it's time to clear that up as well. Re-Sharing more than you post and especially, repeated re-sharing of Scoble posts. Do you really think that your followers aren't already following Scoble? Especially if you are in the Tech industry. Then there's trolling with hard line (US) right wing or religious views. You're welcome but I'm not interested.
Lubo Baran's profile photoNick Hooper's profile photoCook Rush282's profile photoOllie Antonio's profile photo
Instead of sharing, why not just link to it in your own post? That will prevent the duplication and not put the entire post in your follower's stream,
Facebook has a way round this that involves saying that various people shared a particular link/status/photo/whatever. Surely that could be done on here too?
If Google can only copy twitter's new retweet system then it solves this problem?
I'm loving your posts - but I fear the moment when my stream shares them as well - it would be "death by Scoble".

Much better would be the option of having share on/off as a master toggle for the poster, followed by "shared items appear no more than x times in your stream" (ideally at a per person level - but that level of granularity invites madness) for the reader. Both are distinct functions, but combined they could allow for highly selective curation.
Not all of my friends have the same people encircled as I do.

If its something WORTH sharing I will.

Why punish your friends for not having "Popular" G+ people circled?
There's about 20 million users on Google+, you have about 90,000 followers. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who choose to not follow you, but may be interested specific thoughts/sites/etc. that you may post. I don't see the problem with sharing them.
Why not sharing. But G+ should show something like article has been shared by +x, +y and +z instead of pumping it again and again in my stream.
If you share somebodies post, famous or not, I appreciate a small comment from the sharing person why he or she shared it and what she/he thought was interesting. Good, if your comment is to the point.
It depends. If you're the sort of person who don't have time to follow plus every ten minutes or trove through hundreds of comments on posts, you'd probably want to follow a Scoble-resharer, who filters out all the Scoble noise, than Scoble himself.
I have motioned this a few times on posts that your self and the popular people have made. This is the sort of thing that filters would help greatly with. I mean I don't want to see the same thing just re-shared from someone else.

I have stopped sharing popular posts for fear of being blocked or ignored by people
I post only original content to public, and I reshare only with my closest circles. This system works really well for me.
I never share bigwig posts, none of my friends would care.
No sir, you and Julian have it covered
I feel +Julian Bond 's pain on this. There are so many people who (seem to) automatically share anything posted by +Robert Scoble +Pete Cashmore +Guy Kawasaki and almost every Googler posts. The echo is overwhelming.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Google resolves this problem. Even Facebook managed a solution, so surely Google can, too. :)
Most of my tweets, G+ or Facebook stuff can be all too serious. I usually have a role in emergency information relay and collation, plus an interest in news. When there's no need for that, I prefer doing something as far away from that as possible for balance. Meaning I'll occasionally post an animated kitty gif or some really dumb YouTube video to do with my old, favorite Japanese anime cartoon favorites from the sixties. Or perhaps something to do with a favorite song.

So I get kicked for wanting to take a break from serious?

Julian should get a life.
I'm sure there are people in my circles who aren't following a lot of the people I am. I think Goog just needs to implement the reshare grouping feature
You bring up an interesting point +Robert Scoble. If Google+ is an 'Ego App' to someone then of course they will repost the more popular people all the time regardless of content. They want to be seen as having an interest in the big boys and by default they tend to get more people adding them to circles.

Personally, I prefer to repost content that I find interesting regardless of the social statue of an individual.
"<name1> shared a post by <name2> who is in your circles. Click to expand", and then you don't get to see the shared post unless you click on it. Something like that could work and unclutter the stream a bit while still maintaining the different comment locations.
I say share. I can count on one hand the "mega-popular" folks I follow. (Obviously, you're in that group.) I don't follow them for two reasons: 1) Their updates overtake my stream and 2) Other people who engage more often interest me more.
Uncommented sharing of posts is the fastest method to become uncircled by me.
I think it's important for all shares to be accounted for even if you are mega popular. Data needed for ranking and future Google+ services.
You might if it is important, considering sharing it to friends brings it to their immediate attention. Your post might have drowned in the the sea of noise from you and other mass posters that are probably in the same circle...
+Robert Scoble , I would never have heard about +Julian Bond 's point of view if you would not have shared it with me. I think that Julian is pointing out an engineering requirement for Google+, though: If someone already saw a post, then Google+ should not display it again, but instead show a button saying "was reshared by..."
Never liked the "one strike and you're out" policy, both in companies and in life.
Hasn't Julian also heard of curation? I might share a Scoble thread one to a news item the next...perhaps share something from an ordinary G+er. Seriously...
I once shared a post that had been shared over 1,000 times - I resisted the urge not to - and I still found people that hadn't seen it.

Grouped reshares, similar to GMail conversations, is what I'd like to see.
what would interest me is how many of the comments are actually read, by people like scoble, i mean its like 50 comments within a few minues, so is this a one way communication, how much time can and want someone with that kind of following spending on reading up on reactions
David C
I do think that Google needs to clean this up, sort of in the way that Facebook has when multiple people share the same item. Until then the day might come where my stream gets Scobleized.
Here's a question for you +Robert Scoble ....IF you werent who you are, would it matter to you if you get unfollowed by Julian above for sharing your posts?
I share whatever I find worth sharing. period. I don't run any kind of populatiry meter for anybody :)
I know a lot of people who would never even bother to read Scoble or Kawasaki or whoever, mainly because you guys are so well-known and all over the web, or just because their usage of G+ or other platforms doesn't include following the meta discussion. But those people do read me and may profit from your insights, which is why I share a post if I find it helpful or enlightening or worth a discussion.
I follow Scoble but not Julian, so I wouldn't have seen this. Not that I'm too worried about their ire; I'm sure neither follows me.

But if I share it, no one will in my circles would know that, and wouldn't know this is where I'm discussing it; nor for that matter would they have a trivial way to find it on Julian's page if I'm a few days late to the game. The Sharing system needs work, and in the meantime linking to the post may be better than Sharing it for a variety of reasons.
Julian Bond must live in a bubble of social media geeks. I try to reshare so I don't pollute other peoples streams and walls with stuff they've already seen. But it's not easy. And i can guarantee that a very large majority of those who follow me - do not follow Scoble...
Simple solution is if multiple people in your circles share the same post, simply group their names and the post into one entry. This is something G+ can learn from Facebook and would work wonders for stream noise.

On a separate note, I didn't care much for +Julian Bond's attitude in that post. I don't follow him but I made a point of blocking him so I don't have to see the posts of someone who seems quite negative.
Never liked this kind of threats: "one strike and you're out" as the guy said: "If you wanna shoot - shoot, don't talk", at least that's my policy.
Personally i write a blog about tech that is aimed at getting nontechpeople to understand what it is all about, and understand what advantages they can have from technology, so i see a lot of scenarios where I would repost things from popular techpeople on g+. But right now it's not happening as most of my readers are still over at facebook.
I think this problem would be solved if +1 a post would be reflected in your stream with a simple link like mention
I think +Julian Bond is on a white horse so high that he can't get down. I wonder if he has a cape to go along with that...

Anyway, what if someone wants to re-share with their own comment/opinion? Are they going to get banned from Julian's circles? Nonsense.
Resharing is a form of liking a post in a way that is displayed. The fact that posts with images and comments take up quite a bit of space in the stream is a different issue. I think this issue is also part organization (why repeat and not just say that it has been shared by X people. That is, this too is a noise control issue. Displayed in a better way and the resharing would not be a problem. I also think comment should be disabled by default on resharing and instead the original posts comments are show and added to.
Resharing within inner circles as +Leon Håland suggested is exactly how you should do it, not spread it like fire
Why not reshare megapopular people's posts? The odds are extremely high that most of the people in my circles aren't following the same people that I am -- at least, not right now. So if I see something interesting, I share it. I won't share this one because it's not something I normally would share. If someone really doesn't want to see what I share, ditch me, LOL...

But I do think that there needs to be a better way to throttle what's coming in right now -- I really hate that I can only see one circle at a time if I try to cut down on what's in my stream.
So, to turn that around, I should unfollow you, because someone else I know is sure to re-share your post. ;)
Andy T
I've seen a few posts of people saying that they don't like "sharing", personally I think it is the nature of the G+ app and if you want to axe people for giving a post the highest accolade the app provides then axe me, I've no interest in being connected with you.

If however, you understand the reason why people hit the share button but the fact that the same post being shared by multiple people clogs up your stream inconveniences - which I fully understand and agree with - but don't want to miss out on other post by someone do the right thing: SEND FEEDBACK TO GOOGLE!

If the g+ interface is putting barriers up and giving a poor user experience which could eventually mean losing users Google will fix it.
If enough people say the same thing, Google will fix it quicker - none of this is rocket science, just because Facebook tells you how to use software OR you are trained to accept anything Apple gives you it doesn't mean Google is the same - you can have what you want if you ask.

For instance: in this scenario, Google could quite easily allow someone to mute shares of a certain post, they could force all comment on shares into the original post, they could simply allow you to to comment on the original post rather than the new one.

However the real problem is that people want to re-tweet a post, doing a +1 is like adding a favourite, it's not telling other people to look at it. Retweeting is a way to let other people on your network know you like it because people like to stay in touch with what their network is reading.
So what we actually need is a change to how +1s work, make them show up on streams in say 140 char + a link for instance.
branchoutjust seems to generate its own invites........ If i see something I find interesting or need to remember I will share regardless of author--- maybe google plus needs to work on a curator scheme -- as it already highlights when someone is sharing privately etc maybe it could track what has already been posted to others. I blocked some1 when they sent me the same post 10 times I did feel this was a little excessive.... but it could have just been a posting mistake?
On twitter of my 9500 followers only 10% follow the tier1 IT folks mentioned. G+ is about the same % wise, so yes worth sharing.
Also until searching / tagging is addressed it is a good way to search postings you like.
The problem is not about re-sharing or a display issue, it's about producing significantly less content than what you re-share. Of course it's okay to re-share interesting content, even by someone as followed as Mr Scoble, but then you have to challenge yourself to produce content yourself (by annotation to the re-share, for example).
I'm preemptively blocking you.
I find myself thinking about re-sharing a lot. Very often I read something I love and immediately I think to re-share it, but mostly I refrain to do it.
Why? It's because I feel the pain of spam. Especially those instinctive re-share are dangerous. I am trying to force myself in a policy about re-sharing:

1. Never re-share to public - I don't think anyone should.
2. Never re-share amenities (pictures, funny, cute, and so on) to circles of people you are following

Google can develop a way to link all the re-share you receive from many people in one article.

I think some kind of opened circles can help too. A circle you can create, marking it as opened , visible in your profile by others, and where they can join and leave freely. This should be a powerful tool for people wanting to write a flow of infos, without the need to manage it by hand.
What we need to solve it - is tagging. I want to be able to sort my "friends" - and circles are perfect for that. But I also want to be able to sort my content according to subject. I try to use circles for it. But it won't work if we don't do it all off us. The simplest solution would be TAGs for content - so I could "subscribe" to a certain tag from a certain person.
In short - we need to be able to sort people AND content - with two distinct systems.
one interesting finding about celebs research lately was, that celebs flock with celebs, soooo, no wonder Scoble runs a discussion about +Julian Bond circling policy, thus creating an even bigger buzz for both :)
I definitely do share reposts with circles that don't really have that much activity and I do get 2-3 reshares of that.

I hated the reblogging concept thing tumblr does, hence so I won't repost anything out of the blue unless it's super interesting. It's all about controlling your public stream IMO.
I guess it depends on what you want to do with the post.

I don't see the point in resharing something that really you just want to comment on, however if you are wanting to open up discussion from a differing point of view though then it makes sense.

This is in addition to the obvious of pushing out to an audience that may have missed the original.
share first means I'm interested in this post and might like to discuss this with my friends, not with everybody else.

Second, I guess Google+ can be smart to provide option to avoid showing duplicate posts for me. It can just say Person X shared this post also, and I can then discuss it with him if I want to.
Also, +Julian Bond , I don't think we should all be running around telling each other don't do this or that. We're all still learning how this works, and we need to tolerate a few annoyances. Remember Usenet and Netiquette? Yeah, that worked well, didn't it? If someone really bugs you, don't follow, but you don't have to lecture people about it. It's not we, it's you. :)
What happens when +Robert Scoble reshares a post from +Vic Gundotra? The Robert will be banned by +Julian Bond. When that happens it may be good that someone reshares Scoble's posts to make sure Julian gets to see them, :-)

How about people posting "share bait" such as Julians post? Should they be banned too?

How about instead people shares what resonates with them, with or without editorial comments and google with time provides noise control features to make my stream show me what I am most likely to be interested in?
+Mario Pacchiarotti That makes a lot of sense to me. I think it may be part of a solution. I have ingoing and outgoing circles - and my outgoing circles do not include the "pundits" and "digerati"..
I think one of the problems is that we have Facebook and Twitter people converging on here. For me, on Twitter most of the people I follow already retweet quite a bit. They share what they're reading, neat articles, etc. On Facebook, people tend to "broadcast" more than share other people's stuff. I wouldn't think Facebook users would be as used to sharing of posts.

Some kind of grouping and commenting system would be ideal for both worlds, but I'm used to getting multiple RTs of the same article so it doesn't bother me a whole lot.
Your right, from here on out I will never share one of your post.. You know what's funny, not every one knows who you are Scoble. Even though you may think so.. How do you think you got were your at now, by people sharing.. Your heads starting to get big. Better be careful it might pop here pretty quickly if you don't watch it..
share what you want to and stop being a prisoner of conscience!
if your stream gets noisy we can always just mute it!
Should resharing be replaced with a link? And should that link not go directly back to the originator? Would that solve some of the noise problem?
Actually what we need is a "no duplicate posts" policy. Twitter (at least most clients i know), for example, only shows me retweets when they aren't already visible.
I follow you, robert, still i don't read all your posts, because they get lost with all the other noise. Resharing does sometime bring up things I wasn't previously aware of.
Really, if Julian doesn't want to SEE things in his stream, he should use a Chrome extension called "G+ Me" and set it so it only shows the G+ user, the headline and how many people have commented, set the default action to NOT expanded...
What G+ desperately needs is the keyboard 'm' shortcut for muting a post. The Usability Boost Chrome extension provides a Mute button next on the post header, which is great, but still requires me to mouse around. Easy muting = less whining.
The sharing process does need to be refined. Of the 136 that I am circled with, only 23 follow you. So I am glad to share the great info you provide. I am glad G+ suggested early that I include you in my circles.
I may have to adopt a "one strike" policy for anyone self-absorbed enough to refer to themselves as a "mega-popular person." ;)
I just LOVE this "I am sooo popular I can't sand it any more" attitude... some humility never killed anybody :)
Andy P
How about preventing a repost from having it's own separate set of comments. Use the comments from the original post. Multiple sets of comments directly connected that same post is dumb. Likewise, the repost should be a link to the original post as opposed to a copy of it. Seems dumb to me that I can repost something as though it were my own, almost. Just make it a link so the person who made that post gets the hits on their own profile. Replaying is fine but it shouldn't be a replacement for articulating your own thoughts.
seriously...whats so wrong with branchout? at least I don't need to buy dollars to build a port or so.. ...sic

This is the appreciation for being popular and being a thought leader.
It must be hard to be so wonderful...I need to keep trying!!!!!!!!! damn

I wondered why Google built this site and now I know!

To train all of us to be more insightful!

Okay, give the guy a time he will know better.
+Robert Scoble Kudu's to your wife.
Yes, Andy, yes! "Share" should share a link to the original post, and automatically close comments, so that you have to go to the original to comment.
+Robert Scoble thanks Robert for your reply mate. I actually don't have a problem with the duplication issue as it's a network effect. People see updates at different times. For example, I have you circled and so do many others. If I'm commenting to a post by +Guy Kawasaki I may miss what you say yet someone within my circles will see your post and share it. The etiquette in my view is to reshare your post and acknowledge that person who shared it (even if you're in my circle). The issue is definitely one that Google can fix if it affects people emotionally.

What I find interesting is the negative feedback +Loic Le Meur has been receiving for posting in French. Surely like the duplication issue, people can simply ignore.

Anyhoo like you say mate, one shouldnt lose any sleep over who unfollows you or complains about speaking in your mother tongue.

Bon chance!
Re-shares can be given the least priority in the G+ stream.You can scroll through all the posts and finally a link for reshared posts can be provided.Infact I would like to see 'more' being replaced by 'Re-shared'.Also ensuring the originally shared person is not in his/her list.
Sharing is a wonderful way of networking. I've circled people you've shared. I have friends that are not really integrating themselves into Google+ and they don't know who to follow so when I share your content it makes Google+ more diverse for them.
Scoble, despite your admittedly huge following, with 20+ million users it's not "most people" that see your every word as you write them. Just saying.
+Andy P It is possible to manually include a link back to the original, and turn off comments on your own post. But it's too much effort and people don't do it. They may not even want to, preferring the comments to happen on their own version of the post. And then people have to click through, and possibly open yet another tab to comment themselves. It's all too hard.
This is exactly why I burned out on Mashable posts (from all the reshares).
:) You're OBVIOUSLY not "regular" Robert because most folks would have probably just laughed at my comment, especially since I used the tried and true emoticon as a big clue that I was joking. I didn't miss how many followers you have, but you clearly missed the joke. But it's early so I'll forgive you. Besides, even if you do have a big ego, it doesn't mean you're not worth reading.
There are a number of different uses of both Facebook and G+, and some of them do not go well together. If there's a simple solution - it will be welcome. If not - we must live with the fact, that we are not all alike. So some pundits will have streams that are next to impossible to follow, because theyre so full of redundancy and other noise.
+Robert Scoble Simple solution. If the original post was made by someone already in my friend's circles, Google does not publish the duplicate post to that person's Stream.

The only downside is that we may want to discuss the famous post privately among our circle only, instead of discussing it in public.
If Robert is sharing Vic's post, and I already have Vic in my circle. The share has to be tagged in the original post as a foot note with any comment if any.
I don't really understand why this even is a point of discussion... isn't sharing the whole point of joining a social network? everyone should be allowed to share what they believe is worth sharing... not everyone follows the same people (different countries, different interests all around) & through sharing, we get to know new people, ideas, topics that you normally would miss out on... if G+ implements the same sharing techniques as Twitter & Facebook the whole 'problem' would be solved...
While i'm sure that in relative terms some of the tech people i follow have 'mega' followings it does not follow that they would even have been heard of in my wider circle of friends. So if one of those people i follow has said something interesting that other less technical friends might not have heard and would benefit from hearing, then of course I will be tweet or share that post.
I had never heard of Robert Scoble or Julian Bond until I came on G+ this past week. What if someone new doesn't know they are sharing something from a "big blogger" but they shared because they found the post useful or interesting?
When it's a largely overlapping audience, it's only valuable to share if you have context (or spin) to add.
Thanks to +Robert Scoble for this post. You see, I had never heard of +Julian Bond before. I totally agree with the first stand that Julian takes, but not the second. The re-posts, re-tweets, likes, links and overall push that people have given you has allowed you to grow to the stature and carry the voice that you have over the space. Had Robert not brought this post to my attention, I would not have seen it (at least not this early).

Is there a lot of duplication?? YES...but skipping it the 3rd, 4th, 5th time you see it is easy.

What I hate is when it makes the rounds three or four days later...that can be avoided by the sender taking a quick look and figuring this has been shared 2 gazillion times already...maybe I won't send it out again.
How would one know if the audience was largely overlapping? My audience is primarily homeschool bloggers and mama bloggers. I am not sure how many would even know who these two men are? I didn't.
Good point, spam and interruption marketing is taking on a whole new level and my patience is also running out! Respect and common sense needs to prevail when it comes to using social media.
At this stage its alright to follow..but later on i wont. because my stream would get too polluted.Ofcourse if google gives me a better stream management that i can keep certain people out of my main stream..and only in that circles stream then it would be great.
I'd say the problem isn't the user who re-shares +Robert Scoble's post, but with the Google+ method of re-sharing. Facebook has a leg up here.
I see the point here. However, I know many people that do not follow you or (gasp) do not know who you are. Yet, you make solid points that at times touch on their interests or things I have said. So I share so they may be exposed to the stream of ideas. So, should I share? My answer is a resounding yes!
This is a no brainer! G+ will eventually implement controls for how each individual wants to see re-shares from other users or posts, just as Twitter and Facebook have.

Some folk'll want to see every persons re-share, and others will want more control on what they see. So far G+ has made an excellent start at striking that fine balance between the two, it's just a matter of time.
+Nosha Monteiro da Cunha I'm sure those of us who work as nodes in a resharing network, have had some influence on who became the "stars" of the show. After 20+ years in the computer media world online, as a second or third tier person - I think I know a little about that. :)
This is a UI failing of G+ pure and simple.

It is not beyond the wit of Google Engineers to prevent duplicate posts in a person's stream by showing the share against the original post (where they follow that original user) and showing the post as new where they don't.

Summify manages to figure out multiple shares (indeed, uses them to guage content popularity) and soem twitter clients makes a reasonable job of it too..

Where DO you actually submit feedback to google?
just dumped Julian Bond. He violated my "one strike and you're out" policy by being uninteresting and peevish
+Technogran - You're right. Good UX design crumbles under the weight of added features developed to cater to the super users who are also the most engaged, and thus also the loudest in the crowd.
Google must make sure to keep their focus fixed on the user base they want to go here, for their social media fix of the day.
Julian Bond just broke my "one strike and you're out" rule: don't be a douche-bag.
Removing him from my circles... oh, wait... I don't have him there...
Who on earth is Julian Bond?
There's a reason people are popular - they create content people like. I share what I like.
+Gunnar Langemark if that's true, where is the intuitive interface that Google is famous for in all other offerings? Why don't G+ profiles have a simple MESSAGE button??? I don't think they are that concerned with the user base you are describing. I think they're looking to cater to the "super users" as you call them.
+Nebil Kanada. I second that. I could care less about +Julian Bond and the over inflated ego. Piss off, Julian. +Robert Scoble, I was resharing your posts at beginning of G+, but now that it's getting much bigger here there really isn't a great need to do it. I might on occasion, but not regularly.
Not to be impolite or something, but honesty compells me to point out that a lot these "famous" people are not famous outside of their own countries. I have been resharing postings from American "alphas" to my German friends and vice versa, and have heard few complaints. This is an international network.

If I feel like sharing someones post I will share it. It's up to google to present it in my followers stream in a way that will not annoy them (duplicate posts). 
The thought of being blocked by Julian (what was his last name?) really frightens me! ;-)

By the way, he will probably also block everybody that mentions him in a post because that spams his notifications!
As +irene koehler suggests, a good starting point for g+ could be fb's approach "X & 2 other friends shared this link".
I bet goog is going to come up with something way smarter - they have tons of signals - google searches, public +1s g+ users do when google searching, etc

Ideally a way to avoid multiple shares of the same link, but also let me view the specific text/content/comments which each of my g+ contacts made, while sharing the same link
I think most of us by now are probably evaluating or reevaluating our circling policy. If someone circles me I always check their posts, if all they do is re-share other posts then I don't circle them. It has to be a case by case basis though, I've discovered a lot of really interesting people because someone I had circled shared a post. 
What if Google had invited noobs to try out G+, in stead of the geeks?
I'm finding this "I'm famous and therefore....." stuff on G+ to be a real turn off. As much as I like following +Robert Scoble, +Leo Laporte, +Kevin Rose, +Jeff Jarvis, your collective self-importance on G+ is wearing thin. 
In a discussion about sharing posts on +John Hardy's page +Rich Griese made an interesting comment. "I've actually thought that when someone shares an item, that the thread that should display on the reshared item would actually be the comment thread of the original shared post. Imagine that. you write a post, and 40 people share it, each share results in 10 comments. On your instance of the item, you magically now have 400 comments. It would show the original poster that they were getting reaction." My addition to the idea was I think the best solution would be to have a merge comments option available to be selected when one goes to share a post. That way if you want to keep the discussion about the original post within your circle only you can do that to.
Any share aggregation option is going to cause people to lose sight of the commentary. I personally disagree with +Julian Bond's one strike rule, but I appreciated +Robert Scoble's commentary and observations on one point. Sharing in Google+ gives the sharer the freedom to add to the conversation, and that can be good. Also there's a very easy way to get past duplication; it's called a scroll bar.
Thank you this article !
Is there anything more arrogant than someone posting their rules for the privilege of following them? It's a big universe, with a lot of suns that will still rise without +Julian Bond. What a real asshat! Block me, please.

So much for your theory +Robert Scoble, +Julian Bond is using a real name and still is full of nothing but ego. Great way to foster community! #truthaboveself
+Gunnar Langemark I honestly (perhaps naively) thought they were doing that until I got in here and found myself awash in geekspeak. Now don't get me wrong, I harbor my own inner geek as well so I do enjoy the availability of all this brainpower, but it's really not a reasonable "test group" if you're catering to a crowd that knows as much about your back end as you do.
"Do just one stupid thing and you're gone." is a useful way to look at GUI design, brand development and most other social media. Constant reposting is so often " I am a member of this club." Natural activity with celebrities. All ok.

But if one is interested in seeing what others don't see, who cares? If one is intentional - as the user of a search GUI, or a business website, or any authentic activity - "Do just one stupid thing and you're gone" is probably the best decision rule to follow.
+Robert Scoble "we're all beginners here."
Robert that's simply not true and I'm surprised you would even suggest it. There is a WORLD of difference between someone like you, with tons of tech knowledge and a BAJILLION Twitter followers joining any new site, and a true NEWBIE joining. You know that's true I am sure.
If I am bothered by someone who is "to busy" reposting, I will drop them in a circle made for them and people like them. These are the ones who post and/or repost too much. If I unblock them, their posts can still be pushed to incoming. If I block them, this may block me from some future hangout since we would be prevented from both participating in collaborative activities at same time. How about just "Send Feedback" to Google (lower right corner).
There's a lot more that we agree on +Robert Scoble, than we disagree. We both believe in the freedom to express and pursue our preferences.

If we block each other simply because we disagree on a few things, the whole community is less than it could have been. Everyone has value, even +Julian Bond.
Well if you're not following a mega popular person, maybe there's a reason for that - so when a post gets shared by someone who you do follow, it may be a reason to stop following them too!!

Anyway, shares aren't really shares are they? They're copies!
I look at it like this: Some of my friends are not into "tech" so they may not be following you (or Guy, or Julian). But, if you post something that I think is important enough for them to read, I'll share it. Otherwise, I'll just comment on your posts and +1 them when necessary.
The solution would be to consolidate the share's with the original post, with the sharers comment integrated in.
From what I've seen so far, sharing is a way of showing appreciation and letting people see outstanding content. Yes, duplication is an issue, but hopefully Google will address that in time. In the meantime maybe we need to be a bit more patient and click mute.
This is closed beta. The sole reason why we're here is to break the system. They check what doesn't work and keep what works. Keep breaking it.
+Robert Scoble "Personally I think newbies shouldn't be allowed until the advanced folks have tested everything out first."

That's problematic, and frankly, just plain silly. What's the purpose of a test if you limit the subjects to an unrealistic segment?

Personally I think this so-called "test phase" is NOT. 10-20 million users is a MASSIVE launch for any web site. G+ jumped the "test" shark 9-19 million users ago. This was a clever marketing ploy, and as such, G+ should have been much more thoroughly bench tested first, while still in the shop.
With Google+ not letting you post to other peoples pages (like FB), I'm just curious how a unpopular photographer gets to become a popular one. How does one get noticed on Google+?
+Robert Scoble I'm talking about "noobs" in the role of beta testers - as we're all right now. How would the feedback Google gets look - if the test persons were not geeks with 20+ years of experience in the computer media industry?
I realize that we're playing the role of "loudspeakers" right now, and that we're spreading the word faster than a bunch of "average joes" would be able to - because we have access to networks, and people who listen to us for our knowledge of "all that digital stuff".
Rule of thumb: If the person has more than 10,000 followers don't re-share it. It is very likely that anyone remotely interested caught it.
I have really struggled with this question --- from the very beginning. In days past, if I saw something in a magazine that was really good, I would clip it, and forward to good friends. Now, I do that using the RT on Twitter. I also share some on FB. Here, I find it creates too much noise. I have shared to a circle, which seems to be a nice compromise, but till does not perfect.
+Carmelyne Thompson "closed beta" ...not. How closed can it be with tens of millions of users getting in in only 4 weeks? You don't need end users to tell you what glitches need fixing or that a simple MESSAGE button makes sense. Too many problems and bugs that still exist in G+ could and should have been easily diagnosed before launch.
No offense to anyone in here, but I really don't care what most of you have to say. It's nothing personal, I just don't know you. Maybe it's a big mistake because I'm sure at least some of you are brilliant. I simply don't have the time to read hundreds of threads from hundreds of strangers. It's nice to reshare a post so that you and your friends can talk about it. By posting this, my notifications are going to light up for the next few days, and most will be posts that are irrelevant to me, tangents, or side arguments. I see commenting on famous people's posts as very similar to having a serious discussion in the middle of a speed dating game. It's not very conducive to conversation when you can't even keep up with all the posts. If I have the time, I'll read the comments, and I'll follow interesting comments to the profile of the person that made them. If I like what I see, then I'll circle them. In that way I'm not limiting myself to the few friends I already have, but I'm also controlling the amount of time spent in comments.

I also see it as Julian's choice how he wants to handle people in his circles. If that's how he wants to manage them, then it's his right. There is no point in being here if you are annoyed by everyone in your circles, and the easiest way to control that is control who is in your circles. I do the same thing, but not as strictly. If I see a bunch of uninteresting things, then I'll drop you eventually. On the other hand, I also don't just reshare without a comment. I explain why I'm sharing, and thoughts about what I'm sharing.
Oh definitely if your entire audience already follows a Robert Scoble - don't re-share those. 80% of my LinkedIn, however, either aren't on Twitter or aren't techie types. I'll post a link/article there. Also, if you're first out - or they hide Chris Brogan (like I do - excessive posting) you become the filter for them.
I'd retweet interesting ideas on Twitter, but I wouldn't share it with my cirle(s) on G+
With 20 million users (estimate) and 90,000 followers - also paying attention to my followers, many of them do not know +Robert Scoble - so :) I will share!
Nicely said and to the point Eric. To each his own as with all walks of life, share and reshare if you want to, or dont do it. Nothing´s wrong or right.
It depends which circle I am sharing the post with. I generally don't direct a share from a high traffic post to the same audience. +Robert Scoble >> You guys. Re-sharing is fine IMO if you are targeting the share at a group of people who wouldn't normally be exposed to said post.
As for sharing I have done it, but once I saw the nasty duplication problems I just reshare things of local interest to my friends, colleagues, and maybe business contacts group. If I don't have a point I would like to specifically bring up with people about someone else's content (like you are here), then I've decided to let sharing die. That being said I never heard of Robert Scoble, I saw twitter for a dead end road when it kicked off, so when all my friends jumped on it, I told them to have fun.

Why not just say trolls will be blocked in general. There are left wing trolls and right wing trolls, you just don't see the left wing trolls as active now as you did when BUSH LIED BABIES DIED boy was in office. Maybe he likes left wing trolls, personally I don't care for either. There is room for people with different views as long as they try and make a cogent point, and don't just re-share unsubstantiated unverified garbage. If you can't be bothered to hit snopes on something then I can't be bothered to read anything you post/share.
If your platform is suppose to serve 900 million ++, you'd need millions of testers. Otherwise, having a small subset of testers will not even come close to an accurate benchmark. 20 million is nothing if you look at the bigger picture.
Makes sense. I don't share famous ppl's posts because I figure others have read it. I'll save ppl the annoyance of reposts.
+Robert Scoble "he assured me that he's seeing a LOT of feedback from "average" or "new" users" That's nice to hear and is somewhat reassuring, but if that is so, then send him this "average user's" feedback: Why isn't it PAINFULLY obvious to us that this is true Vic? If this truly is a "beta test" and our feedback is actually important, where's the HUGE development update notice front and center every time I log into G+?

I get more dev info from the dude who started MySpace than I do from Google.
+Carmelyne Thompson "If your platform is suppose to serve 900 million ++, you'd need millions of testers." ummm... not for the TON of silly and obvious glitchiness that G+ is still suffering from. You don't need ANY testers for that stuff. You just need to bench test. You don't need any users to tell you that ignoring an intuitive interface is a bad idea.
+Carmelyne Thompson +Robert Scoble I guess the key word in Carmelyne's post is "benchmark" and, in that sense, I would tend to agree with her point, rather than yours which centers around feature changes during betas.
Robert, Adobe apps are desktop apps. Google+ is not. Would you need millions of users using Acrobat at the same time? That's not a good comparison in my opinion.
One other potential factor with the re-sharing of popular posts is time zone. Living overseas, I miss quite a bit of the interesting conversations that happen while I'm sleeping. So if someone re-posts at a later time, it might be useful.
Robert's point is still valid, standalone app or online app, single user or millions... early testing does not require 20 million users, and I maintain that it's pretty much ridiculous to even consider this a "test phase" at this point. It's launched, and it was launched dirty.
Plus this is the only way to find egde cases. I'm not defending Google (far from it). I appreciate their transparency. I agree that there are bugs but I don't think we should all get too upset that certain things don't work. This is not something that's set in stone. No one told us that this UI is final.
I agree With James... use the Facebook way. and do not forget this is The VIRAL WAY of sharing information in a social Network.. So VIC Sergei, Larry Be carefull in te way you deal with this Feature. Do not forget The VIRAL Internel. just my two cents$$$.
If nobody shares your post; no new people will get to know you. If you share too many people will get bored and frustrated.

I guess you only share the ones which you think are very good/nice posts.If you just have an opinion about the post you just comment on it.
Share what is interesting. I stopped following Guy Kawasaki because I only found his posts to be interesting in about one post out of ten. Now I only get the good stuff from reshares.
At the end of the day we own our circles. Well, we at least rent them from Google. If you want to reshare, reshare, if you don't want to, don't. There is a cottage industry already on G+ of people telling other people what to do and issuing one-strike ultimatums. I get enough of that in my real life, don't need it here. I'll share want I want and reshare what I want. Folks can choose to follow me or not.
If you don't have any thoughts or observations of your own to add to a subject when you are reposting it, do NOT blindly Share someone else's post. I've begun methodically *un*circling anyone who seems to have nothing original to say or contribute - not even a simple comment on the content they are relaying. It's not so much about duplication as it is about S.P.A.M. I don't need mindless, mute bots in my circles, thankee. :)
Considering that at the moment I don't have Guy Kawasaki or Pete Cashmore in any circles, I never see what they write.
I'd reshare stuff that I think should interest my circle of friends because it's impractical to know who my friends follow or unfollowed. Some of my friends had unfollowed Robert, but I know they would want to see some stuff he posted.

I think this is the job of Google to give us tools to mute certain information. Maybe labeled /tagged posts would allow us to say "show me more / less / mute of certain tags"
I share posts that I find insightful or provoking, my friends circle is less than 100 and I'm interested in what they think about the topics that I share. It would perhaps be better if there was a shorter link rather than the full blown deal showing just in case someone is following the same people. The bottom line for me is that I care more about what the people close to me think about a topic and sharing the posts is the easiest way to solicit that opinion.
I think sharing is OK. Being strict like Julian clears out the people you're following quite fast (and has its points as nobody wants spam - and spam is different for everybody).

But: Sharing is currently the only way I can share stuff with people not using Google+ - which is a huge plus for me. People post interesting stuff here but not everyone of my contacts is using Google+ yet.

Being able to write filters for the posts stream might be a way to handle huge numbers of updates. In the end it's only a matter of time until you follow enough people so that the stream gets unmanageable.
I find out strange that this post has even seen the light of day...most everyone is repeating someone else work...stories from other news sources which is repeating something that is already widely available, right? I find it just a little hypocritical to chastise everyone when the ones chastising are as guilty...
Share any of your stuff ? Only to fill up the white space on my screen..Seriously, I mean you have more followers than the other 97% of the community combined <grin>
Also because you or Guy or one of the others share a story first you somehow own it? No one else can share it? Really? Seems like someone is on an ego trip better pack clean underware. Get over yourselves...
I pick up some of my favorite new followers from reading your posts. Thanks +Robert Scoble
Ha ha, its a catch 22 isn't it. It was sharing that amplified all the silicon celebrity following numbers in the first place. If people stopped sharing popular people's posts, then their messages wouldn't reach as far as they do now, and their influence will drop (or at least their klout metric LOL )

The truth is Google+ is the first venue in which I am following +Robert Scoble . I am in the tech /social media/ ad industry, and I knew who he was, but I got his most interesting work through his followers. After all, he is just a guy with a lot of good ideas and opinions. Not all of them will be relevant, not all of them will be gold.

Long story short, re-sharing Tech Celeb tweets is a necessary part of the ecosystem.
I can agree in principle with that. I can see, however, posting a quote from someone's posting and linking or referring back to the post for more reading, as you might do with a blog or media posting. I would venture a highly educated suggestion that even if everyone follows the "stars" they don't read everything they post (I sure don't) and that all their ideas don't get read.
None of the people in my circles follow any of the four or five tech geeks I follow so when I reshare, it's to point them to read something I know they wouldn't ordinarily. That's the whole point of resharing, isn't it? If it clogs up the original poster's stream, then clearly that's a design problem for Google to solve.
+Sarah Jackson I could not disagree more. If my content is shared, and sparks a conversation elsewhere, all that does is build my brand further. Think of the hundreds of comments on +Robert Scoble 's posts. Do you think everyone has the time to read 200 comments? the conversation dilutes into opinions being listed rather than engaging conversation.

These satellite content, lets call them hubs, spark more engaging discussion. That is more valuable discourse for the community at large. Sure Robert's stats might not go up? But I don't think its hurting his following or influence. Do You?
What matters more to me than popularity is post length. If it's not obnoxiously long, and interesting to me I'll share. 
Who is +julian bond and why do I care? Who is to tell me not to share a friend's posts? Not some stranger.
Do you see how silly that is? Leads to no discovery and no learning, some of us have thinking friends whose posts we want to share. So I guess I will never be followed by +Julian bond
Please define "obnoxiously long". I don't judge the caliber of content based solely on how much I need to read.
I dont share your posts anymore. You are as much a brand content creator/distributor than a person and your reach is hitting a large group already. Sharing your content is just adding lots of noise to those that don't or won't follow you. 
I am in the tech industry, but very few of the people in my circles are. Re-sharing these posts are like echoes that are spreading to places you didn't expect.
I feel re-sharing is like forwarding email, unless you add value to it, the person may as well go direct to the source. So add some comments, opinion, i.e your thought on the post, and then re-share. Your followers may receive the content, but when it comes with your opinion on it, its makes it more personal
How I use all social media I need it shared.
Case in point, see my first comment. Too many comments on this thread eliminates meaningful conversation. All of the above comments are direct responses to the original post +Julian Bond +Robert Scoble - If Robert's post is re-shared, and new smaller comment threads are created, then more meaningful dialogue is spread.

This is good for the community at large, and is good for the original poster. When I want to cut down on noise, I read a circle that has few people that always deliver excellent and unique content. I don't penalize people (Especially those new to the social space , for over sharing. I might point it out to them though.
Regarding Scoble's "who follows me" observation, that static clustering may be an artifact of G+'s woefully inadequate suggestion pane. When G+ suggestions disappeared most of Saturday 23 Jul, I presumed they were improving the algorithm, or reindexing the entire corpus. Silly me.

Weeks back, I initially circled ~12 people with personal relationships (a la Facebook), ~12 more with tech connections (a la LinkedIn) and ~12 more whose names I recognized as writers I read (a la Twitter). At that time, G+ made 105 suggestions, few of whom I recognized.

By SEARCHING MANUALLY I've been able to add a dozen more names to each circle. AFAICT, the G+ suggestions have not changed in quantity or quality. All the same suggestions still appear. Although I've doubled my circled tally, that appears to have raised no new suggestions.

And (a feature Facebook stupidly ~removed~ last year) G+ appears to offer no way to REMOVE a suggestion WITHOUT circling it. No wonder people are all circling the same little clusters...
I'd say that if you're not following "tech celebrities" but are following +Robert Scoble it's a conscious decision that you don't want to see much of their posts, but you're happy to see the best things from them.

Personally I've got +Robert Scoble in a "Noisy" circle with a couple of other people so it doesn't overwhelm my other feeds, this way I can dip in and out of Robert's feed without losing myself in it.
Google could "improve" the native UI until they're blue in the face and there will always be people that are unhappy with some aspect. I think back to how Twitter handled these issues early in its inception and it comes back to 3rd party clients. The sooner there's a rich API exposed the sooner we'll start to see fewer conversations about Google+ on Google+. 
I've re-posted something you wrote, since deleted it though, and I have what some would call right wing religious views (I call it my faith and convictions which I've every right to share). I've no problem with someone deleting me for reasons they choose to. Personally I don't delete people for having views other than my own, I do however delete people for rudely belittling my views and mycharacter for having them...
I don't think we can confuse 92,000 people (and growing) with "most people" as there are millions of G+ accounts. So the whole resharing thing, while sometimes an annoyance, does tend to get more eyes on the original post and also serves to score you more followers. On Julian's statement about banning people who post things like "Bush this", "Obama that", or religious stuff - yes, I do the same thing. They go into a blocked state right away when they do that.
I've got lots of friends not in the tech industry who probably don't follow you, so if you say something I think most of my friends would be interested in, I'm going to re-share it.
Wow, not sure why I was following either of you. I guess you have done the one stupid thing and sounded so full of yourself I will have to un-circle you.
When someone says "I unfollow all people who post such-and-such" is it a way of (condescendingly) letting your "followers" know what type of things you dislike or is it a threat? Are you attempting to make it known what type of sentiments are not welcome in your corner of the world of cyberspace? Are you hoping that any of your followers who lean that way will realize that they are wrong and you are right? 
I'm certain someone has hit on this prior to my sharing but I'd imagine that the resharing could/should be done in "circles" that don't include the original author hence eliminating the regurgitation of information back to the source. I will say that a spell check option while typing wouldn't be a bad addition to the G+ system. It's nice to have the edit feature to fix things after the fact BUT how about something proactive that helps your weaker spellers stay on target. Just a thought... What say you???
Twitter has an interesting approach to mention that is somewhat copied here too: you only see @-mention to A from B in your feed if you follow both (or in your mention list if you are A). That way, if your friend B haggles a celebrity A you are not interested in, you don't see it, but you would if you are interested in her.
Here, you see comments from your friends first. It seems people are over-sharing, or at least their reaction are more visible than on twitter. Would a filter be useful?
By discouraging reshares, you're discouraging the foundation of G+... Discussion.

Some of my friends may have seen your post. Some may have not. Regardless, if I want to discuss, within my circles, a post you made, the 300+ comments from people I don't care about makes it pretty tough.

If I reshare it, there's no noise in the discussion. Sure, your feed might get cluttered, but that's not my problem ;)
This is just highlighting the power of an Agile development team. They develop what people really want and not what they don't care about.
I agree with +Maria Ysais and will be "uncircling" both as well. Arrogance and intolerance are things I do not enjoy. 
What I think is, Google+ should consolidate all shares tagging it to the original post with with the sharers own commentary. For those of them who like to have a private conversation maybe an option of Share-a-fresh or something like that
A much simpler and more compact form of Share (similar to new style Twitter retweet) would help - as several folk suggested. Many times I'd like to simply recommend a post without adding a long note. More importantly this would refer folk back to the conversation on the original Post, rather than forking a new thread attached to my Share.

On look and feel: the sheer size of the current G+ Share block with expanded comments is bulky and disruptive in stream - like freight train repeatedly barreling through rather than a series of quick recommendations. Particularly when the only Share cover note is "See this" or "Neat!" A new Share idiom that exposes recommended Post title/author/date - and maybe a short note by the Sharer would be great.
I think people concern themselves with other people's Streams too much.
"Marie: I was just thinking the same thing about you." yeaaaaaahhh OK might as well throw in a bit of foolish social ineptitude just to further propagate the geek stereotype. yeesh.
I'll add my voice to that of those saying we need a way to basically link to a post without forking the conversation. Pushing +1s to circles I select seems like the natural way to do this. That said I think it is still important to have the ability to start a new conversation with a new audience. I may not want to share my thought about something with everyone that originally saw the post. As for the duplicate issue I think it will diminish greatly when we can share without forking and their is the mute button for whats left.
There has only been a few times so far that I have seen repeat content. And that's only on the main feed.

How often do you simply post public? I post public as well, but I also focus some content to certain circles. Doing everything public simply feels like Twitter to me and that's not what I want out of Google+. If I want twitter I will go there.

Plus, there are 20 million here now right? Do 20 million have you in their circles? If not then not everyone will see everything you say, so re-share should remain as an option.

I can see your point to some extent and maybe there needs to be some tweeks, but sometimes you come across as bragging about how awesome it is that you have so many followers and the real issue becomes a side note.
hahaha you have a weird idea of fun Robert. But hey you have 92,000 readers and I do not soooo... ;)
+Robert Scoble : nope, when you reach "mega-popular" status, you have to lose "right to have fun" to make room for more ego. ;) Mo' followers, mo' problems.
Well +Robert Scoble , I don't follow you, because every time you have something smart to say, it gets shared by people I follow anyway :)

And now I have to get ready for the torrent of notifications "xy commented on a post" :D
I'll reshare posts in these cases if the subject might be interesting to my non-techie friends and family. They're probably not following any of the usual suspects you mentioned.
+Robert Scoble I love your content. It's fantastic. I don't reshare everything you post, but I think if it were facebook and you were my friend, I would be more concerned with repetitive posts because you just "say what's on your mind" which is a public post to all your friends essentially. On google+ I can choose who to share it too. I can actually THINK about who I'm talking to, rather than just shouting, as I feel like I'm doing on facebook.

However, I do think that you bring up a REALLY great point. You're quite the followed individual and I have seen a few posts that have been heavily repeated. But that is usually just an indication that it is a good post.

I also think that this can be rectified but utilizing your Streams. I often click on my "Elite" users Circle because they have the BEST content. But it is often repetitive and I just get to scroll faster.

My Tech Circle, similar because right now a lot of the Elite users Circle are in my Tech Circle as well and follow each other, but if i'm looking or really interesting content, I go to my Interests Circle. They're not really well known people. Some are just close friends with amazing talent for great online finds, but few posts are ever repeated. It's a fresh look when I want one.

A combination of possible filtration of EXACTLY replicated posts. IE usually reshares with no comments, could be a simple way to avoid some level of spam. That, common sense and the utilization of your circles as I mentioned above, I think, would alleviate most of the duplicate posts and "noise" people dislike and I fear will migrate from facebook.

Thanks for the great discussions. I won't stop following you.
By the tone of his post +Julian Bond seems to be a Circle Nazi. I'm gonna stay away, just in case :)
On G Plus I do not share posts to the Public. Seems silly.

If I find anything really good, I might share with an individual or two. I do use Plus1s generously when I agree or like a post.

I also commenting very selectively as comments trigger endless notifications if I don't turn them off.

On Twitter, I share NYT stories because I know that not everyone can afford to access the full NYT and I retweet things that those who follow me may miss, adding the hashtag #in when the story is appropriate to share on LinkedIn.
+Carl Van Rooy > I'm just curious how a unpopular photographer gets to become a popular one. How does one get noticed on Google+?

Not so different from the real world I suppose. Do you read by chance? Some good ideas there on self-promotion. What kind of attention do you want? Just want views or work? What kind of photography do you do? (art, photojournalism, commercial, sports, documentary, wedding, something else?)

Basically on Google+ you can follow potential clients to a circle and hope they follow you back. Then post your work to that circle so they may see it. You can also write engage them in dialog by writing to them. Another good idea is to promote the work of other photographers here that you like and hope they may do the same with your work. Sometimes you have to give a bit - like retweeting posts on twitter - to build up a bit of good will with others.

But ultimately there's no magic formula, or everyone would be doing it. Instead many talented and hard-working photographers around the world are struggling in this very over-saturated industry at a time when budgets are still tight.

Ultimately it boils down to having a bit of skill and talent, having a unique voice and work that people like, marketing yourself well, and - like anything else - a big dose of luck. The world runs on people and how well-connected you are can make a huge difference.

I don't see a link to your photography portfolio here in G+...wouldn't that be a start?
Don't see the problem with sharing, as surely you want your opinion or view or joke or photo or video to go to as many as possible otherwise you would have only shared it with one or two particular circles.
I don't believe in "one strike and you're out" for our goverment, our laws, our education, and certainly not social networking. That is a "reaction" and not a "solution". Patience people... we've got to work together with Google to find a solution and fix this before the newbies abandon ship and stay on facebook/twitter.
With all due respect, the vast majority of people I associate with have absolutely no idea who you are, +Robert Scoble, and they probably haven't heard of or care about +Julian Bond or Pete Cashmore or Guy Kawasaki. There are GAZILLIONS of people who use social media, are involved in tech, love tech, want to play with tech, who just don't know about or care about the "pluserati" or whatever they're calling you guys these days. I'll share what I want to share, post what I want to post, say what I want to say (although I generally don't troll left or right) and if you guys don't like it, well I guess we'll all just have to suffer the slings and arrows of being un-circled/un-followed/un-friended by the Internet Genius Gang.
I CAN see what Julianne is getting at, but honestly I do reshare the posts that I personally find interesting. I don't know if that alone is basis for thinking someone is Spamming. Taking a minute to actually look at their profile and other posts,however, might be a better way to make that jugement call.
+Max Hodges Thanks for the advice. My portfolio link is in the links section of the About Me on my profile. Am I missing another spot where I can input it? I am a bit of an up and coming photographer. Right now I mainly do Architectural/Landscape but I am looking to broaden my range to portfolio/wedding/or just about anything else I can get my hands on knowledge concerning that field. However, I do understand how to market in the general sense. I was just trying to get people's advice concerning Google+. Thanks again.
I think the peeps at google are smart enough to figure this one out for us soon - with Scoble's help of course. In the mean time I don't think that we need to deploy the g+ Gestapo... people should be able to share whatever they want & get un-circled if need be from "social" snobs.
Even if they are already following you many posts drift by in the timeline unnoticed so resharing is appropriate. Best thing about Gplus so far? The are a lot of people who don't know who the digital elite are and they don't care. 
I read a tiny bit of what you write. If I repost I try to add my own opinion. But I've already uncircled +Julian Harris Bond, so I'm thinking of nothing but cat animated gifs to make sure it sticks.
If I had to make a one strike and your out policy it would probably be for people who post HDR photography.
I do see the method to your madness in creating these posts. I also want to thank you for re-sharing in a way that is productive. You gave me a base of interest for me to judge before visiting the persons official profile.

To just re-share without any flair so to speak, seems a little lazy. I want to know you as the sharing person invested some time on the content as well. I want to know why it interested you as the sharer. That is why I follow you sir ;)
I was schooled early on that my dogmatic views about how OTHERS should use social network came from a limited perspective. I do still retain my own simple rules on why I might stop following or reading someone on various of the platforms.

One that I'm considering on G+ is that following highly popular contributors seems to dominate the stream to the extent that I don't see my own friends. I use Twitter for general purpose reading, and domination of the stream there is innocuous -- easily handled by using filters.

On G+ I think I want to see more of conversations with people I actually know than miles of interactive trade-rag content punctuated intermittently with content from my real friends. OTOH, here I am in this conversation thread.
I would share this but I don't want to get uncircled. :) How must +Robert Scoble feel seeing himself over n over and having to sift through his own stream of contacts with hundreds of his same posts. :)
I only repost technology stories, so I won't do this one. Wanted to let you know that most of the people in my circle who are interested in technology do not following you, +Leo Laporte, +Kevin Rose, +Veronica Belmont, +Cali Lewis, etc. I could go on... Therefore, I don't feel bad at all about reposting a tech news story. Have you used TweetDeck to do keyword searches for tweets? You wanna talk about trash and repeats, start there. I don't have a problem with everyone repeating things. Even on Facebook this Saturday I saw most of my friends talking about Amy Winehouse. Doesn't bother me.
I wonder if there's a way to share just the link to the post rather than the entire post itself. You obviously should comment on what you share -- the only reason to share such a big post would be to add your own take to what the person is saying. I have no problem with re-sharing, but hopefully people will use it purposefully.
And posting threatening manifestos about whom one will and will not allow in circles. To coin a word: Plonk. Let there be coffee, it will be a long week.
You are my favorite mega-popular person (if you don't say so yourself).
We got some whiney bitches on this here google+ about sharing. There is no way to know how or who or what someone likes to be posted or shared. Then you got people bitching about it. Seriously? "im going to unfriend you if you post even one animated gif" then so be it you douche! I guess you're gonna end up with less people on your list.
The service is still less than a month old. Surely they're still playing catch up on some of the scale-able issues that comes with something like this.
I don't doubt that they'll figure out how to avoid double postings in your stream pretty soon. I imagine a singular post appearing with a "share by these people in your circles" tag or something.. some day.
Hide the shares from people who already have the original post in their stream, simple. Or maybe shorten shared the post to a link for them and only the description being available above the link.
Or, make google+ smarter so that a share block if they are already following what's being shared. It's amazing how many people reshare Emily Changs news items!! Or maybe reshare should be eliminated. It only makes sense in twitter and less so here in g+. 
Sharing allows you have a conversation of your own on a related topic with people in your own circles.

Re-sharing for the sake of re-sharing is stupid. They should just follow you. But if you have something to day, I would say it's fine to add a comment to your share.
+Robert Scoble I think it's great that you read and reply to these comments. Usage tip: be sure to +mention the people to whom you're replying instead of just using their first name. When we comment on your posts, we have to mute them, otherwise the comment notification dominates our G+ experience. +Mentioning them is the only way to actually see your replies.
+Vincent Lowe >One that I'm considering on G+ is that following highly popular contributors seems to dominate the stream to the extent that I don't see my own friends.

Solution: switch to another stream when that happens. Google has already given you the tools; you just need to think about how to use them.
G+ could be set up so that if a user's stream has two or more duplicate shared posts it combines them to one. The loss might be the ability to comment on one individual's posts, unless a creative solution presented itself.
Eventually, when my stream becomes more busy, you'll be one of the first people I remove from my main stream - you produce too much for me to keep up with, Robert, and that's fine right now but eventually it'll be overwhelming. At that point I'll only see your posts if someone I follow thinks something you wrote is worth sharing, as +Sophie Wrobel noted.
Its true most people in the tech industry are following people like +Robert Scoble but some of us have a large portion of our social graph that isn't in the tech-world, and in those circles tech micro-celebrity isn't well known. Sharing your content can be really interesting and valuable to a wider group!
Interesting. This shows how particular the individual is, when relating to content or people, using the web. Each one has his/her own perspective about the code of ethics, and what is particularly interesting... that said I believe that responsibility and feedback about procedures will point out the way, because tech is allowing too many options for sharing and voting
I have three circles. If they reshare a post, I only let people stay in my top highest-quality circle if they add context and value to the original post. Otherwise the kinds of things Julian is discussing instantly gets people demoted one rung down, and they get less of my attention.
There are many annoying things when you are part of a community, but if you are out there in the social media you have to be more tolerant of other people's way of going about their (social) business. Also, an ultimatum like this one voiced by +Julian Bond would only make me want to unfollow him. He is full of himself...
I see no wrong in sharing a thoughtful post from a mega-popular guy like +Robert Scoble Some of my followers may not know who he is, or may count on me to winnow only his most important posts. I expect the G+ team to eventually unify multiple posts in the streams. Diarrhoea-prone posters like Pirillo and Kawasaki can be annoying. I have them corralled under Chris & Guy, which sort of sounds like a bad TV show from the 80s. +"Xeni Jardin" got kicked coz I am really not into animated gifs of kittens.
And I confess don't like to see CheckIns in my Google+ stream.
Hey +Robert Scoble,

I found this pretty cool. I went to my profile, and Viewed it, as if I were YOU. (Also a sweet feature Google+ Nailed)

To my delight, I was quite pleased with the eclectic variety of posts you might find (IMO). So I really think that if you think about who you're posting too, and what you're posting, Circles and viewing by Streams, really will do the filtering necessary.

Just thought I'd share that.
Hmmm. +Robert Scoble you have millions of followers? There's 20 million people on here at this time. Since the top players are only at 100,000, I'm going to continue to share useful information.

Until +Tom Anderson has everyone added ala MySpace :P that is.
It is all a matter of personal preference. As "The Love Linguist" the choice of words to illustrate any preference or point shows attitude. Terms like "policy" and "lenient" are very strong and although I am not interested in Farmville myself, I do personally know the creators and can appreciate that this game is an activity that some people like. I appreciate Guy, Scoble, Pete, Kevin, Tom, and others. There are no perfect people therefore there is NO PERFECT STREAM on G+, FB or any social media environment. My focus is to give what I like a #LikesUP and share. Sharing does make the world go 'round.
I don't repost your's or +Chris Pirillo 's stuff. Too many complainers for both of you guys. I find my own shit to post. The very fact that so many people here are crying about duplication, Google really needs to install some kind of filtering here to cut down on it instead of the self righteous asking people to self moderate. Good luck with that one. Also, fanning the flames of weak post does nothing but make the authors of these weak rants feel like they've proved something. Stop doing that Scobes.
+Robert Scoble - I've struggled with this as well. I've seen certain posts with great information shared multiple times, but then I realize there are some people who follow me who look to me for information and I feel compelled to share it.
Watch 24 hours of TV. Count the ads for Coca-Cola and McDonalds. Everyone knows those brands, right? So why advertise? But the answer is obvious....which makes me wonder why you asked a question you know the answer to?
Ditto +Jen Reeves - I think it's very simple why some people would re-post things from very popular g+ personalities. I work in the tech field, and like most of my fellow g+ early-adapter nerds, I follow all of the people mentioned as a part of this conversation. Many of my friends and relatives though, while they are somewhat interested in tech gossip and so forth, are not going to 'follow' Vic Gundotra or Robert Scoble. So, naturally, like Jen said, they count on me to pass on the more interesting posts to them, just like they do for me relative to interests I am not so deeply invested in but happy to stay basically abreast of.
Well +Max Hodges I can easily see how to use my circles to create more focused streams, but my point is a different one. I already experience streams in Twitter that are mostly unreadable because of their volume. I'm saying here that I think I may curate my G+ stream a bit more unless it becomes clear that heavy content contributors cease to write to the Twitter timeline.

I actually believe that as integration begins to take hold, that top contributors will easily write to the major epicenters of readership, and we can each choose how we'll want to see them.
For me one of the best things about circles is that we can each essentially make our own policies and rules. If I don't like continual re-posts then I can just remove that person from my circles or I can ignore it depending on my mood that day. Social media is a constantly evolving beast - Google+ is just rapidly increasing it's evolution.
Google+ just needs to collapse the multiple posts in a stream down to one like Facebook does and all is good.
"Julian brings up an interesting point. Should you share a mega-popular person's posts? After all, most people will see what I, or Guy Kawasaki or Pete Cashmore or Vic Gundotra write. Won't they?"

In a word, "no". :)

You currently have 92,084 followers. The last time I checked, Google+ had something over 18,000,000 members. At the very best, your posts might reach 0.5% of the general population, but probably less. I certainly wouldn't equate that with reaching most of the general population, like you just did.

I can easily understand why someone might want to repost one of your more interesting posts, for the benefit of the 99.5% of the population that doesn't follow you. :)
I share your post because my friends do not have you or the other popular journalists in their circles. If they did, I wouldnt share it. Plus if I shared it once from one of you, I don't share it again. That feature showing who we have in common, really works :)
Geez, some people take this whole thing a wee bit too seriously. Come on people, social networking is supposed to be fun! Blah, blah, strike and you're out. Lighten the hell up. And animated kitty gifs FTW!
What's wrong is for the Internet "Hive" to just pass a long (quote/repost) an Idea, without attributing it to an Author/Human Being; how you do this is up to you.

If you break the currently accepted social media etiquette, you'll know soon enough.

For some, social media is indeed fun; for some, it's part of their business strategy........herein lies both the controversy and the arguments.
I would revise that to 'everybody who WANTS to see my posts will see what I write, won't they?'
Totally agree with some of the views. It's a bit pretentious to think that someone's post is accessed by everybody. This is social media, so don't take yourselves too seriously. You are not that important when the Internet connection is down you know...
Here's my two cents. Honestly, don't follow a person you don't want to. I follow only the people I want. i.e. my friends and probably a few popular people. If my friends do stupid stuff, I'm not going to unfriend them. Because they're really my friends. Not some faux friend that I don't even really know. I think that's the problem with the internet. No one really knows what the word "friends" really means anymore. It's been distorted into a crazy relationship. I'm sure this will piss off someone just because it's out there.
geez! this chick +Julian Bond is a tight ass! y'know... the ban hammer works both ways - someone's gonna be THAT hard, its better to know that early on - save you a lot of trouble later...
There are 20 million people on Google+ in the US alone. You don't even have a million followers. If the post is good enough, it should be reshared.
I'm with you, +Robert Scoble... certain things shouldn't be mass shared especially if you, +Guy Kawasaki, +Pete Cashmore or +Tom Anderson post it originally. There are a couple people on + that only share other posts. Instead of blocking or muting them we should be able to mark them as spammers.
I would like to assume a real reshare of a post from someone already in one of my circles would notify me again. Maybe it is in my stream, but not something I am notified of? That's really not the case?
Why not just unfollow? What is the big deal again?
I'm with +John Koetsier I think it's ok to reshare as long as you're adding comment to it and not doing it blindly. But I must admit it's tempting to be "blind" at times. :D
This is similar to people trying to police old-school newsgroups, online forums, etc. What may be spam to one person is content to another. It's a free and open sharing network, if you don't like a bunch of sharing, maybe it's not for you to be a part of. I think this sort of attitude is the same as trying to tell people they can't drive down a neighborhood street and just use an online street-view program instead because you don't like their car on your street. Live free and be free.
I think it's still funny how people are STILL TALKING about how horrible facebook is... You're already here! Stop complaining!
I can understand re-sharing something you're incredibly interested in if you're going to add personal commentary on the subject, in hopes of expanding the discussion with unshared members of circles...but not just for the sake of re-sharing.
Would be a nice option to share to those that have not already seen via their circle. Google helping to remove stream clutter.
I share what I want to whilst trying to refrain from being spammy. That being said, I'm always soured a bit by posts like Julian's that seem to imply that if someone choses to unfollow me, it's because of something I've done wrong and should change. I'm not here to bribe people to follow. Follow if you like what I have to say, unfollow if you don't. I'm not for everyone and I'm no unique snowflake to think I'm an exception. 
The point of sharing is that you find a post so important that you feel it merits a wider audience.

If you see a message like that, I'd say that you are being neglectful if you don't share it. The fact that this is cluttering up your stream is the fault of G+, not the person sharing.

The system needs to handle that somehow. If I already have a post in my stream, and someone shares it to me again, it should have a small indicator that it was shared to me on the post that already exists in my stream. If I want to click that and see who shared it, fine.

I find most commentary when sharing to be useless. Disable it entirely. Sharing is sharing. If you are sharing, then it can be assumed that you find it interesting or cool. I don't need a message when you share something actually saying "this is cool".

Make it so that sharing keeps the original comment stream, as well.

Also put the comments with the most +1 up that people can plus them again if they agree, rather than thousands of people repeating the same comment over and over.

For posts with large audiences, there needs to be a different response interface than this flat comment stream. Maybe some hybrid with Google Moderator.
YES! If you're actually going to add a comment with some unique analysis/commentary. This would especially hold true if you're reSharing publicly.

YES! If you want a separate, private discussion thread on the topic.

No...if you're highly confident your circles have seen it. Take, for instance, Amy Winehouse's tragic death. Simply forwarding on the news story with no commentary ended up with what you considered annoying noise after the first couple. But, if I'd Shared it and included some commentary or personal insight that contributes to it, you might find it more interesting.

I think the power of G+ isn't simply sharing, it's the follow on back and forth. So Sharing a link or post provides context to your post, but hopefully something original is added otherwise we're all simply photocopiers.
You're thinking it wrong again. No, everyone will not see your posts or those of any of the people you named. Literally NONE of my friends know who any of you are, as disheartening as that may be. If I don't share it, they'll never see it.
Christian, same thing here, too much personal stuff and you are gone from my following. Loving Circles filtering too....
I agree with +Jesse Fleming. If you look back on the social model considered by the g+ team when developing the network resharing in many respects like going to a college party and getting a flyer about another event from someone, reading it, then passing it off to another friend adding how you're planning on going to the event. The person you give the flyer to may have already seen the flyer but not heard that you were attending.
if it wasnt for sharing i wouldnt know who you are. so it works for getting peoples names out to more people, but like anything...moderation is the key. some just re-share too much. but thats another topic...
Who is he really hurting by having a "One Strike" policy?
Julian sounds like a spoiled, self-important schoolboy issuing threats as to who is good enough to follow in his clic. Some people need to get over themselves.

Don't want me in your circle, then delete me and go on, but STFU about it because I don't care why or need your effed up logic in the matter. It's childish as hell!
Well obviously nobody should be worried about falling off the list of someone who can't stand kitten gifs.

I can understand not wanting to feed, groom, or clean the crap boxes of our feline overlords, but if you can't even stand looking at a picture of a fluffy creature which was, after all, genetically engineered to be pleasing to look may be in Dahmer territory, honestly.
+Robert Scoble this post is really about a currently missing feature in G+ .. if the system coalesced re-shares of content that i've already seen then nobody would complain about excessive re-sharing -- since you wouldn't see the same post multiple times .. just once, and somehow we'd embed the info about all the re-shares in the post, plus somehow we'd coalesce all the comments you should be able to see..

i think google will eventually fix this.
A valid reason to share a Google+ post is to fork the conversation thread into your own stream. This has as many pros as it has cons!
One could argue that if no one ever shared a mega-popular persons post, that mega-popular person would not be mega-popular. Even once they are, unless all 1.7 billion world wide internet users are following them, someone isn't see the posts directly.

And given that celebrities always seem to have more followers merely tech-popular types, I'd say definitely. Share away. But be aware of who may or may not have seen the original post.

(As popular as +Robert Scoble seems, not everyone has heard of him. Word of mouth is how such people gain popularity.)
If I don't see it has been shared by others outside the circle in which I find it, I will reshare it.
There's no such thing as too much publicity for your content and "most people" doesn't ever constitute enough people. Within my family group no one would ever hear what you or Kawasaki said without getting it passed on by me.
If no one had ever reposted something you wrote, +Robert Scoble , I would never have known you were here! I'm glad they did.
+Justin Long I would also say, sadly, that there are a lot of folks who know Scoble, but don't know Jarvis. That's sad, but true. I reshare some of Jeff's stuff just because of that.
If I've seen a post more than twice, I won't share, regardless of source. If its passed me 3 times in all likelihood those in my circles have seen it too, I feel no need to further invade the stream.
I don't share anything that you, Chris, Steve Rubel, Dave Armano, Guy or a handful of others share. I figure everyone is going to see it already. You've got a big enough reach already, I'm looking for smaller voices to add something new.
I believe that you have to think about what and how to reshare. If you, +Robert Scoble , write something very interesting I would share it with my network. However, after that I would be very hesitant to do it again for a while. The reason is that people who also found my reshare interesting would probably have followed you. If they are not interested, resharing more will not be viewed as positive.
I don't re-share your posts and those of the few ones that I put in the Giants circle. On Tw I can occasionally comment them or mention someone connected with their content
Os seus se tornam desnecessários devido ao alto número de seguidores. Outros no entanto servem para ajudar a divulgar uma informação importante e útil, dentro disso não vejo problema. Caso eu veja que há muita repetição apenas vou silenciar o fluxo.
+Robert Scoble, once Google+ reaches a critical mass that I'm happy with, I plan to uncircle the mega-popular folks and trust my engaged network to share the interesting things those people are sharing. This was my Twitter strategy and I am still happy with that. One exception is you because I find your posts interesting, not because you're popular.
the whole point is to IGNORE those"mega popular" people ;-)
Most people I know consider me to be somewhat challenged with respect to social media. That said, here's how I plan to do it.

If I come across something interesting in one place (Facebook, twitter, G+ circle, newsletter), I will share in the others. I try to always share at a different scope than the original. For example, if I see 'Public' in the g+ post header, then I share only to circles (limited). Likewise, if I see 'Limited', then I'll be more likely to go 'Public' (if I share at all).

I assume that anybody I've shared with has the wherewithal to start following the source on their own if they find it interesting or valuable, so I'll try not to share more than once from any given source. As much as possible I'll link to the source and include my own commentary by way of explaining why I've chosen to share.
If I reshare something from someone mega-popular I make sure to include a substantive comment of my own. Otherwise there's no point.
In the first week, one piece of etiquette advice I saw was "Don't re-share without adding something." If all you do is post links or share others' comments without adding your own input and inviting input from your own people, as +Andrew Girdwood said above. Also, I have friends (real friends) on here who don't know (nor care) who Scoble or Kawasaki are. They didn't join + for the tech news and views.
A normal user should not have to think about this when resharing.. This problem can be algorithmically solved: If I'm already following +Robert Scoble then any shares of his public posts originating from my circle should not be shown to me since I would have been presented with his posts.
I think reposts are fine so long as the post originator is included within it. (Which G+ actually does if I'm not mistaken) Why is this a good thing? To expose followers to Scoble who may not already know about him. In a sense, free advertising.
If we would de-dupe these shares, then I would very much encourage it. Seeing a count and a list of people (and their comments) who re-shared is actually interesting.
Google really needs to fix sharing. It is fundamentally broken as currently implemented. It results in forked comment threads and comes across as spam in your Stream.
is it really important that EVERYONE sees what you or another high circle count person posts? no! this is part of my frustration with G+, I want to by default see the circle of just my friends not all the noise you and +Chris Pirillo create. Yes its interesting at times but 90% of the time i dont want to see it.
I still share what I feel are important posts to my circles that I believe aren't following the same people I am.
The sharing process is the most critical feature improvement I believe can be made to G+. Being able to determine if I've already seen a post, and then find a way to notify me it's been shared with me by another friend but without cluttering my feed would be nice. Some sort of "aggregated" sharing that keeps a single post but identifies he/she/those who share it.
Wow! I didn't ask you to circle me. Feel free to un-circle me anytime you want. Oh and I'm pretty damn tired of the religious and political intolerance of the left.
i Cjay
Interesting post from +Julian Bond there, and you say you would un-friend, Un-circle, Block me if I inivited you to Branchout,Farmville or anything similar on Facebook....Would that also include spammed invitations to Ecademy in your Gmail inbox? I'm just saying cause everybody loves funny animated gifs every so often.
Many rely on resharing for information. I know many of my followers do. Not everyone is a geek or pundit, and they are perfectly happy getting certain information from others. That being said, while many follow the well known people on social networks, this, Facebook and twitter (even Buzz), are a "you have to be here when it's posted" the first time. Otherwise, you may miss it. It disappears down a stream and sometimes stays there. I've missed MANY posts and only caught them on a reshare.

Regarding the noise, maybe I'm underthinking this, but would it be too difficult to apply a fix that when someone mutes a POST (reshare or not), they never see it reshared again?
Almost no one I know reads Scoble (and at least on FB, about 1/3 of the people I know are in the tech industry, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that few have migrated to G+ ;) ). The next time someone I know reposts Scoble will be the first.
seems a bit precious. between you you have 200K followers, which is <1% of Google+ population. and I never heard of Julian Bond before today. influence in the online word is still very dilute
i think you're overthinking things.
I tend to act like a filter for people. I don't actually know many people that follow you industrious noise makers directly. However, when I find posts that will be of interest to certain people I share the post or link to it depending on the needs at that time. In effect the mechanical turk for what we all hope Google will integrate at some stage - a content filtering system.
Isn't the whole point of circles so you can manage who you see content from? G+ doesn't need to find a solution for re-sharing of popular posts because they already have one... circles... Put the people who annoy you in a different circle, and then you don't have to see what they keep posting. Am I missing something?
If Resharing would work more as Retweeting I would... but mostly if you make a good post I'd just +1 it.
If you share, re-tweet etc etc, should be relavant to your audiance or of much importance to the general public. if not why bother?
The Circles work well for targeting a specific audience on a specific subject matter when applicable..
I think that +Robert Scoble lives in his own tech bubble and uses services in ways which they weren't originally intended. (This doesn't mean he's doing it wrong... just different.)

Example: Robert believes that lots of people follow him, so what's the point of re-sharing his posts? "After all, most people will see what I, or Guy Kawasaki or Pete Cashmore or Vic Gundotra write. Won't they?"

News flash: lots of us have friends and family on here who run outside the tech circles and don't have the faintest idea who Robert Scoble is. Never heard of him. Never heard of Leo Laporte, Kevin Rose, or any of the other cewebrities. You're celebs on the internet, specifically in TECH circles, not mainstream.

And so, when I read something that Robert writes and I think it's relevant enough to share with the larger audience--the non-tech folks--I will share it if it also resonates with me.

+Robert Scoble: come back down to earth every now and then and realize that not everyone on here is a technophile like we are. Also, I agree with Kevin that your signal-to-noise ratio is so high because of the way you use the service. Your use of the service is dramatically different than most. I think most of us are probably seeing very little to no duplication and the S/N ratio is quite alright. :)
I unfollow people that repost your stuff too much.
Maybe "most people" see your posts, but I have a tiny percentage of your followers. There are 20 million people here. I'm getting to a very small number of them.
Good grief... this is why I never follow "mega-popular" people... only commenting because someone told me about this post.. don't worry, I won't be back
There is always the timing issue. In about 1/2 hour, everything in one's Twitter stream disappears. So, for that reason alone, a RT of even a popular poster can have value. But I've found that my followers and your followers are different. I do not engender myself so much to the tech crowd; we are mostly filmmakers. If I see something you post that could be valuable to fellow filmmakers, I RT it, knowing that many of my followers don't follow you, and, of course, also might not see what you posted at the moment you posted it.

Even with 2,000,000 followers, that means there are still millions who are NOT following you (sorry). ;-}
"After all, most people will see what I, or Guy Kawasaki or Pete Cashmore or Vic Gundotra write. Won't they?"

I see three reasons to do it:
a) reshare specifically to a circle of people who don't follow tech/social media moguls (like family)
b) reshare with a comment to guide a discussion within your own targeted circles
c) reshare and disable comments and encourage people to join in the conversation.
I'm in the group that tends to recommend people, not to reshare a particular post. Mainly because I treat a discussion amongst the folks there as just that. I don't go running around in real life telling other folks about conversations I'm part of, calling them over to join in etc. In any event hey can get to read the original post a number of different ways. My contacts may discover the original poster via my activity and then see which posts interest them as they bubble up. I'm pretty sure that's how I stumbled across this OP +Robert Scoble.
The essential problem with Google + and Twitter, and to a lesser extent, Facebook, is that they are all user (and thus celebrity)-centered but people use them for discussing TOPICS, not as socialization tools. I think culturally, we are all doing it wrong. If we really want to discuss topics, we should use web technology that makes that efficient and interesting, not social networking tools which have the PERSON as the central focus. I have a vision of a tag-centered network like Google +, in which celebrities could figure large (as their posts would get the most comments), but which would do away with all this silly round-peg-in-a-square hole we are currently doing on here. No one is following Scoble to see what he ate for dinner, you read him for tech and startup news. These tools are not designed for this, but everyone seems to want to use them for topical discussions instead of going to Scoble's blog or a discussion forum and chatting there.
I think you should share whatever you want to share, and not try to figure out what your followers may or may not have seen. If you think it's important, share it.

I think it will get easier if Google+ evolves some type of retweet-style functionality or collapses comments. It really needs that type of thing fast.

With your post on real names yesterday, I tried something new. Rather than use the Share feature, I copied the URL and shared it as a link, saying this was a interesting post. I also deliberately turned off comments, so that I wouldn't fork out a conversation (didn't think that was necessary), and I'm pretty sure that's an easy way to share with it coming up only once with someone else's stream.
You guys are ALL new to me....and to a lot of my friends, too. I can't help but share.
+Sarah Jackson ( google needs to make the mobile app way better )

I agree with you on that statement. Content poaching is not cool, unless someone finds out how to track it well.

I'm sure my stuff has been shared beyond my network, I'd love to know about it and engage. Buy ultimately I share my content freely for all to share.

If I wanted to retain all benefit from my content, I might consider publishing it.

In the end it's a tough call. The web is all about sharing information, putting parameters around it will reduce sharing in general. And the poached content might never see the light of day.
Short answers: Yes you should. The normal people in our social graphs don't follow people like Robert or Vic. Our non-tech friends use us as a filter into what is interesting and important in the tech world. You're helping them if you share stuff that is relevant beyond just us geeks.
I think it's important to be selective and keep one's audience in mind when "re-sharing."
There's one problem here. You can't uncircle a person you haven't circled 'cause you care neither about this person nor it's content, but this person keeps spamming your "Incoming" due to not understanding how circles work and that they're primarily for ingress filtering. And I'm no fan of blocking; 'cause maybe in $TIMEFRAME the person in question might change attitude and start posting cat-content or other relevant stuff. Then you'd not see this due to the person having been a dick back in the fourth dimension.
+Robert Scoble +Steve Rubel +Pete Cashmore and the likes have something to say and share it publicly than of course we're going to share it. Context is always key, but my personal assumption (especially within G+) is that you'll be selective with the circles you share if a message is sensitive. Robert - You full on shared your PII (address/phone etc...) the other day. Kinda blew me away!
Sharing is Caring! How else would I find all the cool people to follow?
I want to know if the 16 shares were uncircled :P
I suppose, but a Scoble re-post every so often is OK. Hey, at least Scoble posts real stuff, instead of cutesy content that feeds his personal link farm. (meow)
Although I do follow you, as a rule (which I break here, just to prove it), I don't follow famous people who post a lot. I hope to read them thru human filters -- other people who hopefully curate them for me. But if no one shares posts by famous people, how will that work? I think just selectively posting something which you think no one should miss, at the risk of repeating it, is fair. Because on the flip side, someone IS missing what you think they should not be. And once G+ gets multiple shares noise in control, it should be a no brainer.
Should people share posts by a mega-popular person? YES.

...most people will see what I, or Guy Kasasaki, or Pete Cashmore or Vic Gundotra write. Won't they? NO.

It is a fallacy to assume that everyone's circles are the same. This is especially true of all specialty fields, and since Julian brought it up let's use IT as an example: the vast majority of the tech-savvy IS the 'tech industry' to their circles, so sharing a useful post to the tech-savvy's circles is definitely valid.

Further, you cannot assume that everyone is following a particularly popular person. Again, using the IT industry as an example, I can think of just two or three people in my network of physical friends and family members that would possibly recognize Larry Page's name, and probably none of them would be able to tell me who he is or what his contributions have been to the industry.

What's needed is an automated mechanism to avoid getting repeats. That would basically solve this non-issue. (I can't believe we're debating this anyway). But until everyone has every person that could possibly be considered a mega-popular poster in his or her circle, the only way they'll see these posts is if someone shares them.

I am not sure if anyone else has already suggested this in the thread above. But what I would like to see on G+ is - if I am sharing a post of +Robert Scoble, then G+ forms a temporary circle of friends common to Scoble and me, and asks me if I want to exclude that group in my post. That way, I don't have to worry about Julian un-friending me :-)
I don't follow all those people, so Feel free to share them!
Perhaps you popular people shouldn't share each other's posts, but personally I know plenty of people who don't follow any of you, so sharing a useful/interesting post is relevant to reach my contacts.

BTW Aren't posts like this just a little bit bigheaded? :o)
This appears to be a systemic problem (of repetition, instead of grouping all mentions in your stream). Hopefully the Google folks can figure it out & remove this issue entirely.
"omg, i just saw the same thing twice!!1! my eyes! my eyes! i'll never be able to use google+ again!!"

what if i want to see what other ppl say when they share, even if they're sharing the same thing? don't filter it out.
In the multiverse of social networks clear, concise and to the point arrangements until such time as an understanding of ideals and personal views is obtain. We are all, after all, buyers and sellers and so I'll empower all to share their views but that does not mean we need to be a voice to every immaturity or the product of irresponsibility.
+Tim Maly yes - personally I think this should be the default if you click "Share", but don't add commentary. It should look like a retweet. I already submitted feedback on this some time ago!
Irony appears to be lost on the 18 people currently sharing this post...
A really cool feature would be to have the option of setting G+ to automatically exclude a shared post from a person's stream that already appears elsewhere in their stream.

For example, if Jim follows Tom and his other friend Bill shares Tom's post with everyone, it shouldn't appear a second time in Jim's stream. Unless of course he wants it to.
Add a comment...