Shared publicly  - 
 
OK, and on Circles: I think that the correct number is three: super-private, close, everyone else. Beyond that you can just create "lists" which are like Twitter lists that you dip into, but in terms of broadcasting, you only need those three. Don't you? (He says, with 8 circles.)
9
Ben Tweedy's profile photomae eniola's profile photoRobin Riley's profile photoStephen Angell's profile photo
32 comments
 
Topic-based broadcasts can be appropriate. I have photography, bloggers, programmers, and foodies, for example. Also, I have a Local circle for people who... well, live close to me.
 
I'm still thinking of them like Facebook lists, and I think they'll be most useful for exclusion. "Post this for everyone I know professionally, but not those from that one job." "Show this to all my friends, but not people from work." etc.
 
I've created a couple of what I effective run as public circles that I invite anyone to say they want to be in. One is for Apple News and the other for UK Politics. Means I can tailor content for people who are open to a higher volume on a particular topic. I also have a circle for Christian friends/contacts and then a circle various collaboration groups. And then a few circles for the people whose content I want to read. 
 
16 circles so far (not including Incoming and Notifications). Things get messy when trying to manage people in two languages and 3 countries.
 
I've circles for people involved in the same business as me, people who live locally, people whose views on politics/tech/religion/etc I find interesting and informative, funny people, Twitter friends, and a killer circle called Never. This is for those who have me in their circles, and who I have added back as it would be rude not to. But they won't see what I post unless it's a public post.
 
No, I don't think different levels of privacy is the point, unless you only ever share stuff on one subject. As +Sam Radford mentions circles for different subject matters are where it's at. Haven't used it much yet, but I have a Chelsea FC circle so no one other than fellow Chelsea fans has to put up with my biased rantings. I have a circle with the other guys in my band to talk about band stuff. Once I've got everyone on my team at work on G+ I'll have a circle for them which should hopefully cut down on email and make collaboration on docs easier.
 
I agree that you can end up having a huge amount of circles but its very handy, as +Ian Mckee just said, to aim certain posts (or rants!) at specific groups. I also think the "sparks" section would be great if it suggested circles of people with the same selected interests to "spark" debate on that subject. 
 
Yet Clare's sharp questions must I shun
Must separate Constance from the nun
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!

- Walter Scott (a man ahead of his time, it seems)
 
I've got 10 circles but four of them only have 1,1,3 and 7 people respectively. It definitely needs to be a manageable number and 3 might not be bad.
 
I agree with keeping circles simple. Friends for real friends, Acquaintances for random friends and favourite twitter users, following for anyone I recognise.

Might do another just to add a bunch of people to find out if it does make things more fun.
 
I think more like RSS feeds. I have around 15 topics for RSS - i.e. PR / Tech / Media / Social / Friends blogs etc. So I am currently treating circles the same way. On Facebook I have just the three as described, but Google+ seems to work with more.
 
I have a few main circles - but also a load of region-based circles. So if I'm doing a gig in Manchester (say) I can tell all the people I know live there.
 
Keep it simple - nice idea. Sounds like circles within circles though
 
I have two for following: one is "trial" to see if I like their stuff (and if, indeed, they are posting anything) and one for the keepers. Same with RSS readers.
 
Well +Charles Arthur You only need three if you see yourself as a broadcaster, in the widest sense. Otherwise, I guess you need more. Myself, I use circles to filter how much of each type of news I want to see. And yes, I'd also guess some people use circles much like usenet groups, dividing by topic. I prefer that analogy to Twitter lists, because it came first :)
 
I don't think Google have finished the UI changes to give easy access to saved searches, or to circles. Work in progress, I guess.
 
I realise this is an old post but I only really use one circle now and everything I post is "public" Private stuff tends to happen on facebook or via twitter DMs. Do you still use 3 circles Charles?
 
I usually post Public, but if I don't want my current/future employer to see, then only to my circles.
 
+Colin Wernham Although... I suppose you're relying on Google+ security NOT being cracked at some point. The same goes for all social networks actually, except those that don't gather enough information to identify you (Twitter, Usenet, maybe Diaspora)
 
Agreed, +Silner Wilner . I also only post stuff that is not embarrassing. It is too easy to make a mistake and post to the wrong circles etc. That is one advantage in having a different communication system for different types of content.
 
I tend to post public and read focused. 
 
It's all changed with the advent of communities.
 
I tend to have people in more than one circle, so I'll have them in a circle depending on what type of engagers they are and I'll have them in my circle of British people if I know they are from the UK
 
As a promotional offer, our company planned to provide 150 free websites for first 150 clients. Please visit supfex.com for more details.
Add a comment...