Shared publicly  - 
In G+, Circles should be created by "publishers" as well as "subscribers"
Max Huijgen's profile photoAswath Rao's profile photoDave Gray's profile photoJohn Tropea's profile photo
Aren't they? If you had limited this post to a circle or set of them, only the intersection of that and those "subscribed" to you would see it. Or do you mean people should use that feature? One good tip I've seen suggests creating distinct sets of "reading" and "writing" circles.
I guess I'm warped. What I really want is to break myself up, classify myself, into a series of circles: cloud, food, music, books, cricket, politics, hippieness, freedom, whatever. Then others who put me into their circles can choose to put bits of me or all of me. Publisher circles are like hashtags and channels. Subscriber circles are filters and balancers. That combination creates the best signal-to-noise ratios
Yes, JP.
The hashtag: the hint to the world about which facets you're exposing; the homophily-defying outward bridge; the assertion of concinnity that is only fulfilled when others join us to clarify it; the distillation of meaningful expression that is so key to our thoughts that we'll expend valuable characters from a tweet or outbound links from a blogpost to express it.
That is what Google Plus is sorely lacking. +Chris Messina +Tantek Çelik
Got it, and +1 to +JP Rangaswami and +Kevin Marks on the need for hashtags and public interest/affiliation signals. (wow, this ref-user interface is hard to use)
Simple enough; JPs sporting interests are not mine - I have neither wish nor need to see them. However, his interest in food and music I share, and I want to see. I need to see his think pieces :-)

If I can set social media to 10, food to 8, music to 7 and cricket to 0, I'd be happy :-)
This is part of the pseudonymity discussion we were having at Internet Identity Workshop in May. Sparks is an intriguing try at part of this problem, but still doesn't solve the problem of "I want to hear what +JP Rangaswami says about these topics he's defined." I might put cricket on the list when JP's talking about it - but that doesn't mean I'm interested in hearing about cricket from anyone else.
A kludge fix, may be more suitable for +JP Rangaswami 's music sessions:

JP starts a session with a fresh post describing music theme. Those interested in that session for that day post a placeholder comment and those who do not want to do nothing with it, mute the post. JP enters his subsequent choices as a comment to the original post. Those who expressed an interest with a comment will get notified and others are not inundated with new posts on the music session.

In other words, JP creates an adhoc "channel" with a single post and those who want to subscribe to it do so with a comment.

This will +Luis Suarez when he tweets from a conference, for example.

Looks like +Max Huijgen has expressed similar idea
Is there a simpler method to achieve your goal without increasing the cognitive load for all the other users?
Simple... you follow someone because they say something interesting. Then you find they are noisy on a bunch of topics that don't interest you. So you adjust the topics from them that you follow. This could be a variation/detail of "add to circles" or of "mute this..."
Yes I've already had conflict with my dad over this. He added me to his "family" circle but he doesn't want to see all my public posts. He said it's like going to a workshop on a subject you're interested in, and then being exposed to a lot of topics you couldn't care less about.

What my dad wants is the ability to subscribe to the things I post to my "family" circle and nothing else. On G+ right now that's not possible.

If my dad puts me in a circle he gets my "public" circle firehose and there's nothing he can do to filter or mute that. He has to choose between 100% of me or nothing.
But I can keep my dad though, right? :)
Yes, we need options like

make this circle:

private (only you can see it (current default)
---- invite-only: share this circle with _______
------ add them directly
------ invite and let them subscribe if they want

public (shows up on your profile page)
---- open (anyone can join)
---- closed (let people request invitations)

Ideally different kinds of circles are in different colors or otherwise differentiated.

cc +JP Rangaswami +Charles Warren
Dave: I don't think that's how the model is supposed to work. I don't post geeky things to my Family circle because those people don't care about geeky things. I only post things that I think my family will care about to my family circle.

So my family gets the union of the posts I send to the following chips:
- Family circle
- Public
- My circles
- Extended circles

I try to target my sharing in order to avoid the kind of conflict you're seeing with your father.

There are probably technological ways of solving this problem but my approach works, reasonably well, today.
But +Ade Oshineye if you post anything publicly, your family doesn't have a way to filter that out. I happen to post a lot of things to public streams, and this ends up drowning my family circle because they don't use social media the way I do.

Your approach may work for you but it won't work for me, or anyone else who is publishing to a wide audience.
1. There is no way I am going to mute my public stuff.

2. I need to get along with my family and not feel like I'm spamming them.

So if this isn't the way the model is supposed to work, and it's not going to change, then this model is not going to work for me as both a public platform (aka blogging) and a way to keep in touch with my family.

In fact it probably won't work for either.
One of the reasons we're running a Field Trial is to learn things like this from people like you and adapt. Nothing is set in stone.

Why do you want to use the platform for public/blogging-like behaviour? How does it differ, for you, from your blog?
Since you can create your own Circles for publishing and subscribing, what I think JP is saying is he would like Groups. Or Circles as sharable lists: where when you create a Circle and post to it, people can not only see the sharing details (list of members), but copy that Circle to make it their own (although lists change). My bet is they will provide Groups after the field trial.
+Ade Oshineye the primary reason is the level of engagement, conversation, connection and serendipity I am finding here is off-the-charts excellent.

Yes +Ross Mayfield I think that's what JP and I are asking for

Ade, there are more reasons which I have detailed in a number of posts about G+ (bunch of links deleted) which I will send to you separately
I think what I'd like is the ability to minus a circle e.g Post Public minus Family, so my mother and brother don't get bored with my social media stuff.
Yip Venn diagrams for the advanced user. I know Google has spoken out against the concept but it would solve a lot of problems and create ultimate flexibility.
+Dave Gray A soln your father can adopt is to delete you from his Circles, but keep you as a contact in GMail chat. This way he will not see your public posts in his main Stream. But any of your posts that you share with him explicitly, will appear in the Incoming stream. To share any posts or to invite you to a Hangout, he could explicitly identify you. Also since you are a contact in his GMail chat, both of you can see each other's presence and can have text, voice and video chat as well.
Add a comment...