Shared publicly  - 
Love Google+ but it doesn't hold a candle to following #Oslo news today. I woke up and didn't leave TweetDeck pretty much the entire time. Google+ will be great to discuss it at some point but for fast breaking news and stories, Twitter is and always will be king.
Sophia Jennings's profile photoStewart Evardson (Sneckster)'s profile photoSarah Hamby's profile photoAnthony De Rosa's profile photo
I was glued to Google + the entire time. Twitter has a lot more volume but a lot of the G+ posts were filled with more detail. I think they both have a place in breaking news.
I heard it first thing and all day from my circles. It was up to date and fast.
I liked the G+thread myself.
the oslo circle i created today (which includes yourself) has been great for me from a 'foot on the ground' perspective..
Didn't even bother to open twitter, honestly. What for? The BBC reads it and sends it out for me, I don't even have to look for sources scanning those SMSs. And here were all the pics/vids/etc.
+Anthony De Rosa Completely wrong. Absolutely wrong. We immediately had access to a list of people in the area with live reports coming in constantly.
To each his own. I got my news faster and was able to scan far quicker than here on G+, posts here are too verbose, too long and not as frequently posted as news breaks on Twitter. It's good for longer form posts, but not for breaking news, IMHO. I don't just get major new outlets on Twitter, I get ground reports, video from people on the scene, photos, everything in real time. It's much more delayed here, if it even winds up here.
+Anthony De Rosa i hope Google acts on creating news brands/sources profiles before they do for corporates - they create content, provoke comment and generate interaction and sharing
Yes! Twitter is the "Right Now" ... The g+ is the "We have time"
I was greatly pleased with g+ today. Especially because events like this require more than 140 characters.
Good point by michele martin that we don't really have a good enough way of doing it in Google+ yet. I have a feeling Google will provide the tools to give the user the choice if they want the twitter feel or not.
I would never have been able to share all the info I have shared today on twitter.
+Anthony De Rosa well, maybe. But I want to know what happened, not having to untar a 300k char msg cmprsd in a tw so it fits. Besides, short sentences are always necessarily unprecise, which is the worst thing in news. I used twitter during the Libya thing and got to learn that it's the most secure way to be scammed. Mostly by the fact that expressions are so short people do not bother to add "unconfirmed" and the entire planet starts retweeting that Gheddafi just occupied Washington DC. Even if they actually LIVE in Washington.
I have to agree with +Lexidh Solstad and she was great reporting from Norway to the rest of the world. The public chanel has all the tags you need.
+Anthony De Rosa You're contradicting yourself. At first you said you "pretty much didn't leave TweetDeck" ... so how would know unless you were "pretty much not leaving G+" at the same time?

Tell ya what...try to fit this message that came across earlier into one Tweet:



"Oslo bombing news

create an circle with

+Anthony Quintano
+Alexander Nørstad
+Dan Patterson
+Guttorm Flatabø

Added this spark stream (working quite well)

BBC Live stream:
and here is a live stream:!id=42341" ==================================================================
G+ would work better for that kind of thing if there were what I call Public Circles, where people could sign into to get targeted msgs sent there
Without branded news sources and a large scale user base comparing user activity on Google+, in terms of breaking news, is like comparing the manufacturing capabilities of Tesla to Honda. How can you expect the timeliness of Twitter today on Google+?
+Jonathan A. You don't need that FB gear. Just put #Oslo in the search bar and you're on it. Without any silly admin deciding who is more in Oslo than who.
I thought the sparks on "Oslo bombing" worked quite well. I am just not interested in being glued 100% to a news stream.
Relative to the low spread which google+ has reached until now the speed and quality of news here are quite appreciably.
Brands are not allowed on Google+ yet, so Reuters will not have an account until we are told we can do so. In the meantime we have journalists who will post here on personal accounts.
+Dan Soto I don't want a message that long on Twitter, it would break the entire system. The idea is to have fast, quick, short and important messages. It's a news wire. Google+ has its place and is very useful but not in the same way that Twitter is useful.
+Anthony De Rosa This is how "useful and important" Twitter really is. Twitter is trash......trending topics of the day:

Captain America
+Bèrto ëd Sèra It comes down to who you follow and how much homework you are doing. It's not any different than any other place or even before there was any kind of medium to get information. It comes down to the person and how they do their due diligence. There's as much needed to be done on the messages here as there there to make sure they're accurate. That's journalism.
+Anthony De Rosa yes, if you use it as a private message board among professionals. But it's basically no use for the general audience, these days. We cannot know all reporters (and how to trust who) the way you do. So we need longer messages to be able to appreciate what we are given.
+Anthony De Rosa However...that message I post had plenty of information in that would have taken 3 tweets to get out..then we would have had to go back and find each one later instead of one, clear concise post with a lot of information.....
+Dan Soto but it doesn't help get information across the way a news wire would, you can't have big long messages like that to follow breaking news and fast moving events. You can use Google+ to discuss it later but it's not the same way you use a wire.
+Anthony De Rosa but we had an excellent mix of very short messages and long ones... what I'm saying is that G+ can do everything that Twitter does... but Twitter can not do what G+ does.... you can not refute that.
Twitter is great for breaking news but very quickly fills with RT'd posts so you get info being repeated as "fresh" for hours after the event. There are very few using G+ ATM but the clarity and continuity of timeline is good considering. No doubt this kind of world interest event will give Google some indications about future features... 
+Andrij Harasewych I guarantee you will find the same trending topics here when it has the same scale as Twitter, and at the growth rate here, you'll likely find much worse given the function of numbers.
Well, that's a calm way of saying get me out of your circles... lol. I just find it amusing that you are calling 140 character news feeds journalism. That's not journalism. And it's a bit insulting to real journalists, that twitter is what they have been replaced by.
Absolutely Anthony, from my point of view for just quickly gathering information Twitter is unbeatable. If it remains simple there's no need to abandon it.
+Anthony De Rosa yes, but what's the point in getting it? I mean, I do use SMSs myself, when I know who I'm speaking with. I can use twitter much in the same way get a list and lurk on what you guys tell each other.

But what's the net value? I either want to see (no mediation) then I look at the pics (most photographers in the planet seem to be here already, we had images way before the BBC even dreamed about it), or I want to read a report. Honestly, today there were 3 sentences one could get from twitter:
1) bomb exploded
2) guy shooting on a kid camp
3) guy arrested, he's Norwegian.

It's not a football game, there's not much depth you can get from reading short things. I repeat, I understand YOU need it. Seconds mean money to you, because it's your job. But I don't get paid for knowing things first, so I have other needs.
+Anthony De Rosa I don't do twitter, but during the day I saw lots of tweets on our Oslo g+ stuff and also on a few news sites. It's great bec it's portable and all that, but I agree with Emmett--more detail in the g+ posts. The two together kick some butt. Uh, that is, the two used together by a range of people in various places provide timely and detailed info to a broader range of folks fast.
+Bèrto ëd Sèra Exactly, i mean, how much faster do people really need information about something that, frankly, and i apologize now if you feel this is insensitive, but - its something that does not affect a vast majority of the people reading about it.....does the 10 second head start for an unverifiable <140 tweet really worth it when it takes 30 seconds to start finding out if its even true?
+Dan Soto Twitter should never do what Google+ does, it would make it useless, you need quick, short, actionable information in the form of a news wire. There's tons of value in what Google+ does as well as what Twitter does. If you dismiss the value of Twitter, you're only hurting yourself.
I think someone was able to succeed in being shocking in 140 characters on Google+!
+Andrij Harasewych I'd be insulted if I were a journalist by anyone who is dismissive of Twitter, since many journalists are using it to stay on top of what is happening in real time all over the world, many times based on what other journalists are tweeting. If you're not seeing this already, you missing a huge chunk of the value of Twitter. Perhaps you're just not using it in that manner.
+Anthony De Rosa Twitter is not a newswire....its a zombie machine. Let's just wrotely believe all information beause it's from a specific source, even without any kind of valid citations, proof, or well, any kind of supporting evidence...woooot.
+Bèrto ëd Sèra That's a fair point, not everyone needs a news wire on steroids, which is what Twitter is, many just need the news at a slower pace and with just the main points, not all the details. I would concede for some folks Google+ would be enough, the same way some people watch the nightly news to know what happened 8 hours ago.
+Anthony De Rosa Journalism is collecting and disseminating information, accurately, and responsibly. Making it into a race has devalued journalism, in favor of people sitting around and blogging about it from their own homes. It's sad, but it's what happened. And again, unless someone shows me some proof, i liken twitter to the homeless guy on the corner yelling at everyone.
I did not explain myself, I guess. I do NOT dismiss twitter for you (or for me, if it's about tweets from people I know and can judge). I'm saying that it's going to become a niche tool for you guys. And I perfectly understand why you need it and how and why you can tell lies from news. UPDATE: I thought you were talking to me, you weren't, so we simply agree :)
Can I also point out that we are 2 weeks into Google+? Remember twitter in '07? Who really knew what they were doing.
+Andrij Harasewych Many people use Twitter to do just that, collecting and disseminating information, accurately and responsibly. Again it comes down to who you choose to follow. You need to pick your sources carefully, just like anything else.

Twitter is a news wire, whether you like it or not, it simply is and you'd be hard pressed to find many that will agree with you. If you're not using it and you're someone who needs to be right up on top of things, you're going to be left completely in the dust.
I think twiitter is fluttering on more levels than I can count.
And even the trash on Twitter is a good indication about how the news in their importance are be weighted from the public.
+Anthony De Rosa Yes. People need to use the tools that are best for their circumstances and purposes. (That's why I don't have Twitter. I'm not anti-tweet. I just don't need it. Though maybe I should get a cell phone of some sort. ;-) )
Twitter is only "king" temporarily. My money is on G+.
Randy G
I watched my G+ news feed today and was way more impressed than my twitter feed
Hey, guys!! Why does this have to be a competition bet g+ and twitter? Jeez. We need them both. Each one is more useful to some people in some situations than the other would be. So? And I also like having a choice among i-net providers, and grocery stores, ,etc. Not too much choice but choice nonetheless.
+Anthony De Rosa besides the fact that at this point there are so many more users in twitter than there are in g+, what real advantages does it have that you do not see g+ catching up with once it is out of beta?
Why do you not see it becoming a "news wire on steroids"?
Berto, that's what I thought, but some posts sure sound like the game 'king of the mountain.' ;-)
+Anthony De Rosa But you've missed the point of your original message. You made a very bold statement that Twitter will always be king. But we have a new player in the field that can do EVERYTHING that Twitter can do AND much more. How can you make such a bold statement in the face of what you're experiencing now?
eh eh eh everyone loves his new toy, and Gplusses tend to religious views :) Me included, admittedly. But I'm aware of my little kid side, so I keep it at bay :)
+Bèrto ëd Sèra I love my new toy as much as the next guy, I just wanted to undersatnd his POV. As someone who basically did not use twitter, I am willing to listen to what the great advantages over this new toy I have are.
+Alex Balcázar hey, wait a sec, we are in the same team :))) Anyway, seriously. He made a mistake in the post, had he said "twitter is still the best *for a professional reporter*" most of us would have kept their mouths shut. He missed the part in bold, it went out as a general consideration about whose God is better and we all launched a crusade. He is actually right, from his POV. As we are from ours. I'll never go back to twitter again, but I can see why he stays on it.
+Bèrto ëd Sèra I never thought we were in dfferent teams:), and although some have, I very much did not jump on any sort of a crusade. Even if I had seen the for a professional reporter thing, I still would have asked. In fact, that is the reason why I asked. Because he knows what he is talking about. It was a question, not a criticism.
Anyway... I have a feeling us Google tribe are soon going to launch a Jihad against all tech infidels... and I don't know if I should laugh or if I should be scared. This thing is a community killer, no admins, no nothing, each of us cares for himself. And yet it's building up one of the most powerful tribal identities I ever saw in the net. Weird.
when it goes public us "earlies" will act as barbaric freemen, and name all invited people as half-free slaves :) Sorry, been reading too much Late Antiquity history books, lately :))
Berto, that sounds like rather a lot of fun. Close friend is a historian and will probably enjoy being a barbaric freeman.
lol... didn't mean to sound ominous or anything similar, but in a couple of years (if so), everyone will have forgotten any kind of "tribal identity" as Bèrto put it. If we haven't, g+ will have failed miserably, because it'll mean that it won't have reached the amount of poeple it probably hopes/expects to reach
LOL we need a version in Gothic, then... and you need an id under 25 million to be admitted :)
+Alex Balcázar maybe, or maybe we are starting a different period in history. I would normally think you are correct, and this is but a status symbol syndrome (pretty much like using Mac). But I have a weird feeling that there's more to the picture than meets the eye. No logical explanations for it, it's just an intuitive feeling of mine. And it's the reason why I overplay it until it gets simply a joke.
Alex, Berto, I suggest a proto-gothic version, in that case. I think, though, that early users (is that what we are?) will keep a fond memory of the good ol' days, and will retain our tribal identities, with which we will probably taunt our children and late-comers. Sorta like those of us who grew up in the 1960s. ;-)
Berto, Alex, yeah, there is a big dimension of status symbol syndrome with this now, and I agree that there's more to it than meets the eye. A different period in history? Could well be. We shall see.
Protho-gothic ftw. Anyway, most of us will be telling them newbies how it was in the old days and how incredibly cool it all was.
Like growing up in the 80's.
+Elaine Leyda Then we need wi-fi combs and a G+ haircut, plus bluetooth brooches in animal style 1 for females :) Cherniakov culture style :) We should also rename Sergey Brin into Ermanaric :)
Alex, I don't know what is ftw. Folks who grew up in the 60s still tell newbies how it was inthe old days and h ow incredibly cool it was. ;-) Berto, you've got it all worked out! G+ haircut! What is cherniakov and sergey brin?
ftw: for the win, as in "sounds like a great idea. Yeah, I know about people growing up in the 60's, but I was a teenager in the eighties... was just kidding
I will say this, though. I really wish that I'd had g+ when Hurricane Katrina wiped out my hometown (New Orleans) (I was living in Colorado then). Sooo many of us were hunting for people, and using Google earth to see how badly damaged friends' roofs were. Lots of helpful social media, yeah, but g+ would have been a huge help.
+Alex Balcázar Ah, I see! Hey, my sister and brother grew up in the 80s. Each generation tends to do that, I think. (But the 60s really did have the best music. ;-) )
I'd like to know what a "newswire" does, exactly. Is it a quick message to reporters so they know what kind of information they need to follow up on? If so, those of us who aren't reporters don't need that, perhaps. I wish to wait the extra 30 seconds to have that reporter give me the information he/she has uncovered in response to the newswire feed.

Or am I totally off on the newswire concept?
Berto, Ah, that kind of Gothic!! I feel rather silly for not knowing Brin. But I know now. Thanks!
+Elaine Leyda One can't grow up in the 80's and try to defend it as the best decade in music... How proud can one be of having been there when Duran Duran appeared?
+Carolyn Martin basically yes. Although I'm pretty sure there are people around here who would give you a much better explanation.
+Alex Balcázar if so, then it makes sense for Anthony to use Twitter/newswire and non-journalists or non-on-the-spot-reporters to use G+ or something else. Not really at odds, there. As someone else said, basically, different needs. Apples and oranges, +Anthony De Rosa , not fair to compare the two. :)
I see it as a beacon-to-signal thing. Twitter is the beacon, letting people know something is happening. G+ is the actual signal, with the deeper content inside it. They are complimentary. And this was the first real use of G+ in such a situation. Think about that...
completely disagree. G+ was the first channel i heard about the bombings
Lori-good analogy, and good point that this is g+'s 1st such use.
+Alex Balcázar Bladerunner! yea! Jeez, what a movie that was the first viewing! and second...
+Elaine Leyda with a profile pic like that one, I never would have told you liked Blade Runner. Surprise, surprise. :P
and +Lorie Johnson I think in the future, when many more people use g+, it will become a beacon in your analogy too
+Alex Balcázar ha! For several years after Bladeruuner came out, I masked as Pris each Mardi Gras. A good character.
G+ told me it was Islamic terrorists. I learned the truth when I turned on the television.
+Elaine Leyda Amen to that, I like both of them, I just feel in a case like today's event, Twitter is better designed to follow updates. Google+ is great for what we are doing right now, having a discussion that requires a bit more room.
I agree - kind of like using headlines to see what you want vs. reading and participating in commentary after you've read the story. Twitter is my main go to because I can absorb so much so quickly from it; and select links when I want.
Sarah, maybe you just didn't have the right folks in your circles. I haven't touched a television in months, but do keep up with online news, like NYT, BBC, Mash, etc. A terrorist expert in Norway said probably not terrorists, but some US media seem to have a h ard time digesting that.
+Carolyn Martin In a sense, yes. All the bits of information are clues to be investigated. They shouldn't be taken at face value, they're information that you can use to follow up on and use as a lead that after careful consideration and based on the source you can at some point make a reasonable assumption or outright confirmation to be a fact. As you noted, not everyone needs all that information. That is why Google+ is good for some and Twitter is better for others. I like both but like Twitter better for cases like today.
+Anthony De Rosa True dat. For me, sitting at work at my computer, g+ worked best. Glad there are both of 'em.
+Lorie Johnson That's a pretty good way to put it, Twitter is very much a signal and Google+ can provide deeper context and elaboration. Both are important and useful for different reasons.
+Emir Custovic It comes down to who you follow. I am pretty careful about who I choose to get my information from on Twitter and if you do a good job at curating your sources, you'll get better information. Twitter is a reflection of what is out there, so if you don't like what you see, don't blame Twitter, blame the filters you're using.
+Anthony De Rosa I don't want to be a pain, and in no way was I a g+ fanboy screaming heresy. I just wonder why you think that in the future, if g+ grows the way probably all of us think it will, twitter will still hold its ground.
G+ just doesn't have the penetration of Twitter yet… …and the subpar implementation of mobile does not help matters…
What will G+ do when Twitter or Facebook does an upgrade? But... I think soon Google will buy Twitter. I guess.
+Alex Balcázar I don't accept the premise because they are useful for different purposes. Google+ is unlikely to force people to post in 140 characters, so Twitter will remain a more efficient, faster, more actionable wire. Twitter's purpose will remain the signal, while Google+ enables longer form discussion like this. Verbose posts aren't easily scannable and useful the same way Twitter messages are, but they're incredibly thoughtful and as this thread alone demonstrates, a forum for rich debate.

As I stated originally, I love Google+ for what it is and it's not Twitter.
I stayed with Google+ the BBC and the Guardian live feed.

I went over to twitter which is what I would normally do but it was just noise, instead of the informed information and detail I was getting from my Oslo circle which I could control it was a lot of people like me commenting on the little info we did have.

I feel Twitter needs some way of having a 'local' hashtag so you have one for talking about what you are seeing on the news and the feeds and one for people who are actually there.

Being able to immediately see pictures and video was also a lot more useful than the links on twitter.
Quite possibly Elaine, though I did have to stop scrolling at around 10:30am Eastern. Was not all from US sources, citing events from 2010 and/or a relationship to Mullah Krekar. I found the presumption...interesting.
+Stewart Evardson Noise all depends on how you use Twitter. Granted, Twitter does not do a good job at educating people how to use their service in the most efficient way. I use lists to filter out noise and I am constantly trying to remove people from my main feed who post nonsense.

I think you'll find the same problem here as the size of the audience grows but at least they've forced us to place people in appropriate Circles to help filter.
Add a comment...