Shared publicly  - 
Another look at Google+ a year in

The other day I laid out a Facebook vs. Google+ profile shootout over on Facebook at

I just realized I hadn't really celebrated Google+'s one-year-anniversary (I've been on the service ever since the first evening). I was too busy trying to get my new events page cleaned up (it still has lots of stuff on it that I didn't attend or deleted, sigh).

Compare my profiles at to and you'll see the benefits of fricitonless sharing on Facebook. On Facebook you can see a LOT more about me. My Quora questions. My foursquare checkins. My Spotify music. My Pinterest repins. And a lot more.

On the other hand, why do I post to Google+?

1. Google search remains very important to traffic and this is the best way to get into Google search.

2. I like the content search here better than anything on Facebook.

3. My content here is truly public (on Facebook you have to log in to see my stuff).

But that gets me to the point I was trying to make: Facebook still shows the world more about ME. It's a better profile page, and mostly because of frictionless-sharing.

I think this is a huge differentiator between Google+ and Facebook and one that's going to get wider and wider over the next year. It also explains why most people spend more time on Facebook. The profiles there are simply more interesting to browse around and check out than the profiles here are. Especially for everyday people who aren't good at generating content (in other words are good writers or photographers).

I've found my usage is splitting. For most people I tell them to look up my Facebook page. It is very rare when I find someone who isn't on Facebook nowadays and everytime that happens they seem, well, weird. In fact, my friend +Dave Winer deleted his account and it pisses me off that I can't tag him in stuff. He enjoys that kind of brand as someone who won't go along with the crowd, though.

Anyway, the time I've spent here on Google+ has been a huge plus to me personally. I've met a lot of people in a few different countries because of it, and I continue to learn from it. Plus, it did wake up Facebook and got Facebook to turn on a raft of new features (I wasn't a fan of Facebook a year ago either, but the battle between Google+ and Facebook has gotten me to move most of my social media energy away from Twitter).

I guess this is all a way to say "keep it up Google." Maybe the goal shouldn't be to compete with Facebook, but then we're left with "what is Google+ if it won't compete with Facebook?"


Anyway, despite my disappointment with some of the choices +Vic Gundotra and +Bradley Horowitz and +Larry Page and team (hi +Joseph Smarr and others) have made, overall I'm a better person for the time I've spent here. 

So thank you!

If you still are here, which profile do you like more? My Google+ one or my Facebook one? And why?

Mike Boysen's profile photoVitor Oliveira's profile photoPhilt Phan's profile photoDaniel Junior's profile photo
I never visit any of your pages, only see your posts. So does it really make a difference? Both FB and Google+ filter their feeds. Most interactions happens in streams anyway, not on other parts of a social network. (This is true of FB).﻿
By the way, I'm getting more comments on Google+ than on any other social network. But...﻿
 - That is exactly the reason why i´m not using facebook anymore. on G+ people share less stuff, but with more quality!﻿
1. I've made it impossible for average people to comment on my Facebook page (you need to be a friend of a friend). Why did I do that? Because I was getting too many lame comments that added nothing to the conversation (very rare to happen here for some reason, although once in a while I get a whole ton here too).﻿
If you think that Foursquare check-in´s , quora questions  and spotify music make an interesting profile, you really are a facebook user ...﻿
2. I'm getting more engagement PER USER on Facebook and I can tell most users are spending a lot more time on Facebook than on Google+. This is why Google doesn't release the minutes spent on the service as a stat yet. It'll be interesting to see when they start giving up the stats that matter, not just the numbers of people who have signed in or done something on the site.﻿
+Olivio Sarikas in my experience that really isn't true. I'm seeing a lot of stupid stuff on Google+ too, even from my "smart people" circles. Plus, on Facebook the interest lists are generally 100x better than anything I can do on Google, even on searches.﻿
+David Reichgeld where I go, what I answer, and what I listen to are an important part of WHO I AM. If you don't care about that, then you probably will like the Google+ profile better.﻿
+Robert Scoble: After peeking at both your Facebook and Google+ pages, there's just one conclusion that I'm willing to jump to:

You sleep as little as I do.﻿
Its just a guess... But I think Google deliberately have kept the profile features to the minimum... since most people are signing into G+ when they boot their Android, Google doesn't want to intimidate the users by asking too many personal questions﻿
+Simon de la Rouviere I think it does make a difference. I really enjoy visiting other people's profiles on Facebook. Far less so here. Why? I always learn something from their likes, and their other behaviors, like music, etc. When I find someone with similar tastes as me, say in music, then I usually find lots of new stuff to listen to that I also end up liking.﻿
Interesting points, like your FB more though.﻿
+Robert Scoble I always come to your FB or Google+ post via Twitter. So the posts could also be on , the channel doesn't matter to me. I never visit you at Google+ or FB without a Twitter ref.﻿
+Rosa Golijan heheh.

+Ganesh Nayak I have a different theory. Google+ was way behind Facebook and so needed to build a minimal viable product and left a lot of that stuff out in order to ship. But now it could be a differentiating factor. ﻿
Sorry but everbody does not want frictionless sharing . According to me you are an oversharer. I dont want everything I do on the web to be on my Facebook or Google+ or twitter profile. I post on Facebook what I want to share and thats why I have stopped accepting all app requests since all they do is post without permission. Sorry but I remember two quotes vaguely - Why should a human read what a machine posts and a Vic quote - Whatever comes in our mind does not come out of our mouth . These two quotes show me everything that is wrong with frictionless sharing . And on my Facebook I unsubscribe from all my friends who post lots of stuff everyday. (They will be on friends list). ﻿
+Kjeld Kahn interesting. Twitter is a good signaling mechanism. Much better flow there than on either Google+ or Facebook. I can see why you are watching mostly that.﻿
I'm less interested in Facebook because it has more information about the Facebook user.  I'm more interested in things the user has shared that is about the world or something else.  I  find a "conversation" easier when it's about something, not you or me.  (Ironically, maybe we learn more about each other in the process).  I thing Google+ will become the platform that is more akin to a bulletin board, and Faceook is still more like "here's what I'm doing right now."  But that's also Twitter.  ﻿
+Jay Matthews yup, I get that. That's why I say that Google+ is closer to blogging than Facebook is (and why I took to Google+ before I got into Facebook).﻿
Scot Duke
The Lame Comments and lack of interaction or conversations is why I left Facebook and set up shop here.  The power of Search is stronger on G+ which adds the most value to me.  G+ is all about Social instead of feeling you have to be in a Click on Facebook to be social.  Google is directing G+ in the right direction and now that a year has gone by able to see what works and what does not.  I like Google's thoughtfulness and how they have people on staff roaming the streams on G+ to interact and listen to what people have to say.  You are not going to get that on Facebook.  It has been a long year on G+ and I look forward to seeing what the next year brings.﻿
I prefer the Google+ UI and in my opinion if the experience is fresh, not bogged down and fast then it's the one for me.  I agree, Facebook maybe filters out information a little better, superior control over security and privacy but there is no getting away from the fact that Facebook is a bloated and slow platform.  

At the end of the day Facebook have been around for years and compared to Google+ so you would expect it to be that little bit ahead.  However, with this being the case what Facebook have ended up with is a rather flaky system and due to new social networks coming into light (Twitter and now Google+) they have had to release updates in order to compete.  These updates have been rushed... which has resulted in a platform that feels slow and too busy for my liking.  

Google+ has always lacked the user base, but I feel that is changing.  Granted of all the people following me on Google+ only a handful are people I know in real life.  But the information I get from Google+ is more of interest to me and has less of the stupid cat pictures and games invites.

Google+ is not a perfect system by all accounts.  In time this will come especially with the Android user base increasing.  Users require a Google account to log into their Android smartphone/tablet.  So the chances of them coming across this new social platform called Google+ is extremely high.  And do you know what, I think they might like it.﻿
This kind of thing when you visit someone's profile may be okay but I really don't want it to show up in the stream, just noise.
Can't find a way to turn off seeing what people have 'liked' and it's getting very irritating﻿
the all thing about the fb profile is what I think makes the fb experience a bit creepy. I don't really like to sniff in somebody else's life, I rather listen to what they share with me.﻿
I prefer your G+ profile by far: in your Facebook's there is so many info in the same page that I'm not sure where to start reading. But maybe that's because I'm already tired ;)﻿
+Scot Duke I don't get lame comments anymore over on Facebook for two reasons: 1. I only allow friends of friends to comment. 2. Facebook has gotten a lot better about policing that kind of stuff.

I agree that search here totally blows away Facebook's search. I'm shocked Facebook hasn't done better in this area, especially since they bought FriendFeed which had even better search than Google+ has implemented so far.

By the way, I've found Facebook'ers all over my streams and they are just as thoughtful and listen just as much (you can subscribe to many hundreds, if not thousands, of Facebook employees, by the way) as any Google employee, if not more. But Googlers were ahead there for the first few months of Google+'s life, that's for sure. ﻿
I think different tools for different purposes, I like it here, and I also like FB for different people.

I also see your posts via Twitter also for whatever reason..﻿
+Mark Brown I haven't found Facebook to be slow on the Web. I've found it really blows on iOS, though. Google really kills it on Android 4.1, too. Their new tablet client really rocks.﻿
That's just a matter of time though, +Robert Scoble. I strongly hope the brilliant new Google+ Android app (and soon to be iOS) makes Facebook look at their dire mobile application and upgrade.

One reason we need Google+ to be successful is to keep Facebook on its toes. Competition is a good thing for us end-users. ﻿
+Jean Mensa I'm a nosy person, so I guess that's why I don't mind it. :-) I learn a lot more about who a person is on Facebook than here, generally. Or at least on a broader level. Over here it's more like a blog where people tend to focus only on one thing that they want the world to interact with them about (like photography, or, in my case, technology).﻿
btw, +Robert Scoble you should scale your stats over the number of users on each platform.﻿
+Robert Scoble Without you saying it, your post had a certain tone to it. Was this your: Goodbye, it was fun and thank you for the tea ?﻿
+Jason Moller there's a MAJOR iOS upgrade coming to Facebook. Facebook's Messaging and Photo apps are quite nice. Love those.﻿
+Robert Scoble Maybe clunky is a better word!  It's definitely not as slow as it used to be!  It just has too much going on and I feel it's a little lost.  What I mean by that is it's hard to find what you are looking for.  For example I created a Facebook Page for my music blog... I had to google Facebook Pages in order to find where to create one as it wasn't obvious within Facebook.

The Google+ App is what the Facebook app should have been.  I have preordered my Nexus 7 and I really can't wait to get it!  Can't! Wait!

By the way - your outburst re Google Events had me in stitches the other day... I like it when people just say how it is... and you did just that!﻿
+Vitor Oliveira I'm ADD so like that there's a lot more places to look. My brain enjoys that kind of chaos. I get what you're saying, though. Google+ is better for reading something long because it isn't as chaotic.﻿
+Google+ is the best, I don't use my FB either. This can and will beat FB. The upcoming history api is going to boost profiles dramatically and allow you to learn a lot more about someone. +Robert Scoble ﻿
I maybe or maybe not an exception but usually the people on Facebook I followed use to overshare. Not everyone is as interesting as +Robert Scoble but most people think they are. They put everything on FB up to the latest they had for dinner. 

If FB changes and becomes a place with really interesting people then I see a future For FB still. I might be alone in this but I really think the numbers of users will go down in a little while. FB will still be around  but not as big as it is now.

Why di I think so? It's just in the nature of people to want something new (change). The avage Joe on FB I just described will get tired of FB eventually. Die hards will stay.﻿
I  prefer Google+ because I use it to connect with people with shared interests so I am connected to you here as I like to read your stuff.  I use Facebook to stay in touch with people I know in real-life like friends and family.

So here is where I learn and Facebook is where I socialise.﻿
+Dirk Heindoerfer I'm not leaving. I just wish Google would have come up to the bar that Facebook is now setting. I'm seeing Facebook moving ahead of Google+ in a whole lot of areas and it bums me out. I was much more optimistic a year ago that Google was gonna really compete. Today? I don't think so. The way they rolled out events made me realize that Google just doesn't get social. Of course, the way Facebook changed everyone's email address made me realize maybe these systems just won't ever serve users very well because we're the product, not the customer.﻿
I like Facebook Messenger - that's a nice feeling app but on Android I find it buggy (very poor with notifications compared with Google, WhatsApp, etc). 

Along with the new iOS app I hope there is an Android app too. As far as I am aware the Facebook mobile apps are mostly wrapped HTML5 with few native elements - keeping them relatively platform agnostic. ﻿
G+ has completely replaced blogging for me. That is its greatest strength. It's like a network of social blogging.﻿
+Daniel Baines I don't think developers are going to support the history API very much. It's not even close to as useful as the Open Graph over on Facebook. We'll see, though, but early developer sentiment says that they are gonna stay away for the most part while the same developers are getting more excited about Facebook lately. Zynga, for instance, just totally dissed Google+.﻿
Personally I like the lack of frictionless sharing here.
Should Google add it here, they should add some very good content control options that allow me to easily subscribe and unsubscribe to the different content-substreams a user has to offer.
For instance, I couldn't care less about foursquare, so I'd like to have that hidden by default.
Twitter? for persons who don't share IT-related stuff on Twitter I might want to show their syndicated Twitter stuff, but for others chances are I'm already following them on Twitter and wouldn't be interested in seeing stuff I've already read in my Twitter client.
and so on..

In short:
What I would love to see is seeing which other social media is connected to a user's account, and manually subscribing to the sub-feeds for that user I'm interested in.﻿
+Chet Thaker well, you are echoing my thoughts from last year before Facebook brought out interest lists. Now Facebook's interest lists blow away anything I've seen on Google+ (mostly due to a far deeper user base, but also because they are publicly sharable). Find a list at and compare it to a similar circle or search here and you'll see what I mean.﻿
+Filip H.F. Slagter you do realize that you can hide media types on Facebook, right? I've hidden all tweets and foursquare and games from my main feed, for instance.﻿
I can't say I've ever looked at either. You're in my circles because you have some interesting things to say and highlight things I might have missed otherwise, but I really don't give a shit what music you're listening to at the moment. Don't take it personally - I don't give a shit what most of my friends are listening to either. If someone wants to take the trouble to specifically talk about a particular new song that they like then I might sit up and take note but otherwise I'm not interested.

But maybe it makes me an antisocial misanthrope to not care about the minutiae of my friends' existence and focus more of my limited web-browsing time on what's going on in the world.﻿
+Robert Scoble yeah, but from the users perspective - the history api wins hands down. Its control it perfect. We just need developers to take a risk and get working on some really great apps for G+. Ill be adding the history API to all of my forums when it rolls out. Games wise I don't think anyone's going to be happy until there is a more public way so any developer can release a game. Games are coming to the mobile app by the way, I found it in the code - that could be a game changer.﻿
+Robert Scoble I wrote myself how, despite the feature sets of FB and G+ getting closer, the usage between the two is getting wider with distinct groups of people gravitating in either direction.

I had virtually stopped using Twitter and Facebook but realise that this is a very short-sighted view as there are distinctly different conversations happening in different locations and that we shouldn't limit ourselves to just one type or one point of view.

I still don't use FB enough to really get a feel for exactly what I can get from it but that will come.

G+ gives me more engagement than anywhere but that is probably largely because you get out what you put in.

One thing I have noticed (and am in the middle of writing a post about) is that engagement differs and the way we follow differs and not necessarily in a good way.

Frictionless sharing is good on one hand if you want to give a picture of you as a person (which you do) - the life stream is a lot fuller on FB. Not everyone wants that, however, either to broadcast that much info or maybe receive that much but at least FB learns what we interact with so will hide irrelevance.

I like the way that all sharing on G+ is explicit so that we have to think about what we are sharing - it doesn't give us the same picture as FB but then Plus isn't designed to. It would be interesting if Plus had frictionless sharing seeing as how it is all about populating the interest graph and who knows where we'll go with the History feature that is currently with Devs.

I feel that Shared Circles can be a good way to organically grow your connections but, at times, this seems as odds with the way G+ seeks to do everything explicitly. By adding a shared circles we are. It aware of all those we are adding, we are not making a specific choice regarding each person and I believe this alters our patterns of engagement with those individuals and they will often be forgotten or ignored.

FB lists are similar but we specifically follow it as a list rather than having it directly integrated into our friends whereas a shared circle becomes part of our All Circles list and has greater emphasis with regards to the way followers are counted etc. consequently, despite increasing follower/followed numbers we may not necessarily increase engagement accordingly.

On a personal note, I prefer G+ but that is mainly because I am here a lot more and it better suits my style of engagement/posting but as I use FB more I will no doubt come to appreciate it better. ﻿
I use Facebook to connect with friends and as my main Social Network but my secondary social network is Google+. I use G+ to follow people with similar interests (much like the reasons why some people use twitter) but G+ has a much richer environment than twitter and you can see pictures and links and there is a lot less 'crap', 'trolling' and arguments on G+. If all my friends were on G+ I would use it like I use Facebook, but for now - at least - I use it as a much more engaging version of twitter.﻿
+Kristo Vaher yeah, Google+ pretty much replaced blogging for me too. Except that on my blog I can do much better typography, and I can put multiple photos and videos into a single post. ﻿
You are popular on Facebook but you are a significant leader on Google+. In my introduction to Social Media classes, I often use your G+ profile as part of my overview.﻿
+Robert Scoble yes, you can disable everything from for instance Twitter. But it looks like I still can't say hide all Twitter stories by user X﻿
I suppose I can see the advantage of Facebook if you're concerned about projecting your identity, i.e. "Facebook still shows the world more about ME".  Personally, I still find the Timeline to be a cluttered mess and not very friendly for consumption (yours even more so than most) but I can understand the appeal it, and the frictionless sharing features, would have for some people.

Google+ really is apples to oranges, though.

I consider G+ to be an improvement upon the Twitter model of sharing (in some respects, at least) rather than having any strong relationship to the Facebook model.  Like Twitter, it's good for sharing and discovering news, current events, trends and such.  Twitter is much faster, but G+ is deeper, and the conversation model aids in collecting more information, elaborating upon the original share.  I much prefer it to Twitter, and have since allowed my Twitter stream to devolve into a second-class stream--mess of celebrities, and a few reliable news sources.

Google could certainly invest more effort in that "About" tab in our profiles.  For those of us who don't like to write about ourselves, that tab exists a little more than a link farm.  It would be nice to be able to better express our interests on that page, to reflect the sorts of things we post about on G+.  But that doesn't seem to be Google's priority, and I'm fine with that.  I also like that Google maintains separation between our posts and our "profile", rather than trying to piece them all together as Timeline does. I personally consider who I am and what's on my mind to be related but very different things.﻿
+Michael Clark that's cool. I totally disagree with you about music, by the way. I've found some fantastic new stuff on Spotify by watching what my friends are listening to and trying it out. Serrendipity is a HUGE deal in my life. But I get why you don't get that. Until you try it 100 times you won't get it either, but then it'll click and you'll start seeing your tastes have changed. Me? I like trying new things, so I click on bands I haven't heard of before. Plus, it gives me something to talk to them about when I see them next "hey, I didn't know you were a Skrillex fan?!?﻿
+Thom Stricklin yeah, I wish more of Twitter would come over here. I really hate reading tweets. During the CERN thing tonight I found I despised watching the tweet stream on search there. Google+ was just so much more useful.﻿
This is another reason I prefer Goolge+.  You get better responses to questions/debates/discussions.  Instead of your typical, "I hate Google", "I love Android", "Apple all the way" etc etc...  ﻿
+Robert Chandler chances are that once all your friends are on G+, it has already has a lot more crap and trolling than there is now. 
Facebook and Twitter and several other social networks used to be interesting to for me, but the more mainstream they became, the less interesting they ended up being. 

Or maybe I just only like social networks during their early adopter periods..﻿
+Daniel Baines you say that users will like the History API better. I don't agree with you there. Control seems interesting until you start seeing your friends are having more fun with something else. Control is an illusion and control can become its own master. If you wanted to do a profile like my Facebook one you would need to spend a good part of every day approving everything onto your feed. I don't believe most users will do that. 

But we'll get to test these two competing systems soon enough and see which one wins. Facebook will because its machine learning systems are a lot better and they've had the past year to learn from users about what works and what doesn't work (every week I notice the ticker gets more interesting on my account).﻿
It's strange to see +Kristo Vaher and +Robert Scoble talk about the replacement of blogging, plenty of people agreeing). Has Google+ bought a new experience to anyone, rather than replace one?

For me Google+ introduced me to photo sharing. The high quality images are a step above Facebook's awful compression - yet the commenting and social features I find much better than photo specific sites - best of both worlds. I was never compelled to share my photographs with the world before.

I am far from the most popular Google+ user, but I am proud to have the few followers I do. More importantly, I love the photographic community on this network. So friendly, I have learnt so much and made many new friends. ﻿
I can speak only for myself, but I like G+ more, I find it more appealing visually (personal taste), I like events better here, and I have more new interaction here.

The one big difference?

Most of my friends are on facebook and not so much here, and don't even plan to visit G+ anytime soon. That's it. It makes it better for that, and that alone.

If more freinds were here, it would kick FB arse.

PS: : That's my 2 cts, everyone is entitled to his﻿
+Robert Scoble you can set each 'Source' (app) to either Public, Private or visible to select circles and they will post automatically - so its only a 2 click process for each app.﻿
+Robert Scoble  Maybe I just need new friends! For me it would be endless updates of "so-and-so is listening to Phil Collins' Greatest Hits". :-)﻿
+Mark Brown that's partly self selection, though, isn't it? Maybe those of us who like a good real debate rather than just a slug fest like coming here. But out of 1,000 people how many of us are there? Maybe five. Which explains why small numbers in audiences I speak to say they like Google+. Most just want to see their family's photos, or fun stuff their drinking buddies are doing. Most don't want to actually get in and give their thoughts on something in a deeper way.﻿
+Jason Moller hmm, with my 5DMKIII photos Facebook's new compression is as good as, if not better than, Google+'s. But only when you click through to the full resolution image.﻿
Sorry no offence +Robert Scoble but I don't want to friend on you Facebook as I haven't met you. My facebook account is for keeping in touch with my in real life friends and sharing really dull posts like 'Up at 5am as <son's name> had high temp...' that I'd never dream of posting on G+.

Yes I spend more time on Facebook than anywhere else but that's because it's integral to my way of life. I use it to keep up with what's going on at the kid's school, local events, arranging playdates, socials etc.

G+ and Twitter are for connecting with people I don't know. For engaging in interesting discussions and for work. So the G+ profile is good enough and I'd rather follow you here than on Facebook. But I don't think Google is done, I'm sure more great addons are on their way.

I've always described G+ as a conversational blogging platform. If you want to make a quick status update - use Twitter. If you want to say more G+ - you can always Tweet a link to it. But yes, the blogging aspect is what turns a lot of peeps off G+, they want to be able to post quick FB/Twitter style updates. I think it's much better that Google is different to FB and that's why I like it.﻿
+Robert Elliot I think Vic has already picked one strategy: integrate with other Google services that already have users. I just wish they would let us opt in. What they did to my calendar was disgusting and makes me really disappointed in the team's choices.﻿
Another thought after reading some comments...  The Facebook timeline/profile is a destination.  The Google+ user profile is more of a footnote.  The destination in G+ is the stream.

Not to say the stream is perfect (and of course FB has the news feed as a destination as well).  G+ still needs better way of helping new users to fill circles...  The suggested user list is not the right solution.  I generally have a much richer experience, more engagement, better conversations etc. with "normal" people like me than with the celebrities and big names.  No offense to the latter, as I still follow many of those people and do enjoy them...  But it's the natural law of the Internet...  the long tail is more immersive than the fat head.﻿
+Liz Christopher sorry, Facebook isn't just for friends anymore. You have a few choices:

1. Friend me and then set my account not to show anything to you (that's possible and I do it for some people in my family that I can't stand, for the most part).

1b. Those people's stuff will still show up in any list you put them in (so you can put me on a "noisy techy butthead" list and still see me there, but not on your home feed).

2. You can put me on an acquaintance list, which means you won't see much stuff from me.

3. You can still see my stuff without letting me see your stuff. You do that by subscribing to me.

Even if you are a friend of mine you can post stuff without me seeing it (I can send stuff to just my family list, for instance).

Facebook is 100x more versatile than it was two years ago. You should look into changing your pattern, there's a lot of value in doing that.﻿
+Robert Scoble I agree with your point on the introduction of Events, yet I can understand the way they choose as well. Given your 1.8 mil followers, you are part of a small group. Just for arguments sake lets say you received 300 Event invitations, which is totally out of line, but given statistics, a guy with 180K followers (still huge) gets 30 invites (still way too much), yet a 18K followers guy gets 3 and then he would start: hmmm what is that ? That looks interesting ... Lets see what this can do I think just introducing a new button on your Left side without any initial reaction or event will get this stuff unnoticed. Not everybody follows a Keynote to learn whats new. You need some gentle rubbing in your face introducing new technology and functionality.
I think you few big guys would need some more control or a head up warning. What could be fine for 98% could be very annoying for the other 2%. I totally get that.﻿
+Thom Stricklin that brings me to another point. Google+ is totally lame when it comes to suggestions. Yeah, I still hate the suggested user list, even though it got me 1.7 million followers. But worse of all it keeps suggesting people to me who have never posted. How lame is that?﻿
Every social media site has their own social graphs with their own set of users, for me Facebook is for my friends, Google+ is for the tech community and other stuff I'm interested in and Twitter is for news / international trends.
+Robert Scoble I follow you on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter and I prefer your Google+ posts as the conversation / comments are much better than your Facebook posts. Its also incredibly annoying that I can't comment on your Facebook posts especially when its about a topic that I'm passionate / knowledgeable about and I could contribute the argument / conversation. I find it difficult to believe that you are getting more qulaity engagement on Facebook as anyone can post a comment your Google+ posts but only a limited amount can post on your FB posts. I understand you don't want "lame" comments on your FB posts, but nothing stops people posting lame comments here.﻿
+Robert Scoble That's true!  Facebook is good at keeping up to date with Family stuff... but that's because it has the user base. 

What disadvantages Google+ is that they don't have to have all the bells and whistles in place like Facebook does.  Granted, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be in place but when the user base for Google+ increases (which I hope it does) then they will be forced to.  

But who's to say they aren't working on it right now, most likely they are.  Google+ has only been out for a year.  It takes time to grow, advance, and mature. What they have achieved is undeniably excellent.  When they do catch up with Facebook I think it's safe to say that the result will be a better thought out product.﻿
+Dirk Heindoerfer OK, let's say I agree with you. I don't. Then when you turn down an event it should totally disappear from your life. Both from your events page, as well as from your calendar. It doesn't. The implementation was totally inept. Whoever approved that should hold their heads in shame. It was the worst rollout of a new social feature that I've ever seen. Period. And it affected not just high visibility users but lots of others, too.﻿
 sorry, Facebook isn't just for friends anymore.

That's what the majority of users use it for. FB will have a hard time changing that... ﻿
+Robert Scoble I disagree. At the window size I use there is a night and day difference. If you open each of the two images here in different tabs, flick between:

Both are a photo I took this weekend, uploaded to both platforms, and I saved it as it displayed (when expanded at my usual window size). The 40kb image is downloaded from Facebook, the 60 kb is from Google+. A lot more data for the same resolution... and the artefacts around the body of the dragonfly and the reeds.

Since Google+ came along, Facebook images improved a LOT. They are, however, still trailing. ﻿
Personally the profile page in Facebook never really inspired me before. With the new(ish) timeline the pictures at the top are a nice touch, but the rest is awful. It's just a confusing mass of - things.

Google+ profiles on the other hand are much clearer to use.

Anyway, whether the profile page is nice or not, is neither here nor there. It's what the systems are used for that counts. I still believe there is room for both Facebook and G+.﻿
+Robert Scoble  not sure if you saw this video (see below for link) from I/O. It's about 20 mins long, but in it, they claim that the point of Google+ isn't to be a direct competitor to Facebook, rather it's designed to be the 'social spine' that unifies all Google's properties.

It's interesting to see the way that they are thinking in that for them, engagement isn't an issue because people already have a huge interaction with Google via Search, YouTube, GMail etc... this project is meant to provide a coherent approach across these services.

Whether or not this is just putting a brave face on it, it does seem to make a lot of sense to think of Google+ in that way, but if that is the case, and it's not meant to be a direct competitor, why build out all this Facebook type functionality...? (Maybe in a few years we'll see all Google's services being accessed through a single super portal, kind of like how FB is only one massive site?)﻿
+Robert Elliot Actually, I just meant to point out that expression of identity is something Facebook has an advantage at.  I don't personally care about having a strong profile experience to point people to.

I had personal websites like that for 17 years (still do, strictly speaking) but they tend to sit idle because I feel like it has to include a lot of self expression and identity projection, and that's just not my thing.﻿
FB presents some additional data better, but a user does not use all this data all the time and when he needs it he knows where to look. 
The best about G+ is the search. If im looking for something you posted a month ago i can find it in G+, try to find it in FB.....  
Since we are subjected to enormous amounts of data , the filtering system of G+ is much better to my opinion.   ﻿
Those are big numbers +Robert Scoble but the people I know use it solely for famlily and friends and as long as I don't see a shift in that behaviour... Maybe we're just a bit slow in the change.﻿
+Jared Naude I might turn off my comment limiting system on Facebook again and see how it goes. But for now I don't mind. My "blog posts" always done on Google+. My more social stuff is done on Facebook. I always link over to here from Facebook, so people know where to go. For some reason I really got thousands of lame comments on Facebook when it was open to everyone (I've had that happen here a few times, but I think Google+ has better comment systems that people can use to punish those who are jerks).﻿
+Robert Scoble (re: recommendations) Well, yeah.  That was the point I was trying to make. ;)

I would love to see Google have an awesome UI wrapped around G+ search for finding users.  Despite shared circles and what not, most of the good people I've found have been via searching.  It would make sense, wouldn't it?  Google's user recommendation engine to be tied into search?﻿
+Robert Scoble What could have u done had you been in-charge of this G+ thing like Vic is, in one year?Not only you,anybody.FB  has a strong head start compared to G+ and to accomplish that in one year for any company is almost impossible.
The real game has already started in mobile,look at the G+ app and compare that to FB.Mobile is the place where you really provide your interest as it is location based.In this one year the engineering team learnt how to iterate quickly on a large scale.That in itself is a big progress for this project.﻿
+Bastiaan Vinke I'm seeing people change their behavior and Facebook is urging it by bringing new kinds of things into the feed itself. I see this on my wife's account. It's slow to change, though. But what's more likely to happen? That someone like my wife gets into an interest list on Facebook, or that she moves over to Google+? I see her getting into interest lists already so that's the answer.﻿
+mark feder actually I find my old Facebook posts on Google (the old search engine, not the Google+ one).﻿
+Robert Scoble I completely agree. We need to be able to share what we want, from where we want. Even automatically.
The one who follows or circles can make their decision not to do so, if they don't care about those person life or don't want to see food pics.
But it's bad that I need Twitter and Facebook to share this stuff without a hassle.

+Google+ Read/Write API now, please.﻿
FB's wall seems like a tattle tale wall. No matter how much I tailor my experience on FB, it seems like i'm over-sharing. Someone is getting too much information. Sometimes I'll forget that songs instantly show up for people to stalk my listening habits, or someone will talk to me about something that i haven't even talked to them about. Whatever you post on other people's walls are visible as well. So like twitter, it becomes a zero sum game. You might as well post only the stuff you want everyone to see on FB. And then you shrug and say - if they don't like it, they'll dump me into the restricted folder, or something. 

With Google+ more of the content is interactive. Colors for FB is really cheap and poorly written, but HANGOUT for G+ is Amazingly zippy and profoundly interactive. I've met and hangout with people who have become life long friends - and there is no way that we would have bumped into each other had we not had the same interests, and met through a social network like Google+. I know, we always like to compare. We always want to judge whether or not this years LAMBO still Beats this years Bugatti. I think all social networks offer you different things. What FB has is 900 million users. EVERYONE and their mother is on there, Cept for some people who have 86'd their FB for Google+; and some people who are social media hermits.

One of the things that seems evident is that FB has peaked, and is on the downward spiral, and Google+ is just figuring out what it can be. Who knows, in a couple of years Google could scrap this whole project, the way they did with Wave. Or it could just find a small population of over zealous users like Orkut. 

What probably is going to happen is that innovation on top of innovation is going to occur, and Google will use Google+ as a hub for all of it's post PC interaction. You'll see Google Glass and Google Now pull a lot more people once they are on everyone's heads. And FB will be like Craigslist - a resource where everyone advertises, but nobody really develops anything. Who knows, maybe FB will buy Pinterest, and it'll be that place for all the viral pictures that everyone passes around with the quotes on them.﻿
I've been crying out for Google to integrate Blogger fully into G+ so that you can write proper posts and they will have a shared commenting system. That will be a great feature when/if it happens. ﻿
+Rajasekhar Reddy Mettu I would have given people much better people suggestions. Ones that would show activity, so people would know how active someone is before they are urged to follow them. 

Two, I would have given you content-based filtering. For instance, I'm tired of seeing the boycott Apple stuff in my feed. Why can't I tell Google+ "please don't show anymore items with 'boycottapple" in them?

Three, I would have bought Quora and made this about much more interest-focused stuff than Facebook. 

Four, I would have pushed much harder on mobile. That's one area Google+ is somewhat ahead, but they should have been way ahead because Facebook just is very lame on mobile for the most part.﻿
+Colin Walker exactly. Blogger integration would be huge. I should have had that on my list. Add it to #5.﻿
+Heskel Balas I have seen this interview,it does give a different perpective to the FB vs G+ shootout.. I feel +Vic Gundotra has a point there when he tells 'Engagement on (the social part of) G+ is not an issue for google'
What I realized is that Social networking is just a part of the whole G+ project.While FB is a social networking site that is trying (rather desparately) to add features to itself.
Google seems to have the policy of 'Build it and they will come...' ,which is sensible,given the huge number of users that use google services on a daily basis... and they might realize G+ is there just to make life easier and more fun...﻿
You hit the nail on head Robert, but I think the idea that the content everyone puts up should be of a high quality is an interesting one.
A social network for me should remain that a place where people go for a social input -  photographers, tech-bloggers, and other interest based activities are fine but they are something different from getting to know what makes a person laugh in their day or in contrast what really upset them. I still hope Google + prevails but the only reason I could think of getting my friends over here socially was the hangout feature and that only has relevance now we are not with each other. ﻿
+Robert Scoble Also, a thought about Facebook.  You are definitely a fan of frictionless music sharing.  That's actually one feature I would love to get more use out of, but...  I have no ticker!  Still, after all this time, I don't have a ticker.  This despite using Spotify quite a bit and having it connected to my Facebook account.

This inconsistency of user experience is one of the things that's really bothered me about Facebook lately.  And it's not simply a matter of not having access to the shiny toys...  I am highly concerned that I can't get a real, personal feel for how my frictionless sharing options are getting streamed out there to everybody else.  That is partly why, aside from Spotify, I have set all of my frictionless apps to "Only Me".  At least I think I have.  Again, I would like to be able to see that.  This is a different sort of privacy concern and, at least to me, significant.﻿
+Stephen Ornelas in the future we will all overshare. Think about the Google Glasses world. I want to broadcast mine almost all the time. So, the future of the world will depend on noise filters. IE, we are moving from a conversational world to a contextual one. One where the right thing gets brought to you at the right time. When that happens no one will care about whether or not they are oversharing. In fact, there will be a real benefit to you for sharing your life (it'll get better if you do). I'm already seeing that. My music is getting better because I share on Spotify/Facebook, for instance.﻿
+Thom Stricklin I wish I could get the ticker on iOS. I can't stand Facebook for all these goofy UIs and all these problems. Do you not have the Timeline either?﻿
+Robert Scoble One of the reasons I love Google+ is the lack of clutter.

As an example, my girlfriend commented to me the other day that she didn't even realise that Google+ had games. On Facebook you've got to blind not to notice Facebook games.

I think this is one of Google+'s strengths. As soon as you add in links to other services like Facebook has, you're taking away user choice. You're forcing content upon users that they may not necessarily want to see. I'd be all for Google integrating links to other services, as long as they were very compartmentalised in the same way that Games are now.

Finally, the reason I enjoy using Google+ much more that Facebook is because at least at the moment, Google+ is a place for discussion. The reason I tend to post photos of food that I eat, thoughts that pop into my head and all the other stuff that I post publically on Google+ is because I love conversation, of any type. Google+ encourages this (formatting is easy and editing is an option) where as I feel Facebook doesn't.

PS: Also, the Facebook Android app sucks despite Facebook's recent efforts to make it work better. The new Google+ app is absolutely gorgeous.﻿
FB will always be for family / friends because getting them to move to another social network is near impossible especially for people who don't get along with technology, this is one reason why many have stuck with Facebook. On the point of "frictionless sharing" not everyone is very fond of this, it is seen as bad social media etiquette to fill your friends streams with updates from apps that you are using.If you ask most Facebook users, their biggest complaint with Facebook is all the app requests and the pollution the apps post to their walls / timelines.﻿
+Nikolas Skoufis yup. But I blocked all Facebook games from my feed. You can tune the Facebook feed. It just takes effort. I totally agree that the UI here is cleaner. Some of that is just because they were able to copy without building up all the crust that Facebook has. (See my answer above about how many different ways there are to friend someone).﻿
+Robert Scoble I have Timeline, just no ticker.  My wife has neither.  And yet I have a few friends who are self-proclaimed tech dummies who have the ticker.  Maybe I need to play Farmville?﻿
+Jared Naude The only way to get them to move is via brute force. Google+ isn't inherently any harder to understand than Facebook. It will be confusing at first because people are used to Facebook, but they'll come to like it.

If you're serious about making the switch, go through one of the convoluted methods that you can set up to post your Google+ posts to Facebook. That way, people will naturally click on the links back to Google+ and see what they're missing. And if they really want to see photos of you, they've got no choice.﻿
+Jared Naude agreed, but that's a temporary noise problem on Facebook. You can already delete or block most of the frictionless sharing stuff from your feed. I very rarely see that stuff on my feed, for instance, because I've pretty effectively blocked it by tuning my feed.﻿
Really? +Robert Scoble of the 'interesting' people I connect with, your good self notwithstanding, I don't think they are on FB and judging by the number of people in these comments agreeing that FB is for IRL friends that isn't going to change overnight.

However, you are not the first person to say that times are changing. So I am going to give what you have said a lot of thought. 

However, if I do friend you and other 'strangers' what do I do about my history of posts? Can I friend people but put them in a list that doesn't allow them access to posts that I've shared with friends?

I get the whole using lists, thanks to G+ circles so I can see how that works.

FB has definitely upped it's game. Groups are getting better and better and are responsible for many of the people I know using it more. ﻿
+Nikolas Skoufis that's a nice try, but it doesn't work. I can't get even my own wife over here. Why? All of her elementary school friends are on Facebook. I've given up.﻿
+Liz Christopher >>Can I friend people but put them in a list that doesn't allow them access to posts that I've shared with friends?<<


For instance, if I share something with my family list you won't be able to see that. It's easy to test, too.﻿
+Robert Scoble I know it doesn't really work, but it's a start. I've gotten my girlfriend to at least use Google+ a little more, and some other friends do tend to comment slightly more on my Google+ posts.

In my mind, Google+ needs to reach some sort of critical mass before people will switch over. It needs to reach some sort of user base that will at least partially invalidate the 'There's nobody on here' argument against switching.

Do you think that will happen any time soon? I was quietly hopeful that Google would announce some amazing features for Google+ at IO that would bring that closer, but that didn't seem to happen (outside of Events, which are much better and more thought-out than Facebook's implementation).﻿
But +Robert Scoble I get that for new posts, but I have lots of old posts that are shared to Friends. I know that I can create a new group for IRL Friends and only share personal posts in the future with IRL Friends but what about my old posts.﻿
+Susan Rosenthal Exactly my point from above! Google+ does have games. They're just hidden so well that you could never notice them if you weren't looking for them. Also, there's not a huge selection. But I think Google's implementation is much less intrusive than Facebook's.﻿
+Robert Scoble My wife is actually avoiding Timeline as much as possible.  To be honest, I only switched to Timeline in an attempt to keep on top of, and in control of, my data.  All the more reason why the absence of the ticker is frustrating.

My screen at home is 1920x1080.  At work, I run dual 1280x1024s.  If my screen is too small, I am jealous of other people's screens.﻿
+Thom Stricklin yeah, the 1920x1080 should be fine. I have no idea why you aren't seeing a ticker. Very lame. I wish Facebook would force everyone to have the same UI. I really hate trolling through people's profiles and finding non-timeline ones. Makes seeing their likes very difficult.﻿
+Robert Scoble you do know about the new feature (developper only for now) thing called "History" and "Moments" ?

under the tab moments on my profile I have this :
Music  -  Places  -  Reviews  -  Comments  -  Reservations  -  Purchases
and I guess there is much more to come.

So soon your g+ profile will display a lot MORE about YOU.﻿
+james jacobin meeting? It's the Fourth of July. But I have a wedding to go to.

The problem with Google is that it can't break privacy contract and share with you what I was searching for (not that my porn searching habits are all that interesting) so Google can't really do much social with that stuff. Compare to Facebook where everything I do, including more than 5,000 likes, are now public and can be used for all sorts of things.

As for stealing? Um, Google was the 17th search engine. I know lots of people at Alta Vista thought Google stole their idea.﻿
+Clement Mesnier the thing is your history is only supposed to be shared with you. And you'll have to manually choose what to share with others. It won't be used by developers nearly as much as Open Graph and it won't be used by users, either. But I know there are lots of people who think I'm wrong or nuts or both. We'll have to wait and see. ﻿
+Robert Scoble yes that's the purpose. However at least for now I can set my Google Play purchases to "Public" (that's what you'd do right ?) I guess for other things you'll have granular control too.

The main difference between the 2 platform is that by default Facebook OG display Publicly where G+ History thing will be private.

About developpers, I agree the FB models will still attract them a lot more than the G+ one.﻿
+Robert Scoble Indeed and it speaks to your point about Facebook bringing out a raft of features once G+ arrived on the scene.  The problem for me is that I lost all trust in Facebook with all the changes they made to settings (and they still conitnue to do so) so I no longer feel I have control over what and where my information is being seen.  G+ Circles came along just at the right time and I always know where I am with it.

Granted Facebook has lists that do the same kind of thing now but this lack of trust is what is preventing me doing too much on Facebook these days.  And I used to be a big fan and heavy user once upon a time.  I did a 30 day challenge once where I stopped using Facebook and Twitter and used just G+ and I didn't miss Facebook but I did miss Twitter.  Since then my usage has been mostly G+ followed by Twitter and only ocassionaly Facebook.

I like and trust the people I'm connected to on Facebook but I don't trust Facebook any more.  Google screw up from time to time but I believe these are genuine mistakes - I'm not so sure with Facebook. ﻿
+Clement Mesnier one problem, though. Google+ has no algorithmic noise control like Facebook does. So, if you turn that on what will I see on MY feed? Now, multiply by 5,000. Yikes.﻿
+Chet Thaker yeah, I get the trust thing. It's why I was so pissed about Google messing with my calendar. Google never has done that before and it totally destroyed the usability of my calendar. It made me trust it less (and look for a way to get my calendar off of Google).

Facebook has had its moments, but it's easy to test whether the privacy model works or not. It has been quite consistent lately and I doubt they will be very renegade with it. Why do I say that? Because if they are they will be inviting governmental regulation and that's the last thing Zuckerberg wants. ﻿
I'm 100% with you here. Noise controls really lacks here. I'd like to filter out events, I can't :(﻿
+Robert Scoble it's a showstopper for me. If Facebook are smart they will introduce a way to convert all old posts to a particular list. I may start thinking ahead now, maybe in the future I won't be so protective of my old personal posts.

The other option is we make better use of the subscribe option.

I recently posted on Facebook reminding friends about privacy settings as quite a few are very non-technical and was worried they were publicly posting without realising, One friend replied that she was deliberately posting some to public as someone she was working with has tried to friend her but she didn't want to accept. So instead she posts the occasional public post.

Am going to have to give it some thought.﻿
It's an interesting read +Robert Scoble I guess you have found your likeness in facebook. Well.. Google Plus is not going to be Facebook and if it's going to be that, I am gonna use it anymore. Like many other, I have never visited to your profile pages but I have always found the interesting reads and thoughts from you and those who have commented on your Google Plus post. Thank you for that and also that is the reason I like about google plus. Everyday I am finding more and more interesting people to circle. My circles used to be some inactive friends and +Robert Scoble but that's not true anymore. At the end of the day, social networking is not about individual but about the people with common interests and engagement between each others. For that, google plus is the best social network ever existed.﻿
+Robert Scoble Good point - things are different now after the IPO.  And yes I understood your frustration about Events - I didn't like that either and I had nowhere near what you would have experienced.  Having said that - your rant was awesome! :-)﻿
+Chet Thaker Right there with you about Facebook.  Facebook fans will point to privacy settings, application settings, etc.--but there is a difference between having controls and having control.﻿
+Robert Scoble: I know you might have a different viewpoint because you advocate friction less, but do you think it is a bad idea for them to essentially block you out if you don't opt in?  
For several news stories that I have seen I ended up going to google to search for it because it required 'installing' the app.
It is the kind of the forcing of the hand that upsets users.
Do you feel this is similar?﻿
+Robert Elliot I have quite a few circles. But tech reporters also post cat photos. I can't get rid of the cat photos. No noise controls.

+Chris McIntosh well, forcing is always bad. You can keep the frictionless sharing to just yourself, though, and newer apps let you choose whether or not you want to share or not (I think the Huffington Post did that). But, either way, you found the right way to solve the problem. Hop out of Facebook.﻿
Hey with face recognition improving maybe there will be a cat filter :)﻿
What I like about G+ is that it doesn't show me your spotify and your quora or anything else like that. Instead, it shows me things that you deliberately posted here to discuss.﻿
While I like at least the spotify part on Facebook I think their approach of trying to display everything on one page is a big messy. As person who doesn't use Facebook often your eyes jump from box to box and it reminds me on myspace. Too much data display on one site to concentrate on the main content and hard to find out where what is if you're not a regular user of it.﻿
+Robert Scoble wouldn't you agree though that Facebook is not truly social in the sense that people interact with people they know or have some type of relationship. People like you are the exception of course, but overall I tend to interact more with total strangers on Google+ that share common interests. I was never able to figure that out on Facebook. Facebook is like being invited to a party with amazing people but you are never allowed to step over the velvet rope to get to them so you stand in the corner with your friends. Google+ has no vip section its come one come all let's have a talk. If most of us common folks were being honest with each other they would tell you that maybe 30 percent of the people on their Facebook page they actually interact with.﻿
Thought-provoking discussion, Robert. One point I haven't seen you consider, though: Not all of us want frictionless sharing. I don't know that I want to see every song, every meal, every breath someone is taking (or, conversely, that I want to put my every movement out for the world to see).

Like you last year, my primary medium has been Twitter. In the past month, I've tried to do more with Facebook and Google+, and I find Google+ much more useful, insightful and interesting than Facebook (even though I've had an FB account since 2008). I learn more herel.﻿
It's about time stop the comparisons between FB and Google+ they both serve different purposes and there is room for both if you choose.﻿
I have spent my past two years on twitter and more or less ignored Facebook and Google+. I have recently re-engaged with both of them and the process has been fruitful. To me, Facebook page is like a interactive website for your brand. Whereas Google+ is more like an expanded twitter page. I realize there is more to them than these simple descriptions but this is how I am treating my experience with them thus far. Having said that, it is worth populating Google+ profile as it helps drive SEO﻿
Facebook is better for keeping in contact with people I am actually acquainted with.  Google+ is better for interacting with people I don't necessarily know personally but who are interested in similar things.  A great example was the +CERN  press conference.  I am following that on Google+ more than Facebook.  ﻿
+Jonathan Groves on Facebook you have a choice on Frictionless Sharing. You can keep all that stuff to yourself. Sounds like Google+ is heading toward the same kind of choices with the addition of the History API.

+Don Shane I think we're going to be comparing these two for a very long time.

+Leo G sorry, if you think Facebook is the next AOL or MySpace you've missed something we haven't even talked about here yet: that Facebook has become an authentication platform (most of my mobile apps use it to log in) and it also has sprayed itself all over the web (go and comment on Techcrunch and you're using Facebook). Those two things alone ensure it won't be MySpace anytime soon.

+Don Shane yeah, you and I do, but most people aren't looking to talk with strangers. We've self selected. That's also what makes Quora interesting.  But Facebook is offering a better way to talk with strangers to people who are already on Facebook. That's an easier move than getting people to go to a new system where they probably don't know anyone and diving in. For instance, if I was a Facebook addict, adding an autism interest list is very easy. Getting me to sign into Google+, and then figure out who is there, who to trust, and also find an autism list (which, by the way, has very few members because most autistic parents are on Facebook not on Google+) is very difficult.﻿
+Nicholas Jackson CERN on Google+: 3,034 followers. On Facebook? 89,668 followers. 

That's the problem. Most people are on Facebook so the numbers are just way higher on nearly every point, even when talking about strangers. Most people aren't like me and you. When I talk to even geeks, like at LeWeb London, only 5% of the audience says they like Google+ while more than half raise their hands for Facebook (and nearly all hands go up when you ask whether they are using Facebook).﻿
#3 is the most important to me. Not that I post ao much, but I really hate when people want ro widely share something and they put it only on FaceBook. It's even worse when it's a public servant!﻿
+Jonathan Groves >>I don't know that I want to see every song, every meal, every breath someone is taking<<

This gets to what I've asked for since day one: noise controls. Facebook has quite interesting algorithmic noise controls, at least for the main feed. Google+ doesn't yet have noise controls. I'm really worried about what happens when people turn on public history sharing (coming soon). We'll see, I guess. I agree with you, by the way. Not everyone wants to see everything I do. But over on Facebook you have some controls over what of mine gets onto your feed. Here? Not so much (and, yes, I know you can turn down noisiness by circle, but that isn't even CLOSE to what we're going to need).﻿
+Javier Guerra sorry, but it really doesn't matter to me much anymore. Nearly everyone in the audiences I reach is on Facebook now. It's a very small portion of the audience that you can't reach. And, it really is antisocial at this point not to be on Facebook since nearly every TV show, movie, celebrity, and even the Olympics, is saying "follow us on Facebook and Twitter."﻿
+Javier Guerra but I do agree that public servants should be available everywhere, not just on Facebook.﻿
+james jacobin yeah, I understand that. Me? I'm pretty much in the same boat no matter where I go on the Internet. Always lots of people I know.﻿
+Robert Scoble I wonder about some of the algorithmic choices of FB as well. It seems I am missing some things that I'd actually like to see and seeing some things that really are not all that important to me.

I might feel differently if I were someone who had lots of followers, but at this point (especially with limited time and multiple interests), Google+ seems more efficient for my needs — like a longer-form Twitter. In terms of content received, Google+ is the more informative of the two for my professional/intellectual needs; FB is better for personal info.﻿
+Jonathan Groves yeah, that's why I created dozens of lists on Facebook (lists show you everything, or, at least, give you more control of the media types that show up). But the main feed is a bit of a black box. You can tune it a bit, but it's hard to figure out and takes lots of time.﻿
+Robert Scoble No doubt about it.  Google+ has a numbers problem, and I am an outlier in my preferences.  The major reason I still like to interact with "the wider world" using Google+ is that Facebook tends to be very pushy.  They want to automatically notify all of my FB friends about my every public interaction.  With Google+, my circles see my public comments if they are interested in the same thing (e.g. CERN).﻿
+Nicholas Jackson that's actually one of the reasons why I like Facebook: it makes every action I do online have scale. :-)﻿
I think this is going to boil down to personal preference, really. When I check out your profile, I do not care what music you listen to, where you checked in for lunch via foursquare. I don't care about any of that, I only care about the content you generate. Even for people who I am personal friends with, I don't really care.

I get the point you have made about music, but I just believe it is too noisy.﻿
+Stephen Gray that's cool. I don't agree with you, but that's what makes the world go round. I'd rather know more about you than not. Especially if I find you interesting for, say, your tech opinions, that tells me there's probably other things I'd find you interesting for.﻿
The primary reason I don't like Facebook is the Ticker. I REALLY don't want every "like" and comment posted to everyone who follows me. My grandma doesn't need to know how much I like the latest metal band release. But more importantly, I like to join in on (public) topical conversations without friends with radically different viewpoints automatically being notified of the debate. Public posts on G+ are easy to find if you are looking for them, but you have to look. On Facebook, they are forced upon your followers and I really don't like it. I guess I enjoy my "friction". And to answer your question, I prefer your G+ profile!﻿
I am a Google fan and prefer the format of Google+ and its profiles.  I consider myself just an average type user.  I am not a writer, and I tend to post/reshare stuff I find interesting.  The problem is that I really dont have many friends that use it on a regular basis, so I don't get many plus 1s or comments.  The problem is still how to convince the average user who doesn't know or care about the differences to use it daily or at least more frequently.﻿
+Stephen Gray and, anyway, some of that frictionless stuff IS content. Look at the Quora block, for instance. Everytime I answer a question it shows up there (and if I like one, or follow one). Or, look at Foursquare again. On many of my most popular checkins I've left tips for you. THAT is content and you might not never know I left something there for you. Plus, maybe you never have heard of Foursquare and my usage of it will get you to try it out.﻿
Thanks for that approach, +Robert Scoble

For what it's worth, I think your Google + page has exactly the right information for me and made it an easy decision to follow you way back at the beginning. I don't always agree with you, but it's always an interesting read.

Thanks for posting so much.﻿
+Brian Kemper funny, the ticker is my favorite feature. I love watching that and, I even recently gave a talk at a marketing conference where I pulled stuff off of the ticker. 

So you prefer the profile where you know less about me. Interesting. 

+Russell Milliner yup, there's a far deeper power law here on Google+ than on Facebook (meaning that if you aren't in the top few percent of users getting interaction is much tougher than on Facebook).﻿
+james jacobin on my Facebook profile you can see my Soundcloud podcasts in real time. Here? You have to wait for me to explicitly share them and maybe I will be lazy that day and miss one.

+Stephen Gray thanks for the fun conversation!﻿
+Robert Scoble, those are fair points about frictionless creating content, but I believe you are in the minority, particularly with foursquare﻿
+Stephen Gray people who create content are ALWAYS in the minority. Even you. :-) Most people on Twitter, for instance, never tweet (according to Jack Dorsey).﻿
+Robert Scoble - I love your posts on Google+ about technology and you are about the only source I follow regarding Facebook, but I could care less about your politics, music preferences (well maybe I care a little) and what you "like" on Facebook. Also, being an expat, most of the other services brought in to Facebook are noise as they "aren't available in my country" .﻿
Business insider already made a blog post about this post.﻿
+Robert Scoble if your stream here were full of all that "frictionless sharing" stuff you mention your signal to noise (for me) would deteriorate and I would unfollow you... surely I wouldn't be the only one?

I want the Google+ API and I want to be able to hook services up to it and as a subscriber I want better noise controls first.﻿
It sound right to me but I think you can get bored of knowing every aspect of your friends life but the real information is something you will always want. I still have my FB account but mostly because is the only way to get to some people and is a great way to login into other websites but now I spent most of my social networking time on G+﻿
I'm not interested in frictionless sharing. I prefer some friction and choice as to what I want to share and with whom. That's why I'm using facebook less and google+ more.﻿
+Robert Scoble - I think you are wrong about G+Events.  It's awesome and totally different as compared to their calendar events (which is awesome too, but a different product).  The next step is a full social calendar.  G+Calendar?  Maybe something like team Sharelendar is doing?    ﻿
I will admit the facebook profile is more human and engaging where as the g+ profile looks like it was designed by an engineer. The info is there but very stark. That being said I find with the new updates to g+ I am spending more and more time here. The feed on the mobile side is dramatic, exciting. Where as I used to visit once a week or so, when I remembered it existed.. Now I find myself here several times a day.﻿
I think activity on Facebook is better than on Google+ for me at the moment. I seem to get a lot more comments in the post thread from places where I have commented on sites that utilise Facebook comments. Also, FB comments has allowed me to see what my friends are reading and discussing. Google+ seems to just lack engagement for me. I post original content as regularly as I can, but often times it goes out amongst all the other noise in people's feed, making it harder for them to find it.

I'm surprised you don't find it similar....﻿
I like your Google+ profile more than your FB. Why? because if find it simpler, tidier, and I really hate FB design (but this is personal preference). Comparing both designs, I think that the famous "less is more" becomes alive :-)﻿
By far, the most interesting read I've ever had with my morning coffee! Great points an d comments from all sides. Thanks +Robert Scoble  Now to my 2nd cup of java﻿
+Larry Page, +Vic Gundotra, and +Bradley Horowitz could pay $100K for a consultant to provide an evaluation of G+ at this anniversary stage, or they could simply read your analyses, +Robert Scoble, and learn a lot from your interactive comment trail and knowledgable subscribers about what directions they might wish to move if they want G+ to be an identity network that "frictionlessly" accumulates data about their users.

In the long run, G+ hangouts, the increasing integration with YouTube, and all the collaborative creativity tools on this network will draw the most serious individuals from Facebook who will spend more time here than "playing" on Facebook — unless Facebook continues to copy innovative G+ features and causes its nearly one billion users to stay stuck in the high-walled garden forevermore.

What i like about G+ is that it does allow immediate integration of your serious promulgations into the Google global search engine. When you say something important on Facebook, it generally stays stuck in Facebook and is only seen by the great Facebook algorithms who determine its exposure for you; and it is so difficult to find after months go by and you can't remember exactly what day you said something.

Is it possible to have 2 gigantic social networks — one mostly for play (Facebook) and the other one mostly for creative collaboration and monetization (Google+)? One is aimed at sucking money out of you (FB); the other is trying to help you earn an income (G+). So be it. Haha.﻿
Just like other platforms, google+ is and can be utilized by each person differently. You can stare at people who intend to make money off of their clout and those that just share for the sake of sharing. Others use it as a cure for loneliness, even though there really is no substitute for real life people engagement.

For me, it's a way to feel less trapped, and try a few facets of my personality that might otherwise carry social stigmatization. That's why, for now, I've purposefully not added or invited family to connect with me on Google+. I need to feel able to be secure so I don't feel as though required to be anyone in particular.

My family's political views are probably what drove me to break my social online time between Google+ and Facebook. Knowing they aren't here makes me feel more secure in sharing more candidly the content that would normally get attacked by the right wing leaning portions of my family.﻿
The fact that I have to sign into Facebook to see any information about you, someone who defaults to public, seems like a problem. For those who want an illusion of privacy it might be nice I guess. ﻿
+Robert Scoble  saying that "everybody [that i care] is in FaceBook" is a big part of the problem.  Just as the "everybody has Windows/MS-Office" got so many people thinking that ".doc" was a standard!﻿
irish d
when i check profiles in FB (rare for acquaintances and on average once in 2 months for those close to me), i check pictures, not their music. their posts are rarely interesting in their page but are only noticeable to me when it comes to my streams. when i go to their page, it means i want to see what else is going on with them w/c pictures can sufficiently show. i don't check on friends to find out their latest taste in music, movies they've watched.. those are more like topics of conversation and set aside for when you interact one on one.

as for g+, profiling is different here. initially for example i followed someone for their interest in android. OVER TIME, i found out that he's also a democrat, he's interested in tennis, he's passionate about animal cruelty, etc. strangers as they are, i generally know them coz what could be more important than your mind, your expressions, your passion. you can find those in FB but it's lost in all those status updates and consumer products they occasionally like.﻿
irish d
your posts here says more about you than anything you could say about yourself in a "slam book"﻿
+Robert Scoble I think the difference is you assume that people want frictionless sharing. I think a large percentage of social networking users try to restrict what gets shared and to whom as opposed to being an open book at all times. The fact that I have to consciously make a decision to share something on G+ is a benefit as far as I'm concerned. I don't have to worry that if I happen to find myself reading a webpage about how to prepare for a job interview that that information will get broadcast unknowingly and perhaps picked up by my boss leading to an uncomfortable conversation. I never log in to other sites using my facebook login, and if that's the only option on a site I don't use their service.﻿
Where is the full fledged G+ API, a year old and not much changed at the API side huh?! Can we expect that like, in 2017?﻿
I do think that quality of shares on G+ are generally better that on Facebook, frictionless = easy to do post without thinking.

But they both have their place. Facebook is definitely more personal but Google+ can be personal if the right group of your contacts have signed up.﻿
I prefer your G+ page primarily because the Facebook one has too much unimportant fluff.  I like it that you have to think before posting to G+, it's more likely to be something interesting and worth reading.

In a way it's a bit like Twitter, where you are forced to actually compose yourself better because of the arbitrary limits of the medium.﻿
I proudly deactivated my FB account a week ago. Never looking back. No trust there.﻿
Man, why some people can't just use G+ or Facebook to engage with their audiences, not cry and rant about networks themselves. Tired of this. #uncircled  ﻿
I find the G+ more blog oriented too. I agree, Facebook is about people. G+ is about what people sharing (content).

Thus business-wise I'd find Facebook B2C oriented while G+ would be more of B2B (excellent to share between biz-partners and with clients at a corp level — contrarily to Facebook where sharing is at a personal level, either B2C or individual to individual). ﻿
It wasn't Facebook that I dropped by going G+, it was Twitter.  I think that's a better comparison.﻿
+Robert Scoble have you heard when and if google is going to release the API for other apps/programs to post information? Thx﻿
What I don't like about frictionless sharing for profile building +Robert Scoble  is lack of context.  For example, what if you were looking into the media's impact & influence on social issues because you disagree with current social conservatism.   How many (Glenn Beck? Limbough?)  articles would be (frictionless) shared that may give the appearance to another user, that you are a social conservative, Beck/Limbough disciple, even though you were only searching for info & better understanding of the conservative point of view.

 Everything you may read, watch or listen too in a day, aren't necessarily items one would recommend, and may be content you dislike.  (While searching for new music, articles & info you like, how many songs would you encounter that you dislike?, How many articles would you disagree with or find Bull$h&t?  How many would  be posted without context).  

Where selective sharing allows you to share the interests you feel are worth sharing with others and provides context to your interests.﻿
Clearly the biggest take-a-way here is that you've slowed/stopped interacting with twitter. Twitter hasn't added any real new features, and is even taking a lot of them away (re: api) I dont see how twitter is relivant 2-5 years from now in a post FB/G+ world﻿
+Robert Scoble You show up everywhere I look, from Google searches to FB likes on websites I check out, to Quora, etc. Keep doing whatever you're doing, on whatever networks you like the best, because it works.﻿
James: you should switch your comments to only allowing friends of friends. That will solve that problem on Facebook.﻿
+Robert Scoble For me, +Google+ has drastically reduced the amount of time I spend on Google Reader, rather than replacing/competing with my Facebook time. Enough of the +Android and tech blogs that I subscribed to in Reader also post here, as well as +Lifehacker and a few other sites. I think being able to subscribe to rss/atom feeds in G+ would be an awesome feature. Then I could ditch Reader completely. I suppose I could subscribe to all of them on Fb, but I don't really like having my news mixed up with all of the personal family/friend updates. If there was a way to subscribe to or add stuff to interest lists on +Facebook+  but block it from showing in the main news feed, I might be more inclined to do that. ﻿
Not on - don't want to be on FB. So it has to be G+.﻿
+Robert Scoble  I actually am starting to find FB profiles less worth poking around. Too busy. I care more about what people post rather than what they 'like' or listen to. If I want advice for purchase decisions I simply ask for it. Usually in a matter of minutes I will have  useful info. I generally assume people are only 'liking' stuff through FB because they are getting some freeby or another from the company in question and don't view them as any sort of endorsement for the companies products. 

Not that I have any intention of giving up FB. It is ok for keeping in contact with far away family members and other people I know offline. Though I am no longer using my 'fan' page. Just isn't worth it.  G+ is far superior for my purposes (my personal profile not a G+ 'page')

I also generally dislike the edge-ranking and unfortunately they seem to be doing that crap here too. ﻿
Im confused in one instance you complain about people sharing LOL cats and in another instance you want frictionless sharing which can be defined as over sharing.

So you want to be able to share everything but only read some things for everyone sharing. ﻿
I think if g+ launched an API it'll be polluted with apps, just like FB.
Also the noise control here is quite problematic.﻿
I visited your FB profile +Robert Scoble and was met with an utter mess that looks like auto-generated spam, otherwise known as a FB profile as it appears to someone not signed in to FB.
Then I opened an incognito window and anonymously looked at your G+ profile, and it was beautiful and full of good information.
That pretty much tells the whole story right there. At the end of the day, FB feels like a scam to many. Like there's something inherently scammy written into the company's DNA.
"it really is antisocial at this point not to be on Facebook"
You're sorely missing the point, Scoble. One's public identity on the internet is a big deal, or at least it should be. If a person makes an informed decision to host their identity with a product or service other than Facebook, that decision and the person who made it should be respected, not labelled 'antisocial' for not doing what everyone else did. 
There are many of us here who are deeply grateful to Google for providing a genuine, viable alternative to Facebook--an alternative that's tasteful, that respects our privacy, and that doesn't feel like a scam. ﻿
+Robert Scoble Actually the more I think about it I find the kind of frictionless sharing that you appear to be a proponent of more anti-social than social. You're just spraying content out there... everything you look at or listen too is there for the world to see... there's no reason for someone to socialize with you. By restricting what is shared if people want to get to know me they have to interact with me find some common ground and then maybe they get to know what I think is worth reading and listening to. It's the difference between using a machine gun vs. a single shot rifle. One is spray and pray you hit something, the other is a well intended directed shot. For the time being I'll opt out of frictionless sharing every chance I get.﻿
Facebook is a diary of the user. His taste, the type of stuff he's interested in, his biography (timeline?) and everything.

Google Plus is the blog. You post and others comment. No more than that...

But, 6.5 out of the 6.8 billion people on the planet don't have anything interesting (news, latest update about their company, and their professional life) to share which is what G+ is used for. Nothing personal, all personal. 

But, everyone has something personal to share (Their kids playing, the sunset from their backyard, the dinner date they just had) at any moment. that's why Facebook wins. Because it has 'friends'.

In Google Plus, both your brother and tom cruise are on your friend list. They get the same treatment. both are listed in 'from your circles'.
But on Facebook, your brother is a 'friend'. And moreover, a 'Family' list member. He gets 10000x treatment from you than the celerity which are just 'subscribed too'.﻿
frictionless sharing is for people who seek entertainment, nothing more (the kind of people who prefer facebook).

Scoble, you haven´t apologize for insulting us (G+ users) the other day (in that infamous video). So, what are you waiting for??
I wish I had been in front of you that day, I would have punched you in the face. Who the hell you think you are to talk like that? what have you done in your life? loser﻿
I signed off Facebook after only a short while in the service due to the bad press and I was not finding decent content, I wasn't aware of +Robert Scoble back then, sorry Robert : )  

G+ has almost become a sort of blogging platform above others I've used in the past, wordpress etc and I've got to engage with a very good group of people on here since getting an invite about a month after launch.  I agree that it's maybe not as frictionless as what can be found on FB, but then again it's not as cluttered by crap either, as not everything I put in Pinterest I Tweet on or feature here, enjoying using each network separately.  As long as I continue to find great content on G+ I'll be here.  The first time someone starts posting pics of their half eaten dinner, or toilet habits, saw both on FB (shudder) I'm gone. : )﻿
+Robert Scoble For me, the social object is not the person, but the topic. I'm not that interested in knowing everything about a person that I don't already know. Basic stuff suffices. I'm more interested in how we engage, react, attack, defend, etc. around a particular topic, issue or category. My life/attention doesn't revolve around them, it revolves around the "social object" I'm interested in. 

I haven't deleted my Facebook account, mostly because of the connections to family and old friends. But, I find that I am not voyeuristic about some loosely-coupled friends I've connected with on Facebook. That's probably just me, though. My wife has an entire social community related to her equestrian business on Facebook and it works for her.﻿
+Robert Scoble this goes to the heart of the matter: "Google+ doesn't yet have noise controls. I'm really worried about what happens when people turn on public history sharing (coming soon). We'll see, I guess. I agree with you, by the way. Not everyone wants to see everything I do."

It has long been known that Info Overload is never the problem of the source, but always with the filtering capabilities of the receiver. Google is still trying to control at the source (with manually shared G+ History "moments"), which just doesn't make sense to do OVER just giving the receiver more "Noise Control" (noise being a very relative term... anything can potentially be noise given the context).﻿

Isn't that almost the same thing? I mean it is after all the "great Google algorithm" that determines your SERPs exposure for you. Both systems have plenty of users looking in (around 900 Million)... and while you might say that FB only shows your stuff to your friends for the most part, it's not as if the G+ personalized results are shown to people outside of your Circles. Food for thought.﻿
+Alex Schleber, yes, food for thought. But all that i know is that when i am looking for a post, say my favorite short motivational video to overcome fear, and i know i posted it on Facebook and G+, i can find it instantly here and can't find it on Facebook unless i take the day off.

On G+, i'm able to find it multiple ways — just now to get the URL (another problem on Facebook) i keyed: "fear Hagel Acker" because i remember sharing it initially from John Hagel.﻿
In other words, +Alex Schleber, i am just agreeing wholeheartedly with Robert's main points about how G+ excels:




But thanks for your interesting perspective — i guess i'd rather have Google's more open approach to information than participate in Facebook becoming a secondary closed internet that sucks info in from everywhere else but then doesn't let you find it easily.﻿
I like G+ better in following you Robert.  Its easier to read your full post and comments.  But I get your notifications in Facebook mobile app which brings me here.  How about that.﻿
+Brad Acker it's not THAT far off for FB to start indexing of content you put in there, agreed that it is still a little bit better here (though far from perfect by any means, Robert rightly mentions Friendfeed circa June of 2009, now that was advanced/useful search!).

I was coming more from the 10,000 foot view of how FB and Google are more similar than they are not... (black box algos, asf.).﻿
It's not surprising there was a delay on the G+ congrats, since you frequently boast about how much better FB is than G+ online. ﻿
You, +Robert Scoble and I (probably others too) are diametrically opposed... whereas you want to share every fart and burp (excuse my language), I am an EXTREMELY private person. I rarely EVER post personal stuff, where I have been, what I do, what I believe, what I like or dislike.

I am also absolutely uninterested in others' daily lives, other than of course what I choose to communicate directly between them and myself. Email suffices for that. So that is why I HATE Facebook... I don't want to know what uninteresting person A posts as a comment on boring person B's (who I don't even know) picture of their third cousin's newborn baby... or that they had cereal for breakfast.

Why do I like G+? Because I can follow people who have something interesting to say, such as yourself (sometimes, enough for me to follow), and who DELIBERATELY go about posting their thoughts or insights.

If +Google+ ever introduces something idiotic as "frictionless sharing", I'll be the first one out. But that is just me :) And I realize I might come across as a bit strong... apologies if I offend anyone.﻿
Couldn't agree with you more +Sophia Burns . I absolutely hate automatic shares in my stream. A mayor of a nearby town is my FB friend, one day I saw "Mayor XXX is watching women dancing nude on XXX video." I sent him a message right away, "Mayor, you probably don't want your constituent to know what you are doing now."﻿
I agree too +Sophia Burns - I have a FB account which I occasionally use, but whenever I come across a service/app that has "Login with Facebook", I steer away.  I just don't like sharing those things with FB and have no confidence that I understand the consequences.  People I follow also don't judging by some of the things that get shared in their streams.﻿
In Google+ I decide what I share and with who. It requires that I make a voluntary effort to send a message. Unfortunately most of my friends are not here yet. But on the other hand I am meeting lots of great people around the world with diverse interests.
In Facebook robots share with robots. Robots (apps) automatically send messages to my friends telling them what I am doing, like, want and another one ("Edgerank") decides who can see it. I don't think I would have many friends if I would use this method in real life.﻿
Hey +Dave Winer, great decision deleting your fb account. I see everymore people getting tired fb every day. And frictionless share will be the end of fb, i dont want to post everything and i dont see the usefulness of it to most people. ﻿
Your facebook has too much of information, it's clumsy. G+ could be better, of course, but i like it's neatness. the only thing in which facebook profile is definitly better than G+ is the URL (why G+ team still has not fixed it to be human like?????)﻿
+Liz Christopher Have you tried the "Limit the Audience for Past Posts" setting in your FB privacy settings? It will change past posts to "friends only". You can also individually set the privacy for each post, but this might be a good place to start if you want to enable your "Subscribe" feature.﻿
With ripples, #Google+ is becoming a combination social networking and social bookmarking tool.  I like that I can see who first shared a link, who catalyzes large-scale sharing, and how sharing of a link trends.  Very nice, interactive, and visual.﻿
Add a comment...