Hacker News Reader

Comment by ignifero | Hacker News Reader

I agree with that and think they need to implement an obvious extension: shared circles.

Nested circles would be nice, too. I'd like to be able to have an "everyone" circle, put "acquaintances" in it, and put "work" in "acquaintances".

There is already an "everyone" circle, it's called public post.

There's a difference between "everyone" and "public". Everyone includes every person you've added to a circle - it's equivalent to "friends only" on LiveJournal. Public is that plus anyone who happens to run across your Google+ profile, which is publicly accessible on the Internet.

I find I share to "All your circles" a lot more than I share to "Public", because I like knowing who's reading my stuff.

I stand (belatedly) corrected.

Shared circles -- this makes sense to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Google already had this coming down the pipe.

As in: an option when creating a new circle as to whether or not it's public?

As in: I have a Highschool circle and add my highschool classmates in it. I can then share it to all my classmates so they don't have to do the same work again.

Or: I have a circle containing all great hackers. I then post the link to it here on Hacker News so everybody can have that whole circle with a single click.

that is so genius.

A "shared circle" wouldn't be a Circle, it would be a Group. While there should be an easy way to convert a circle to a group, the two should remain distinct because they serve different purposes.

How do they serve different purposes? It's just a grouping of friends that is common among many people.

The big difference is that my friends join a group, whereas I add my friends to a circle. They don't need to do anything; they don't even know they're in the circle. The purpose is for me to control who I share things with. With circles, I don't have to worry about someone joining the group that I don't want there or hurting feelings by having to reject requests to join.

At the same time, I'd still like to be able to mutually join groups as well, and it's easy to imagine scenarios where I would add a group to a circle (or where they'd be coincident). The two concepts are complimentary.

Yes, sorry i misread you. I assume it's going to be exactly like a group, it would just be embarrassing to call them "groups". maybe "shared circles" or "clubs".

There is a circle jerk joke in here somewhere I know it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com