Shared publicly  - 
 
Nice article, I disagree with some of the "ugly" points though, re. limited sharing (circles) vs. resharing, and comments segmentation (see my comment there for the details; sorry for the formatting, the comment box says you can use HTML, but then it strips definition lists, and displays unordered lists without the bullets).
(or: Why Johnny Can't Friend) Google+ is, of course, Google's second attempt at conquering the world of social networking (or third, or fourth, depending on which of Orkut, Buzz, Wave, et al. ...
5
2
Nat Torkington's profile photoThomas Broyer's profile photoJeff Larsen's profile photoStefano Ciccarelli's profile photo
4 comments
 
As for myself, I don't disagree with the bad, but I don't think it's "that" bad either. Personnally I prefer seeing some pub that might be interesting that pub that don't and if giving away some informations about me can help, why not ? I'm just talking about myself here, but I'm not the kind to believe in conspiracy theory anyway.

By the way you gave good comments too and it will likely evolve even more in the future and all those "ugly" will fade away. At least, I hope :D
 
Oh, yes, forgot to say the "bad" points are not that bad; just added another comment there.
 
Thanks for the good points, Thomas. I agree that it'll get better--it is getting better, that's why I'm sticking with it. But I'm not enjoying using it as it stands: noisy and hard to filter, worse than Twitter in fact--at least tweets are short, but when everyone in my contacts reshares the same thing I see six inches of screen realestate per item. Looking forward to seeing the lean mean stripped-down G+ evolve.
 
+Nat Torkington You might want to add a comment to Dewitt's post then (see link in the comments in Radar), which was specifically about Twitter vs. G+ readability.

(thanks for commenting here, so nice that G+ enables such conversations seamlessly! –honestly, Radar's commenting system is a PITA–)
Add a comment...