Skip to main content
 

Mike's already picked up on the +1s bleeding through.

3 min read

Mike's already picked up on the +1s bleeding through.

We have an open bug on choosing a URL from the body text.  Another possible solution -- allow posts with links to use full-bleed photos.

Originally shared by Mike Elgan

How Google+ could improve viral G+ marketing for free.

Unlike Facebook, Google+ is a great blogging platform.

Let's say you want to blog about another post somewhere. If you paste in the link, or click on the link icon, Google+ will add a thumbnail from the external post, plus a blurb. 

But this is ugly. Some of the highest-traffic bloggers on Google+ don't use that system, including me. What we do instead is add a big, appealing photograph, the paste in the link in the body of the post. 

The first method links plus-ones on the other post. In other words, when someone plus-ones a post on Google+, the original source plus-one count goes up by one. It's linked forever. If the same user comes back and un-does his plus-one, the count on the source site goes down by one. 

However, if you do the big-picture method, plus-ones on Google+ are not reflected on the external post -- the plus-ones are not linked. 

Here's an example of the problem: Yesterday I posted an item on Cult of Mac using the big-picture method. The post and its comments got well over 2,000 plus-ones. But over on the Cult of Mac site, the post got only 76 plus-ones. 

https://plus.google.com/+MikeElgan/posts/B9VLptUGikF

People always mentally compare the Facebook "Like" count with the Google+ "plus-one" count and Google+ often looks like a slacker. But the reason is that likes for the the big-picture posts on Google+ aren't counted. 

If Google+ had counted the "plus-ones" for my post, for example, the G+ count would have been much higher than the Facebook count, and people viewing the source page would have a more accurate comparison between Facebook and Google+. 

Here's my proposed solution. 

When a user pastes in a URL in Google+, and the system auto-generates the thumbnail-and-blurb thing and links the plus-ones of the two posts, the user should have the option of replacing the thumbnail-and-blurb without de-coupling the linked plus-ones. 

That way, bloggers like me could use big-picture blog posts and still have plus-ones reflected on the source page. 

Is this possible or desirable? 

 
 

Nice to see a punk community springing up in Google+!

1 min read

Nice to see a punk community springing up in Google+!  Here's my first pick.  Posting the play store link since they don't have many youtube videos available and since Revolution and World on Fire are my faves...

 

It's high noon for the internet and the ITU.

1 min read

It's high noon for the internet and the ITU.

http://google.com/takeaction

The watch you see was from the 1998 plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis. I implemented the RealAudio streaming for the conference back when I worked in the IT department at the ITU.

Engraved on the back of the watch is the text "Offered by SWISSCOM".

 
 
 

Get your #musicmonday  moving with some Greek punk/grunge.

1 min read

Get your  moving with some Greek punk/grunge.

You can really hear the Nirvana-esque Steve Albini production along with shades of X, the Sex Pistols and Gossip.

I suppose Punk from disaffected youth is the only silver lining for the Greek financial mess.

h/t to Pixbear for review.

 

Okay, it's totally non-obvious and buried in the settings.

5 min read

Okay, it's totally non-obvious and buried in the settings...  There is some magic that detects that it's a following circle:

https://cs.corp.google.com/#google3/java/com/google/apps/tacotown/socialgraph/client/CircleNameSugge...

Originally shared by Trey Harris

This bears repeating. Privacy is important, and Google+ has great privacy controls. But you need to know how they work to use them to best advantage.

The first rule of privacy on Google+: people don't get any access to your info without you taking action. Relationships in G+ are "asymmetric", meaning you can "follow" someone ("adding to a circle", or "circling") without their having to reciprocate by circling you back. When you circle someone, the things they share you'd already be able to see anyway — because they're shared publicly or with a circle that includes you — will appear in your streams. But if you go to their profile before and after you circle them, you won't see much difference — circling someone doesn't give you access to their info.

At the same time, when you circle someone else, you are not only asking Google+ to put that person's shares into your stream, but you're also giving them access to things you share with your circles. For instance, if you edit your profile (the circle with a profile in the buttons up top of the G+ web interface), you can give people in your circles access to your email address or your phone number. Those are people you have added to your circles, not people who have circled you. (When you edit your profile, you can change the visibility of items by clicking the little icon next to each one.)

Similarly, if you enable G+ chat, when you click the triangle to the right of your name in the chat box (in the left sidebar of your G+ stream, not in Gmail) you can choose whether "Your Circles" can chat you, or a custom selection of circles. Note that those people must have also circled you and done the same; chat is obviously one case where reciprocity matters!

But if you've been paying attention, you'll notice that you circle someone for two different reasons: one, to see their shares in your stream, and two, to give them access to your info and/or chat. This makes sense most of the time; people you know are the people you want to hear from. But sometimes the two don't align, and when they don't, you need to know a couple of more advanced tricks, which I've taken screenshots of below.

First, not all circles are created equal. Some circles are ones you may use for celebrities or people you don't know but who publicly share interesting stuff. (A lot of people use the "Following" circle for that.) Maybe you want to get their stuff in your stream, but you don't want to give them any access to your info. No problem: go to https://www.google.com/settings/plus and click "Customize" under "Your circles" (first screenshot). Then make sure only the circles you want to share with have the checkbox clicked (second screenshot). Now, when you see "Your circles", you know that really means "all my circles but the ones I unchecked here", and you're safe to add whoever you want to "just follow" to those unchecked circles without giving them visibility to things you want to share in a limited fashion.

What about the reverse case? Maybe you have business associates or acquaintances who post stuff you don't care to read, but you do want them to have the "always up to date" contact information in your profile (especially useful if they have an Android phone or use Gmail!) and/or access to chat you. In that case, put such people together in a new circle (I call mine "Contacts", because that's how I think of them). Make sure the circle is checked in the "Your circles" setting we just saw. Then go to your stream and click that circle's name in the lefthand sidebar (third screenshot). Now, at the top, you'll see a slider. Drag it all the way to the left (fourth screenshot), so it says "Show nothing from this stream in my main stream" (fifth screenshot).

Now you won't see this circle's shares unless you specifically go to this stream again, but since this circle is part of "Your Circles", they'll have access to the things you want to share with them.

(One final note: when you enable chat in G+, you have your choice between allowing chat from "Your Circles" and a custom set you select. This gives you even a bit more control. Maybe you don't want to be chatted by that guy you're following with the interesting but weird political opinions, but you'd just love it if your favorite celebrity were to respond to your insightful comment with a chat. It's your choice.)