So, Paul Tassi took several hundred people’s criticisms of his article to heart and decided to play in the Google+ waters a little harder than before to see what all the fuss is about, and ultimately found that it’s not as dead as it seemed to him originally. The difference is not just the number of people you have in your circles, but rather why you have them in your circles.
At this stage of the game, G+ is really still a fairly elitist system, with the invitations still playing a factor in the sign up process. Once the system is open to everyone and their mother, the user experience will definitely change. So, you can’t really use it like Facebook yet. All of your friends and family aren’t on there, so you won’t be seeing their posts of their babies and the updates about the night at the club. There just aren’t enough users to get there. But it will change over time. Right now however, the millions of people who are using it are using it to connect fairly professionally. Programmers, librarians, authors, publishers, home-schoolers; these are the people that I’m seeing. Not my aunts and uncles.
I mentioned in a previous post that Facebook, with its mutual handshake, is a venue where I’m more selective about who I add. Many of the people whose blogs I read or whose Twitter I follow are not the people I have friended on Facebook. It feels oddly more intimate in that I feel I should actually have met you at least once before I add you, or that I have the potential to meet you personally to want to add you there. On Google+ I do not have that same compulsion. The field is wide open and I’m following people on G+ that I would never have friended on Facebook. In fact, the vast majority of people that I’m reading on G+ are people I have never met, and may never meet. And I’m totally okay with that.
That’s really the difference in these two systems. Facebook is a closed system. The mutual authentication means that you both recognize each other. People are more likely to only friend those people who they know, and only retain those that they like. I can’t tell you the number of family members I have dropped from Facebook because I couldn’t stand to see another anti-abortion video, or another flag waving, jingoistic, save the troops meme. Eventually the content that your Facebook friends share will become a kind of echo chamber, with things floating between the same people. I know that I have occasionally seen the same lefty liberal article piled up with five different friends names and comments under it.
Google+ on the other hand is a much more open system. You’re not focused on your “in real life” friends, but rather adding people who you’d like to follow, people of similar interests, or professional contacts within your field. And the things that come across your stream are much more diverse as a result of that. I haven’t bothered to even look in the “sparks” section, because I never need to. There’s so much interesting stuff just feeding directly into my stream that I don’t need to go hunting for new content.
Here’s an app analogy: Facebook is to Google+ as Flipboard is to Zite. These are iPad apps that are content aggregation systems. Flipboard allows you to select web feeds that you know and love and creates a little web magazine out of them. It kind of looks like Time magazine. Zite on the other hand allows you to select subject matter that you like, and finds the content across a whole host of different blogs and websites, and then delivers them in a magazine format not unlike the New Yorker. Now, Flipboard I love because it is one stop shopping for all my favorite sites, and it looks absolutely gorgeous. But Zite is far more interesting because I’ll discover things there I never would have found if I were looking in the same old familiar places.
I think that Facebook and Google+ will not really be battling it out in terms of content, because they offer completely different experiences. The question that it boils down to is do you listen to your friends, or do you listen to respected strangers. I think there’s room for both.