Facebook Engineer Builds Google+ Inspired Facebook Hack(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Facebook Engineer Builds Google+ Inspired Facebook Hack
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/01/facebook-circles/
35 comments
The problem with this is that the user will be presented a giant list of several hundred friends, which is intimidating to say the least. (Facebook hasn't really tried to discourage indiscriminate friending, preferring instead to algorithmically filter what it shows you in your feed, with the result that most users have ended up with an out-of-control friend list.)
There's one and only one way to make this work with an already existing social graph: show the user a clustered view of their friends. To see examples, do an image search for 'vizster'. http://vis.stanford.edu/papers/vizster
There's one and only one way to make this work with an already existing social graph: show the user a clustered view of their friends. To see examples, do an image search for 'vizster'. http://vis.stanford.edu/papers/vizster
"Facebook hasn't really tried to discourage indiscriminate friending..."
This is certainly the impression I've got, though when I first signed up, it would ask you "how you knew" somebody, and if you said "I don't know them" then it would disable the continue button. That's something.
In general though, the more people add friends, no matter how trivial, the more information Facebook has, which is why they don't explicitly discourage friending less-meaningful relationships. So even if you probably won't talk to Bob Smith more than once a year, it's still valuable for Facebook for you to add that connection and let it rot: that's added value for them.
This is certainly the impression I've got, though when I first signed up, it would ask you "how you knew" somebody, and if you said "I don't know them" then it would disable the continue button. That's something.
In general though, the more people add friends, no matter how trivial, the more information Facebook has, which is why they don't explicitly discourage friending less-meaningful relationships. So even if you probably won't talk to Bob Smith more than once a year, it's still valuable for Facebook for you to add that connection and let it rot: that's added value for them.
Also, it's nice to have Facebook (and LinkedIn) maintain your contact information.
I've got several hundred FB friends, but I only follow a few dozen of them in my FB news feed.
I've got several hundred FB friends, but I only follow a few dozen of them in my FB news feed.
So then Facebook's value is more in being an address book rather than a social network. Google out-social'ed Facebook with Google+ with Circles and Hangouts, and everything else.
Seriously, does he think that a hack for creating Facebook Lists is even comparable to Circles?
Of course this is some kind of improvement already for Facebook's standards.
Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.” http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/26/facebook-friend-lists/
Of course, they're a HUGE pain. I mean really, I use them.
I thought the whole meaning of "hacking" was to let more people do more things easier. Instead, we need the world to be a more "open place" (in a huge walled garden), that sounds like someone sticking too much with his PR.
Facebook has already started looking messy (every time a new service comes out it has to be built in the "Social" Network apparently) and will continue to do so now that Google has started giving a serious approach.
I'd be glad to see Facebook "pivot" over Circles so I might KEEP using it instead of a address book.
Of course this is some kind of improvement already for Facebook's standards.
Zuckerberg: “Guess What? Nobody Wants To Make Lists.” http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/26/facebook-friend-lists/
Of course, they're a HUGE pain. I mean really, I use them.
I thought the whole meaning of "hacking" was to let more people do more things easier. Instead, we need the world to be a more "open place" (in a huge walled garden), that sounds like someone sticking too much with his PR.
Facebook has already started looking messy (every time a new service comes out it has to be built in the "Social" Network apparently) and will continue to do so now that Google has started giving a serious approach.
I'd be glad to see Facebook "pivot" over Circles so I might KEEP using it instead of a address book.
I'm loving circles. 3 weeks ago I culled my friend list on FB down to 3 people (fellow page admins) and stopped using it for anything other than marketing at people.
I left for 2 reasons. First I couldn't manage the lists without a lot of pain. They have implemented lists and selective posting grudgingly, and obfuscated it out of the reach of most users.
Secondly, after 3 years of my handing them huge swathes of personal data they still fail to effectively advertise anything to me that I'm remotely interested in. I get that the price of a 'free' service is my personal data, I'm fine with that, I'd just like it to be used in a manner that's actually relevant to me.
As g+ stands, still in inimitable Google beta mode, has hit the nail almost entirely on the head for what I want a social network to do, and I can rest assured that when the advertising finally turns up it might be for something I'm interested in.
So here's to this staying only as a hack, FB not catching up, and to talking everyone I know onto g+ :)
I left for 2 reasons. First I couldn't manage the lists without a lot of pain. They have implemented lists and selective posting grudgingly, and obfuscated it out of the reach of most users.
Secondly, after 3 years of my handing them huge swathes of personal data they still fail to effectively advertise anything to me that I'm remotely interested in. I get that the price of a 'free' service is my personal data, I'm fine with that, I'd just like it to be used in a manner that's actually relevant to me.
As g+ stands, still in inimitable Google beta mode, has hit the nail almost entirely on the head for what I want a social network to do, and I can rest assured that when the advertising finally turns up it might be for something I'm interested in.
So here's to this staying only as a hack, FB not catching up, and to talking everyone I know onto g+ :)
And a clickable link to the hack itself, Circle Hack: http://www.circlehack.com/login.html
I saw this yesterday when a friend of mine who is currently interning there posted it (suprise) on his facebook.
I started to post it here but I thought he had made it and the ui isn't great so I didn't bother
Leave it to Alexia to write an article about it the next day...
I started to post it here but I thought he had made it and the ui isn't great so I didn't bother
Leave it to Alexia to write an article about it the next day...
Why was the direct link posted a few days ago ignored while we choose to promote the Techcrunch article which adds another layer? Personally I would rather try things first-hand than hear about it from TC.
What does everyone else think?
What does everyone else think?
Would have been better if it showed which groups user are already on, I want to be able to identify users which have no group associated and then use this tool to add, its a nice hack, but needs work to be useful.
It may look the same, but it doesn't work the same at all. The way circles work is asynchronous, not synchronous like Facebook. There are also several other reasons in the article why it doesn't work the same.
Back in my day, copying a competitor's feature was denounced as ripping off. Just because it's institutionalized as a "hack" is no reason for assigning it much more importance.
> Back in my day, copying a competitor's feature was denounced as ripping off.
Going all the way back to the Founders, U.S. law has encouraged copying competitors' (publicly-known, unpatented) useful features.
The rationale is that society benefits as a whole when better ways of doing things get put into practice as widely and as quickly as possible.
A second-order benefit is that the prospect of being "ripped off" encourages innovators to keep innovating instead of resting on their laurels.
A worthwhile read on this point is the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats [1], in which the Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Florida statute prohibiting plug-mold copying of boat hulls. The Court said, in part, that "imitation and refinement through imitation are both necessary to invention itself, and the very lifeblood of a competitive economy." The only permissible restrictions on copying of publicly-known useful articles, said the justices, are those of federal patent law, which have been crafted by Congress to strike a nationally-uniform balance between the interests of inventors and those of the rest of society.
[1] http://supreme.justia.com/us/489/141/case.html
Going all the way back to the Founders, U.S. law has encouraged copying competitors' (publicly-known, unpatented) useful features.
The rationale is that society benefits as a whole when better ways of doing things get put into practice as widely and as quickly as possible.
A second-order benefit is that the prospect of being "ripped off" encourages innovators to keep innovating instead of resting on their laurels.
A worthwhile read on this point is the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats [1], in which the Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Florida statute prohibiting plug-mold copying of boat hulls. The Court said, in part, that "imitation and refinement through imitation are both necessary to invention itself, and the very lifeblood of a competitive economy." The only permissible restrictions on copying of publicly-known useful articles, said the justices, are those of federal patent law, which have been crafted by Congress to strike a nationally-uniform balance between the interests of inventors and those of the rest of society.
[1] http://supreme.justia.com/us/489/141/case.html
I'm not saying it's "bad" to rip off, just that it's not newsworthy.
I kinda detailed it in another post here, but I was already using Facebook friend lists for this sort of privacy control on Facebook. PLUS the new Groups feature works like Circles. I have a Group of my close friends that is closed and private. All the photos we upload there are only visible to those in the group.
The problem is, Facebook has continued to move the Friends lists feature in more and more obscure places. It used to be easy to see the list and the posts from people in that list, but now they've hidden in the account menu.
The problem is, Facebook has continued to move the Friends lists feature in more and more obscure places. It used to be easy to see the list and the posts from people in that list, but now they've hidden in the account menu.
Groups doesn't work the same way. Facebook Groups works more like Google Groups. You have to actively get people to accept being in that group, which is much harder to do, and that's why so few people use Groups.
With Google+ Circles, you put them in those Circles, and share what you want with them, and most people are using them like that.
With Google+ Circles, you put them in those Circles, and share what you want with them, and most people are using them like that.
With Facebook Groups, you don't have to accept being in a group. Your friends can do all the hard work of assembling the group, and it's immediately available to you.
If you don't want to be part of it, you can leave the group.
Most people I know now use Facebook Groups, but it's in a different way to how people use Circles – it's more to coordinate, plan and discuss things with a small, clearly defined audience.
If you don't want to be part of it, you can leave the group.
Most people I know now use Facebook Groups, but it's in a different way to how people use Circles – it's more to coordinate, plan and discuss things with a small, clearly defined audience.
click "most recent" on the main "news feed" page and then pick one of the lists from the dropdown to see only stories from people in that list.
It will be interesting to see if Facebook clones every single Google+ feature before Google+ is out of invite-only status. I'm guessing next will be a basic rich text status editor, to go along with the already announced video conferencing.
I don't think it will matter if they do. The integration of Google+ with Google's other products is what will drive the adoption. It's basically impossible to avoid. I can imagine even tighter integration with Google's offerings down the road. Like accepting an invite to an event could automatically add it to your Google Calendar. Or allowing you to sync your contacts with your circles.
That said, I also don't think Facebook is going anywhere any time soon. But it'll certainly be interesting to see Facebook's first moves in response to G+.
That said, I also don't think Facebook is going anywhere any time soon. But it'll certainly be interesting to see Facebook's first moves in response to G+.
This will sooner or later be an antitrust issue. When Google is getting so successfull in their game that a new feature is impossible to fail and is even expected to dominate the market then it is getting dangerous. Microsoft is still getting flak by the European Union for bundling stuff and is forced to sell some Windows versions without their media player or have to show a "web browser choice screen".
How so?
No one is forced to use any of Google's products - Bing and Facebook are only a click away.
A monopoly born from having a superior product is not the same as a monopoly gained through the practises of price fixing or forcing people to install your web-browser with no way to disable it.
No one is forced to use any of Google's products - Bing and Facebook are only a click away.
A monopoly born from having a superior product is not the same as a monopoly gained through the practises of price fixing or forcing people to install your web-browser with no way to disable it.
And Google products generally allow you access to your data quite easily using standard formats where appropriate (for instance, you can export your gmail contacts).
I say "generally" because there are weaknesses. For instance, I don't think you can export your search history or the archive for a google group. You can export your "contacts" but not all of your social connections (at least I haven't found a way). I also haven't found a way to export saved maps or other geo data.
If they expand this policy to all (or essentially all) of your data, they are pretty much immune to anti-trust. And more importantly, it's just better for users. Google has nothing to fear giving your data back to you, anyway -- the only companies that are afraid of that are the less competent ones.
I say "generally" because there are weaknesses. For instance, I don't think you can export your search history or the archive for a google group. You can export your "contacts" but not all of your social connections (at least I haven't found a way). I also haven't found a way to export saved maps or other geo data.
If they expand this policy to all (or essentially all) of your data, they are pretty much immune to anti-trust. And more importantly, it's just better for users. Google has nothing to fear giving your data back to you, anyway -- the only companies that are afraid of that are the less competent ones.
You still have the option of not using Google's services, and they even offer a clean way to purge your entire profile.
That's a point most people don't seem to remember. I can see what Google has on me, for the most part at any rate, and opt to destroy it. Contrast that with FB and I really have no clue what data they have on me.
I would think Google collects plenty of data behind the scenes which they do not share with you, like Facebook.
Also, developers may distrust google (due to adwords cancellations, and google's war on content farms), but they really don't trust facebook.
Remember how Facebook was going to be a walled garden web 2.0 platform, and how Facebook then effectively killed it?
Remember how Facebook was going to be a walled garden web 2.0 platform, and how Facebook then effectively killed it?
Impossible to avoid? Not if they give an easy option to disable it which nearly every person took advantage of with Google Buzz. And people certainly will if Google enables people to connect to their accounts to Twitter, FB, LinkedIn and it is just another site filled with duplicate content like Buzz was.
It makes sense, Facebook already have the audience, by implementing things that could possible woo people to the competition, even if they aren't quiet as a good it still deters people from making the jump across.
If you want to make change, build something.