Shared publicly  - 
I call this one Ideas

That's how interesting these folks are to engage with. As with the green circle I just shared, this one's bigger than 500 so not everyone is here. And just as with the greenies, let us know if you think you should be in it. The common denominator here is interesting content of no particular bent. Just plain fascinating. I can sit and go through this stream all day. Great people one and all.
In this Circle:
Add people
Zach Alcorn's profile photoMurray J Brown's profile photoShefali Burns's profile photoGideon Rosenblatt's profile photo
+Alex Diaz, if you wouldn't mind - can you please take me out of this shared circle? I don't normally consent to having my profile shared this way. Thanks.
OK, Jay.
David, the cool thing about having a big circle is that there's always lots going through the stream, so in those moments when you have a bit of time, the conversations multiply. You're also exposed to more future friends and learn more from more people. Intimacy? That comes when you develop a particular bond with some of them.

As to your other comment, when you add a circle, it becomes yours to do with it as you wish -- add more people, call it what you want, remove people, whatever. What I do with my original version does not reflect in yours.
I don't share your values in this regard and I don't appreciate huge floods of people I won't have the time or energy to interact with, or even share values or interests with, trying to circle me.
As I said, Alex, please do not share my profile without my permission.
Final thought: I'm much more interested in actually getting to know people - which becomes difficult, if not impossible with such huge numbers people claim as their contacts.

I'm not trying to "market" myself to people. I want to interact with them. Directly. I am entirely unconvinced that this is possible in large numbers.
Got it the first time, Jay. We're good.
Understood. That's the beauty of these networks. They allow for these differences.
See, this is where we disagree. You have the ability, via sharing my profile - which I only caught because I'm online right now, to impose your idea of a network over mine. This somewhat robs me of my agency to organize my own network, if I'm being flooded by individuals I did not choose to interact with.

What would be the quality of interaction from sharing a circle this large? Yes, I get that most people like having big numbers of circlers. It makes them feel important. But is this really a good value? Is this really promoting communication between people? My take is no. People like having a big audience - but this is decidedly not the same as interacting directly with individuals.

And that's the nature of this network, isn't it? I suppose if I'm in the minority when it comes to wanting quality of interaction over quantity, and G+ is built to value your vision of a network, I'm out of luck.

Now you've got me considering leaving G+ entirely.
Social media seems to promote some awfully presumptuous behavior about privacy, interaction, and self-promotion.
+david pinto Here's an example of how this becomes unwelcome behavior: You get put in a shared circle. You miss the notification - which says "Person X created and shared a circle called 'Right wing nutjobs'"

(it may or may not matter at all whether the creator of this shared circle thinks you fit this designation)

You wake up the next morning to 150 circle notifications. Then you have to sift through all of these profiles that say things like, "Get out of my country immigrant bastards," or "white power forever," or the "jew is a menace," etc etc

Not cool. Do you see now how this system can be abused?
+david pinto Yes, and not just notifications. We're talking about people that have circled you. So, unless you're going to ignore or circle without looking at their profile - which may contain things you find reprehensible - you run the risk of this happening.

Moreover, the larger your circle count becomes, the more likely you will have people that not only do not share your values, but have values you strongly disagree with. I personally do not want to interact with bigots, religious fundamentalist, trolls, or any other people out there on networks simply to spread their noxious ideals.
+david pinto If you already shared it, there's not much that can be done. No worries. I just hope the ideas I've posted here are considered, generally. We're people to be interacted with, not numbers.
The way I see it, all these social networks are as public or private as you want to make them. You can have lots of people following you, but the folks you see in your stream are only those you choose to follow and interact with. It's like Twitter, but with better privacy controls. When you post something, you control who sees the post. If public, everyone following you will see it. The beauty of circles, though, is that you can post directly into a particular circle of people YOU'RE following, whether they're following you or not, and no one outside that circle gets to see that post.

Now, if you want to build a tight group of folks who follow each other because you all share the same interest -- say, chess -- you set up a circle and as you discover chess fans in G+, you put them in that circle and develop great bonding with them.

My case? I'm into following as many people as possible who are into sustainability. And it's the main thing I post about, so most people who follow me do so because they're interested in green issues. With some, I'll develop a close relationship. With most, I won't. But that's OK, because part of this space is simply to read the posts of those I follow and for those who follow me to read my posts. This is certainly NOT about feeling important because I have lots of circlers.
Thanks for the inclusion in this circle, +Alex Diaz. Much appreciated.

I guess we all have our different modes of using this network. I like having lots of folks to interact with and have put together a system to help me hone in on the folks I'm most interested in.

+Jay Weixelbaum, I sort of get what you're saying but there are lots of ways to control against the downsides you mention (don't share publicly - just share to certain circles, block people who are annoying, etc.).

That said, should Google have some option that requires people to ask your permission before sharing you in a circle? Yeah, probably...
+Gideon Rosenblatt Totally. Not only do engage in all the things that you mentioned - but now that we can see the folks at Google are actually spending time and money on G+, why couldn't they have included this modest feature?

Again, I think it has more to do with cultural assumptions that everyone wants the biggest audience as possible - when in reality, that's far from true.
Thanks for the inclusion +Alex Diaz!

+Gideon Rosenblatt & +Jay Weixelbaum, I like the idea of being able to choose to be part of a shared circle. It would be a check box in the settings that you could check. If you did so, you would automatically be taken out of any shared circle until you OKed it. Sort of like the way you can do with status mentions or photo tags on Facebook. I'm sure things like this will be added as they hear more feedback. You should send in the feedback Jay, if you haven't already. :)
I suppose I should. Better than complaining.

Don't get me wrong; I like meeting new and interesting people, too - what I don't like is to be inundated with huge numbers of circlers who, not only don't have an interest in interacting, but don't share anything in common with me - and may even have values I strongly disagree with. I get enough interactions of that nature in my daily life ;p
You're all welcome. And you all post great stuff to follow. Let's keep it up.
Add a comment...