captain's blog

This whole Google+ circles model is still brand spankin’ new to the social media experience and we’re all still trying to figure out. Including Google.

In the meantime, Chris Messina who started the whole Twitter #hashtag thing (he’s currently on the Google+ team) is trying to figure out what’s next. Last night he posted this to Google+:

So, I suppose the question is, can we come up with a better spec for G+ to implement and adopt today?

In the middle of the conversation thread, Ben Petro made this suggestion:

Why not use the shape analogy? Like, create ‘squares’ of topics you want to share, and be able to quickly add your posts to different squares.

I wrote a response, and I thought I’d post it here! (Just in case my little proposal ever becomes or inspires an actual thing.)

This is really a question regarding aggregation, which is one of Google+s strengths so far.

The ‘squares concept’ really resonates with me. It hints at structure and top down orderliness. When we talk about public space, it’s either the public ‘sphere’ or the public ‘square’. I think the concept of the square really scales here to describe subsets of opt-in public groupings.. whereas circles should remain tied to the idea of private groupings.

Conceptually then, ‘Public’ is not a circle but a square. It’s the one global square that everyone is a part of. The proverbial content firehose of the main stream.

Circles should be private and start with one person and grow all the way up to the maximum limit.

Squares should be owned by individuals as circles are, but they’re opt in. When you add someone to your ‘Following’ circle, you are seen by those users as following their public square. Alternatively, you can opt into choosing to follow an individuals other public squares to receive a subset of their posts.

Example: If my profile is a public profile, I automatically get one public square by default. Everyone who adds me to a circle is in in fact following my personal public square. Additionally, I can create squares based on interest, community, project, etc. I can’t add anyone to squares, but I can ask people to follow one or another to the exclusion of my other public squares.

And then there’s the ‘Extended Network.’ Let’s say I want to target a public post towards followers of +Chris Messina . Instead of tagging him, I’d tag his public square with #Chris Messina. Followers of +Chris Messina don’t see my post unless they are looking at the public feed around Chris. Of course, I can always use the hashtag in a private post thereby starting a private conversation around his private square.

(I suppose my proposed hashtag usage in Google+ is a combination of twitter hashtags and facebook all posts.)

Now, let’s say +Chris Messina has a #getfirefox square he filters posts to. I don’t care about anything else he posts, so I follow that square and maybe one other. His other public posts don’t exist in my stream. If I filter my stream around Chris’ getfirefox square, I have the choice of seeing his content, or expanding to the global public stream around his square (like following a twitter hashtag). Now let’s say I want to target a post about firefox to a few of my circles, and Chris’ public square. i should be able to do that by simply typing #Chris Messina#getfirefox. This post would appear in the streams of the people in my chosen circles, as well as the public stream around Chris’ #getfirefox square. In a sense, this is also a much more targeted form of ‘Extended Circles’

All that sounds complicated when typed out, but I think the experience of it can be made as simple as circles. Soo… recapping a bit.

Circles are private but inclusive; 1 up to 5000(+?)
Visual: People exist inside the circle.

‘Extended Network’ is the least private you can get. They’re feel semi-public.
Visual: Triple node thingy which indicates circles around circles.

Squares are public but exclusive; global down to 1
Visual: People congregate outside/around squares

Tagging a post with circles and squares essentially builds a single post bridge between that circle within that public square. This can be visualized as circles inside the squares.

Tagging a private post with a circle but using a hashtag within it creates a one-way bridge (a link, one might say) between that circle and the square. Being able to do this is important because of search. If I search/follow a hashtag/square, I’ll be able to see both public an private posts I’m a part of within the same stream. Squares within circles, so to speak.

It’s all very simple really.

Well, that went a little long. I wonder if there’s a character limit…

And then:

One other note, this circles and square dichotomy becomes increasingly interesting when organizations come into the picture! The Mozilla foundation can then have their own public square for #firefox in addition to Chris’ public square for #firefox. I guess this implies that we’d be adding squares to circles in addition to circles to squares…

You can follow the entire conversation thread here: http://plus.google.com/102034052532213921839/posts/Hjaq8prh8mv