+1, Sharing & Oversharing on Google+

Good news: Google+ gives people a few new ways to share the best of the web.
Bad news: Google+ gives people a few new ways to share the best of the web.

My son Lanagan directs this short clip, as we take a look at how to use Google’s +1 and Google+ sharing. Stay tuned after the closing screen for a couple of Lanagan outtakes.

The best way to figure out what Google+ is like is to dive in yourself:
http://gplus.to/CharlieCurve

I love you, Steve Jobs, but damn-it, Steve, approve the damn Google+ app for iPhone already. Dragging your feet on this makes you look like a little bitch. You’re Apple for godsakes. You made the Mac. The iMac. The iPod. The iPhone. The iPad. You inspired a generation of artist and entrepreneurs. You inspired a generation of brightly colored George Foreman Grills and curling irons. You beat Microsoft – your way. You saved the record industry with iTunes. You killed Nokia and the flip phone. You built Pixar which grossed $6.3 billion worldwide and made people be able to say the word “Woody” in public without snickering. Yes, Google made footprints in your sandbox, but most folks who use an Apple product also use a Google service or two. Go ahead. Approve the Google+ app. Then get yourself healthy and turn Ping into a social network worth of the Apple name.

Love always - 
Charlie

PS - Let me beta test a new iPhone 5 and all is forgiven.

How do you describe Google+ to someone who loves Facebook or Twitter?

Google Plus is a lot like Facebook—
minus the farms
minus the interface gunk
minus the pokes
minus the ads (for now)
minus the status update cholesterol 
minus the dumbed down photo engine
minus the mainstream
minus the clutter

Google+ is also kind of like Twitter+
plus threaded conversations
plus easy to use groups
plus rich media sharing
plus more robust profiles
plus digital life integration
plus more characters

The best way to figure out what Google+ is like is to dive in:
http://gplus.to/CharlieCurve

Connections, Friends, Followers and now Circles (or is it Additions or Pluses). As we watch the launch of Google+ unfold, it’s time to step back and look at how to rebuild our social networks from the ground up.

I rounded up five of my smartest friends and asked them 7 questions about starting over in social networking, network size and the future of Google+.

Our panel of experts include:

Gini Dietrich - Founder of Arment Dietrich. Author of SpinSucks.com.
CC Chapman - Founder of DigitalDads.com. Author of Content Rules.
Chris Brogan - Founder of Human Business Works. Author of Trust Agents.
Terry Bean - Founder of MCC. Author of Universal Guide to Business Networking.
Nate Riggs - Founder of Social Business Strategies. Author of NateRiggs.com.
Charlie Wollborg - Founder of Curve Detroit. Tweeter of tweets. Vlogger of Vlogs.

Question 1 – “How are your wins and/or missteps in building your Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter networks influencing your Google+ strategy?”

Gini Dietrich: The biggest thing I’ve learned from the other social networks is how to organize my network within G+. When I started on Twitter, there was no such thing as lists. Heck, there wasn’t even a desktop application. So, having to go back in, after a year of being on the platform and organizing my followers was super painful.

Chris Brogan: I’m trying something new, at least at the start. I’m not following everyone back. I’m very selective. I have about 4 circles: one for close people (defined as people I’d let watch my kids), one for good people (people I actually care about what they say), attention getters (like Robert Scoble and Bre Pettis and others, who are media makers - mind you, they’re good people, too, but I have to quantify these lists somehow), and bacon filchers, which is my list of brand types. I read the public stream a lot right now, but I retreat into those four circles quite often, which is very different from how I use Twitter.  

Nate Riggs: I am much wiser and more cautious. Not that I don’t still accept invitations from folks I don’t know. I’m a blogger so I’m used to that kind of thing. But Circles has given me a way to be honest about the level or type of relationships I have with people. I’m finding that I send out things like personal pictures to family more than I would on something like Facebook.

Charlie Wollborg: I’m organizing folks into meaningful circles as I add them. Adding them now and organizing later doesn’t work for me. Later never comes.

.

Question 2 – “Are you more or less selective as you add to circles vs when you have connected, friended or followed in the past?”

Gini Dietrich: I didn’t really know how to set up my Circles at first. I’m adding people to a Circle IF I know them in some form already. If I don’t know them, but they’ve added me, I’m adding them to a big circle to review later.

CC Chapman: I am not just porting over from other networks. I’m being VERY selective on who I add to a circle and am using Google+ as a filter so that I don’t miss anything shared by those really close to me.  

Chris Brogan: I’m worlds more selective. It’s an experiment, but I’m trying my best to learn how to make this environment feel a lot more meaningful, content-wise, than what I did with Twitter. It’s really hard for me to see everything sluicing by in the stream over there, so I’m doing a lot more work on that here. So far, it’s paying off. I’m feeling a stronger connection to people, lots of whom I’d lost touch with over the last little while. That, to me, is a big win.  

Terry Bean: As a very open networker I’m selective in how I create my circles, but I’m open to having lots of circles. The main thing I will do differently is stay on top of this network. Linkedin has grown unruly for me and I wish I would have done a better job assigning my friends ib Facebook. Its almost too messy to worry about it now. With Google+  I feel like I get a “do over”.

Nate Riggs: Not really. I add everyone, But, if I don’t know you and you’ve added me, I do drop users into an “added me” circle. Once I’ve had some time to get inside that circle and talk with people, it helps me deiced if theirs a deeper connection that leads to a second or third circle. My “added me” circle is kind of like the triage area in a hospital.

Charlie Wollborg: I’m an open networker in my outer circles, but I’m very selective about who makes it into the inner circles.

.

Question 3 – “Do you find you’re just cross pollinating your existing networks?”

Gini Dietrich: Not at all! It’s a different network, just like the others are different, and it’s a different message and a different strategy.

Chris Brogan: Absolutely. I’m seeing a LOT of the same old faces refriending me, yet again, on another platform. I *wish* we could carry that graph with us, in some ways. In other ways, I’m happy to get the chance to do this a bit more specifically this time.  

Terry Bean: I do think there is about an 80% cross pollination effect. That’s ok because we will have different interactions on plus then we do elsewhere.

Nate Riggs: Not really. I still spend more time on Twitter and Facebook.  Abandoning what you’ve spent years building for some new shiny object is just plain dumb. I’m looking at Google plus as somewhat of a courting period.  I’m spending enough time there to get really familiar, but it will be a while I’m ready to move in in all my stuff. 

.

Question 4 – “Do you find you’re just replicating your status updates and/or content on each network?”

Gini Dietrich: Um, no. My Facebook status on Sunday was a poll about whether or not I should wear my cycling spandex to Starbucks. That wouldn’t ever go on Twitter or LinkedIn or G+. Different networks get different messages and different strategies.

CC Chapman: I am only sharing unique content on Google+ because I don’t want to just keep pouring the same things into all networks. If it is something I’ve created then I will share it across all networks, but if I’m just sharing something then no.

Chris Brogan: No. I do it differently everywhere. I treat LinkedIn and Facebook as a lot less personal, and I treat Twitter like a back and forth conversation, interrupted by sharing. On Google+, I’m doing a lot more work in the arena of curating interesting content, finding new off-Google+ stuff to share, and I’m doing a lot to keep conversations alive there.  

Terry Bean: There will be replication of status updates and there will be repurposibg of updates too. People will use each of these sites differently and at different times. Its ok to repost because you may hit a different audience or you may actually hit your intended one.

Nate Riggs: I do that at different times on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Repurposing your content is savvy and helps to create some sense of consistency across all the contexts of the different networks. I’m taking the approach of reading more than I post right now to see if I can figure out themes of what works and what doesn’t.  

Charlie Wollborg: Replicating, no. Repurposing, yes. My content is my brand so I’m reformatting it to best fit the tone, audience and attitude of each network.

.

Question 5 – “How many circles are you up to? Do you think the new circles you add will be more broadly or narrowly focused?”

Gini Dietrich: I only have 12 Circles, but I have more than 1,000 people waiting to be added to one of them. The 12th Circle is the “I don’t know you, but you’ve added me” Circle.

CC Chapman: I have 8 circles at the moment and until nesting is available I’m not sure I’ll add many more.  

Chris Brogan: I have 4. I’m trying not to add too many more. But I like the 4 that I have.

Nate Riggs: I’m on the broad end of things right now and working towards narrowing. I think my total circles are about 10-12 right now.  Here’s a recent post on how I’ve organized them (for now): 5 Point Framework for Organizing your G+ Circles.

Charlie Wollborg: I have plenty of circles divided into three broad categories: Location, Expertise, Relationship. Most folks fall into multiple circles.

.

Question 6 – “What do you think is sweet spot or perfect size of a circle?”

Gini Dietrich: I think it’s too early to tell, but I’m liking no more than 20 right now.

Chris Brogan: I don’t know. My “close” circle is at 13. My “attention getters” is around 350. Neither seems to bug me. I guess you want enough to keep the stream going but not so much that you lose the thread of conversations and flow there. When someone announces the birth of their kid, and you miss it, the circle’s too big.  

Nate Riggs: If you look at Facebook on the top stories tab when EdgeRank is doing it’s stuff, you’re probably looking at between 15-25 different friend’s updates on a regular basis. I think I’d have to give the engineers at Facebook some credit as that number has worked well for keeping people spending time on Facebook. Another way to look at it would be through Dunbar and 150 people.  So, somewhere in between 15 and 150 is my vote. Final answer.

Charlie Wollborg: Each circle serves a unique purpose so there really isn’t a right answer for me. My largest circle is 500. The smallest is 3.

.

Question 7 – “Put on your Carnac the Magnificent turban and look into the future. One year from now, how do you think Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and Justin Timberlake’s new MySpace will rank in influence?”

Gini Dietrich: If Justin Timberlake works with Ashton Kutcher on a new MySpace, it’ll take over the world. I don’t see Facebook going anywhere. If Twitter dies, it won’t be because of G+. It’ll be because they still haven’t figured out how to monetize themselves. I think G+ is going to kill email, if it kills anything.

CC Chapman: Myspace is doomed. Not worth talking about it. All of those platforms will still be around except for perhaps Twitter which I still believe is primed to be bought by someone. They will all still being used and in unique ways.

Chris Brogan: Facebook will still be #1 in one year. I don’t know the numbers on MySpace but doubt Justin can fix it (with all respect and love to Justin). LinkedIn and Twitter will grow slowly, unless Google+ hurts Twitter somehow. But that’s in one year. Ask me about what happens in three…

Terry Bean: I think LinkedIn, MySpace and Google+ will grow. LinkedIn will do so because business is such a valuable niche. MySpace will grow because JT brings sexy where ever he goes…seriously because they will carve out a little bigger niche and bring some heavy star power. The only way Google+  doesn’t grow in the next year us if they shelf it too soon ala Google Wave. Facebook and Twitter will experience shrinkage.

Nate Riggs: Facebook reigns supreme at number 1. Why? They already are wining the adoption race. Google+ is not attractive enough to the average non-techie Facebook user to pack up and leave, people are lazy in nature. I think Google Plus will eventually prove to be more useful as a business communications network.  Not for marketing or selling, but for business to business team collaboration. I think in the next year we will see Wave re-emerge inside of Google+ as well as some more robust project management applications, search and RSS features. 

Charlie Wollborg: Facebook’s farms and lifestreams (the years worth of photos, videos and posts 500M people have shared) will keep Facebook at the top of the heap for a long time to come. I think Google+ will become the top place for industry chatter. Twitter will dominate pop culture and Linkedin will continue as a “set-it and forget-it” business rolodex on steroids. I really hope MySpace goes away.

Agree? Disagree? I’d love to hear your thoughts.