Shared publicly  - 
Enjoy a more civil public discussion.

+Steven Vaughan-Nichols, thanks for noticing these features.
Tim Chambers's profile photoKent Falconer's profile photoAmy L. Horn's profile photoJoe Chang's profile photo
Wow that's like going Ghost Protocol. Didn't realise how powerful the block function is.
+Vic Gundotra Very seriously, kudos to the whole design team for taking the time and really getting it and implementing these features in a smart and timely fashion.
+Tom Rolfson I just flagged Scott's comment. That serves as a powerful signal to our algorithmic systems.
+Vic Gundotra I didn't want to flag it to leave it out initially as an example and so he'd see my comment. Hopefully he read it and will reconsider next time.
I love this feature. I have been utilising it from day one to help trim my stream from the likes of Bieber, Kardashian, Hilton and so on...

Now I have something that actually holds my attention and I find something interesting/intriguing every day I use it.
I can't help but laugh with amusement watching people come into Vic's stream and spam or make themselves examples of exactly what the story and Blocking are all about. "Digital Darwinism" at it's finest.
+Tom Rolfson It is hilarious to watch. I mean come on, if you are going to spam someone's account, mine may not be the best choice.
I also quite like the #mute function on posts. Means I can comment and put forward my views on important/interesting articles but not have to listen to never-ending follow-up remarks.

And if someone wants to rebuke or comment on my points they simply need to mention me.

Very well thought out +Vic Gundotra - kudos sir
It's a great feature, +Vic Gundotra

What's the best way to hit users spamming and counting to 500 on a certain president's post comments? Flag, mute, or block?
One of the many, many reasons G+ is my social network of choice.
+Vic Gundotra That's precisely it! Kind of like going into a Hangout and exposing yourself in front of Chee.

Jim Croce wrote:
You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
and you don't mess around with Jim

I'd rephrase that:
You don't troll one of Chee's hangouts
You don't spam on Google+
You don't tell Larry that you own Java
And you don't flame a stream of Vic's.
+Victor Abbott Would you accept allowing anyone into your business and yelling whatever they want? Would you walk away and put distance between yourself and someone yelling obscenities at you on the street? That's all this is.. the tools to protect yourself. There are MANY people on here who will have civil discourse. 21 years in social networking an I can tell you this is the most artistic, intelligent, respectful AND open-minded community I've ever seen.
+Victor Abbott ...I think he is talking about those idiots who reply with abusive words instead of debating decently
+Victor Abbott, please see +Preetham Selvakumar's response. It's exactly right. Civil debate is fantastic, but all to often these online forum discussions turn into crass abusive fights. We hope we've built in tools that curb that behavior and allow for civil debates.
Thanks for sharing this article. Never knew, blocking a person was this social in its effects.
Gotta love being able to "shut fools up", whenever it is necessary.
Hi +Vic Gundotra Is semantic network (purchased from IBM) concept is going to be implemented in the whitespace. Just curious about it!!
+Vic Gundotra but you still don't allow some people to post under their real name (Bruce Wayne) or allow women's nipples?
Is G+ really a place for adults?
and btw., give me back my "send feedback" button, because this new layout is basically as useful as the previous one (when you get used to), but there are few things I really want to complain to you about and I believe that I'm not the only one...
...I hope that you still do care about opinions of users.
+Gareth Owen the most annoying about it is, that for us, who are not from USA, this censorship of so called "nudity" is quite stupid.
+Petr Mazak In the UK, there was a national celebration when Samantha Fox turned 16 - the newspapers were then legally allowed to publish pictures of her topless.

Yet on G+ we have to toe the American prudish line.
+Steve Mcintosh because?
...because children can never, never ever, use google in private tab of their browsers (without "history"), turn the secure search off and search for whatever they want?
...because your religion forbids it? (well, my religion doesn't and religion of most of these girls also doesn't, so if you are forbidden to look at it, just... well, don't look at it)
...because your self control is so low that only picture of nudity makes you uncomfortable? In that case, no offense meant, you have a problem and you should go to visit some therapist

...or why the hell should it not be allowed?
+Gareth Owen yup, exactly... that's nonsense. I do not even believe, that whole American nation is so damage by this puritanism (and many of my American friends proofed me otherwise), it seems like huge hypocrisy to me.
a) nudity is not porn. It can be art (Michelangelo for example)

b) nudity can be on photos from vocation (many womens sunbath topless)

c) the fact that nudity should be allowed is just your feeling. Many people feels differently (without being damaged or nudist or other kind of extremist - they simply don't care and don't see any reason why to limit somebody who wants to be nude) and I see nothing what would give you the right to say that the world should behave by your rules

d) if somebody wants to share nudity, you don't have to follow him. There is no single reason why we, who don't care, should be limited just because you are not able to manage your own circles
+Vic Gundotra Now if you could only add a way to follow a stream without having to comment on it, that would also be very useful IMO :)

Oh, and I definitely agree with +Petr Mazak and +Gareth Owen - the whole "nudity is evil" thing is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY given the possibility of blocking / unsubscribing. I'm not a kid, it's demeaning to be treated like one.
+Victor Abbott , yes, anyone can block anyone for any reason. I think there are good and bad rains to block someone. Simply labeling someone as a troll, idiot, etc because they happen to disagree with one's views it's an easy way to keep one's mind closed. I like that the author's TOS allows disagreement but not incivility.
blocking idiot features that work.... That's just plain winsauce!
+Vic Gundotra ios app today has been telling me I am not connected to the internet. I think it's got an issue. Why can't it be smoother like Google Currents? At present feels like a web page
+Victor Abbott Everyone has a right to their opinion however when you start posting with intent to be an ass on purpose ... Free speech or not you get the block hammer. Just sayin... You would do it to.
Freedom of speech doesn't necessarily relate to duty of listening
+Victor Abbott , I would say freedom of speech is a very good thing -- it increases the mobility of information.

I'm not sure what you're asking with your question. If you're asking why people label others in order to shut them out, it's a defense mechanism. The brain responds to challenges to one's ideas, beliefs, etc as if one's body is under physical attack -- fight or flight. I would say labeling in order to ignore and dismiss is a flight response.
freedom of speech dose not include being rude and insulting, a person who has a good point doesn't need to resort to slander
A couple comments on this feature.
1) I love it, even if I haven't used it yet.
2) To see the list of people you have blocked, go to:
Circles -> Actions -> View Blocked
I wish they would have mentioned that.
3) It would be nice if we could set up a time limit, for example, if I block anyone, they only stay blocked for a month (or whatever I have set up) and then come unblocked. I can always block them again later if the persist. For some people perhaps a perma-block would be a nice option.
The option to block a person is a powerful and useful tool. Still, I've not found any real need to exercise it (only once, I think). That's because I've found G+ folks generally polite even when expressing a completely opposing point of view, and even then the emphasis is on making a point rather than being obnoxious.
Yes you all understand people so well,,, back in the forum days it was called the spite button.

Live in peace but block communication, well done!

Its like how many black people do I need in a circle, to prevent looking racists!
+Ricardo Beltran lo siento amigo no podre acompañarte, es tiempo de guardar .... lana. pero seguimos en contacto, ya me antojaste una jarra de cerveza y unas alitas.
+frank j Zbink actually... freedom of speech does include being rude and insulting. That's included in that word "freedom" - you can say whatever you want. It's the point of having freedom of speech, if you will think about it.
And there is no law about being nice (that would be pretty stupid law)

Of course, freedom of speech doesn't include protection against others to consider you as just another stupid jerk, it does not include guarantee to be invited into the discussion again, it does not include protection against being kicked out of the discussion or, in face-to-face conversation, being punch directly to the face.
+Vic Gundotra I like the conversation flow control on G+ but don't love it. For someone like me who's seen unexpected high number of circles from other people (Thank you, shared circles!), it's hard for me to create circles around topics and feel compelled to use them because: (a.) I don't know what circle to put these people in, (b.) the reshare button is unfriendly to content that's set to Limited, and (c.) I have to actually circle them.

Can we ever get a version of circles to act more like a group? Targeted topic posts but Public in nature.

+Victor Abbott , freedom to associate (and not to associate) for any reason is important. This is what blocking is all about (well, at least the freedom not to associate part). Again, there are good and bad reasons to block.

IMO, those that judge others because one doesn't have 'enough' black (or gay or atheist or ...) people in their circles is being prejudiced.
Totally off topic:
+Vic Gundotra is there any reason that new circles open on the "Randomly censor 25% of the things I want to see" volume setting rather than in the "Yes, I actually want to follow this person" setting?

I really don't understand the reasoning behind google assuming that when I add someone to a circle I DON'T want to here what they have to say. We can always turn the volume down if we want, but why should we have to take an extra step to turn it up?
Sean S
Is there a way to turn down the volume on a person that is too noisy in a Circle other than putting this person in his/her own Circle?
I've tried adding the person to a Circle called "noisy" so that he/she is in both Circles. I've tried turning up the volume slider on the regular Circle and turned the volume all the way down on the "noisy" Circle. This didn't work in keeping his posts from appearing in my main stream.
Sean S
If I get what +Pearl Chen is saying, let me offer this suggestion.
The issue with Google+ is that you can't "subscribe" to certain types of content from people. You may have an interest in photography and Circle a photographer but you can't filter the posts in your stream to contain only posts relating to photography. The person your Circle may post about other things unrelated to photography. Google+ should allow the poster to create categories. When the person creates a post, he or she can select which category the posts belong.
When you Circle a person, you can select what type of content (categories) you want to receive in your stream. The default would be to receive all posts. You would "subscribe" the same way you add someone to a circle: on the person's profile page, you would roll over the button and a box drops down for you to select categories.
+Sean S I do kind of like the ability to filters to individuals (heck, even circles would be good) such as
"Only show posts including one of the following words . . . "

The idea I have been pushing (aside from not censoring my circles) is that we need to be able to add info to people's "flags" in our circle.

For example, on +Vic Gundotra 's flag I could have "g+ product manager" show up under his name (I think that is right). This could also show up when I rolled over his icon. That would make organization much easier.

Right now, the only information in their flag is what THEY put in, but that may not (probably will not) describe their relationship to me. Naturally these bits of info would only be visible to me. I don't want to edit the other person's profile, just have a reminder as to who they are.
Evidently you don't share William Gladstone's famous comment " I suffer fools gladly"
+Vic Gundotra Congratulations to you and all your team for the new G+ design. I just fell in love with it.
I find many of the poor quality/rude/offensive comments come from those without a full G+ name, e.g. Joe B, and suspect if they were posting as their real full identity they'd be more civil in making the same point, just as they would face to face. What's G+'s current view on non-full names? Is it making any effort to encourage their owners to expand them?
Sean S
I'd love to use my full name but had to shorten my last name to an initial so that I could post comments without people I know finding them just by searching my name (my first/last name combination is rare so I'm easier to find). There are some discussions (religious, etc.) that I don't want people I know to find. If comments weren't indexed, then I'd consider using my full last name again.
Sean S
+Lora Leonard , what I've done was create an empty Circle named "Myself".
Thank you, now I can finally block Vic Gundotra posts from coming up in my news feed without having to reduce the number of popular stories I see.
+Bryon Leggett wrote: I think open discussion like this deserves the opinion of everyone, not just the opinions of those you personally agree with.

I never suggested censoring those whose opinions I disagree with. I welcome debate and argument. How else would I be persuaded to change my mind from was-right-then to is-right-now? :-) I did point out a correlation I perceive between "there all fugly, warez da hot chix" comments and lack of full name.

+Sean S, interesting, I understand the issue of having an unusual name. :-) I'd just choose not to enter into discussions where I wouldn't want to be tracked. You obviously don't mind your G+ profile being found by searching for your name; are you aware services exist to list people's comments? E.g.
What happens when a fool defines what a fool is, though? Disparate opinions are the root of open debate. You don't have to agree with me, but that makes neither of us a fool.
+Lou Farris, this is nothing to do with censoring another, please re-read what I wrote. It is to do with the self-moderation I tend to see in many arenas, not just online and G+, when one's real identity is associated with one's writing.
I'm definitely a fan of the robust blocking tools on Google+ - they have served me well, and I'm not a trigger happy blocker in the least. But when I have a reason to block, I appreciate that I have a tool that performs as it should and keeps this experience better for myself and the other users. Thanks +Vic Gundotra & +Google+ :)
Victor Abbott: "Wow so now I can block anyone who has a different view... Wow how advanced"
+Preetham Selvakumar: "+Victor Abbott ...I think he is talking about those idiots who reply with abusive words instead of debating decently"

Or perhaps Victor Abbott meant something like that:

Mike Elgan: "+Kristina B. Exactly. Or block people. I honestly want anyone who was offended by this post to block me. If people see comments they don't like, they should block those people. Blocking is a wonderful thing."

Since you can use the the block option for more than one purpose, even for adding a comment about a newly-blocked person or their comments under the post of somebody else without that person would notice (because they are blocked.)
Add a comment...