Jul 012011
 

I’ve been on Google+ now for the last couple of days. I must say, I am quite the fan! I love the slick, clean, interface! I am looking forward to when more people can sign up because, unfortunately, they still have invites disabled so it’s only me and a small handful of people… :) It makes for slow “social news” days!

I am writing this post in the hopes that it catches Google’s attention. We’ll see if we can talk loud enough above the noise in order for this to be read by The Man. You can help! If you think this is a good idea, please share this article by clicking the Twitter, +1, or Facebook buttons at bottom of this page! The more of you that do this the better chances we have of being heard!

UPDATE – In addition to sharing with your friends, please also consider heading over to Google Moderator to vote on this feature!

The Circles functionality is really one of the best features of Google+. For those of you that are not yet aware a circle is basically a group. You can put all your friends in a “Friends” circle, all your family in a “Family” circle, and all your acquaintances in an “Acquaintance” circle. You can even create your own circles as you have other needs. As you share in Google+ you have the ability to limit your post to a specific circle, many circles, or all circles.

However, there is one I see drawback to the way Circles are currently implemented. The management of many groups can quickly become a pain, and it can be difficult to keep track of who is in which circle as contacts can also be members of many circles. Currently, Circles are implemented in a non-hierarchical way.  This is my proposal…

As you can see in the chart above with the way my proposal is implemented Circles can be members of other circles. The circles that are members of other circles are called sub-circles, child circles, or if you wanted to give it a creative marketing name they could be called Cliques. :)

Consider this, you are a member of a HAM Radio club (which I’m not, it’s just an example people), and you want to send a message to all eight of your HAM Radio club friends because your HAM Radio is broke. This is easy to do in both the current implementation and my proposal’s implementation. You can simply send the message to your HAM Radio circle.

Now, where the hierarchical circles becomes useful is when you want to start sharing messages a little more broadly. Let’s say you wanted to organize a party and you’d like all 62 of your friends to be invited (Closest, HAM Radio, & General) but none of your family (things are going to get a little crazy at the party). Using this structure you would simply send the messages to your Friends circle and all would be included… even the popular HAM Radio friends, those crazy guys! This is possible because the Closest, HAM Radio, & General circles are members of the Friends circle so anyone in these circles are automatically considered Friends as well.

The same thing applies if you wanted to announce a pregnancy to your entire family… ;) (hint hint) You could simply send the message to your Family circle! Or if you wanted to schedule a family reunion for your “Dad’s Side” of the family you would send the message to your “Dad’s Side” circle… I think you’re getting the picture.

A positive here is a person may only need to be a part of a single circle. However, you can still have the flexibility of adding them to other circles. Let’s say you have a family member who is also a co-worker. The family member can be apart of both circles, so if you send a message to your only family, or only your co-workers, the family member can still get both messages. This greatly limits the amount of management needed and helps ensure that only the people you want getting certain messages get them. It’s also a very flexible implementation, you can set this up however it fits YOUR life!

If you like the idea please consider sharing this by clicking some of the sharing buttons at bottom of this page!

Thanks for reading guys! You’re the best!

  • cirrus_minor *

    #WIN

    • http://www.sample.org.uk/blog/ dsample

      I had a similar idea that I called Orbits.  The idea would be to put circles into groups and the further away the orbit became from ‘You’ the visibility in your stream would decrease.  I blogged about it, http://www.sample.me.uk/blog/post/googleplus_orbits

      • http://twitter.com/tulekbehar Tulek Behar

        Orbits are  a very interesting idea

  • Hawkwind

    Be broader in how/what circles you create and who you put in what circles and you won’t have the above issue.  If I want to send something to my friends, I send to only my friends.  If I want to send something to my Linux friends, it only goes to people who are Linux users and nothing more.  It’s not that hard to create more, broader type circles and be selective of who goes into what circle.  Just my opinion though.

  • Hawkwind

    Be broader in how/what circles you create and who you put in what circles and you won’t have the above issue.  If I want to send something to my friends, I send to only my friends.  If I want to send something to my Linux friends, it only goes to people who are Linux users and nothing more.  It’s not that hard to create more, broader type circles and be selective of who goes into what circle.  Just my opinion though.

  • Hawkwind

    I understand your point. Where it’s nice to express your point in a forum like this, it would be better to hit the feedback button within Google+ as then you know the Google employees will read it.  They’ve proved they are reading every suggestion and taking them all into consideration.  At the same time, Google+ is new, it’s just getting started so it’s not going to have nor does it currently have every feature that every one wants.  There have been many posts to the public stream via Google+ developers that have mentioned they are working on sub-circles or something similar/better.  

    • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

      “Hit the feedback button” <– Already done! :)

  • Florian Hiemeyer

    I would prefer mathematical operations i.e. intersections and complements

    • http://twitter.com/tulekbehar Tulek Behar

      Intersections and complements? not clear 
      I already have some in several circles ant this a natural intersection? you mean a circle defined as intersection? elaborate !

      • http://waldirpimenta.com Waldir Pimenta

        He means set operations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram#Overview and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)#Basic_operations

        • Florian Hiemeyer

          Thank you Waldir – maybe I wasn’t clear enough for lays :-)

    • Bernd Paysan

      There is also the need of a – operator for targeting messages.

      +school +friends +family -teachers

  • http://jphilip.com J Philip Faranda

    Looks like an Amway presentation. 

  • Randall

    I agree with the idea that it would be good to be able to nest circles, but not necessarily with your reasoning. A lot of your use cases are still based around a simple and hierarchical social network, but most of the problems I run into come from this not being true—people I know are not in just one leaf on one tree. I have friends who live in my city, Ham Radio friends, and family members who I’m (for all practical purposes) friends with, and many people are some combination of those three things. So I think any of those supersets will include a lot of lone people as well as circles (not everyone in my family fits in those three circles you listed).

    To me, the more useful ability would be to post messages only to the intersection of two circles. For example, I want to invite my close friends to a slumber party, but obviously I only want to invite the close friends who live in my city. Or I want to complain to my programming friends about the terrible programming at my workplace, but want to only include close friends in that group, not work acquaintances who I’m complaining about.

    • http://twitter.com/Codexx Cody Curry

      There’s enough granular control with this system to make sure the people you want to see something see it quickly and easily. Your problem is still an issue with or without nested circles. If you have family that you consider friends and you put them in the friends circle, then you still have the issue of them seeing something you don’t want them to see since they’re family. It’s an organizational issue on your end based on how you manage your circles, and while nesting circles won’t fix that for you, it’s not really making the problem any worse than it is already.

    • Mary Wior

      I think this is the intersections and complements idea that was a little above.  but it was stated much more clearly for folks who haven’t discussed Sets in a decade or so.  :) 

  • Kelley Johnston

    Hi.  I don’t really like this proposal, and I’m speaking as a pro database admin.  I distrust hierarchies on principle.
    Hierarchies force you into only one place in the tree. This is okay for an index, when you have to settle on to one single record from a sorted list. But they’re not really people-friendly, and it’s really hard to put people into more than one list. 

    This tends to force categorisation on people, which I think is extremely people-unfriendly.

    • http://www.facebook.com/martinhardee Martin Hardee

      You eloquently said what I was uneloquently thinking!  Although, I think some kind of organization like this could be useful to visualize what’s being managed  (perhaps using polymorphism or tagging (thus overlapping circles in n-dimensions).)

    • Fritz Stelluto

      >I’m speaking as a pro database admin
      I think you’ll find we are all geeks around here… :-)

      > Hierarchies force you into only one place in the tree
      I disagree. A tree structure doesn’t necessarily force you into only one place in the tree – that’s your conclusion. Most people don’t go about normalizing their data.

      > This tends to force categorisation on people, which I think is extremely people-unfriendl
      And what are ‘circles’ if not ways to categorise people?

      I could easily put a friend I also work with in a ‘collegues’ and a ‘friends’ circles. Then I can put the ‘friends’ circles in a bigger ‘people I socialize with’ circle and the ‘collegues’ in a ‘purely professional’ circle. Then the ‘social circles’ would get, say, pictures of my dinner (lucky them) and the ‘professionals’ would only get links and announcements and suchlike. The friend I work with would get both.

      The good thing about hierarchical structure is that they all work in the same dimension and they are easy to understand. The other option would be to add a different layer – say tags, or ‘networks’, or whatever. I think that would just confuse most people.

      I am just working on a WordPress site, where they keep adding taxonomies – you have categories, tags, custom taxonomies, post types, and now post formats. Everyone is completely confused by all that. I hope G+ doesn’t go down that route.

      +1 for hierarchical circles. Keep it simple.

  • Dave Gray

    I like the idea. But if you are on Google plus, and you want Google’s attention, then why not post this to Google plus? They are super-engaged with the users there.

    • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

      It is posted to Google+! :)  Recommended it using their feedback system.

      However, I’m assuming you mean the Google Plus One button…  Unfortunately, there is a JavaScript problem I’m running into with it where it doesn’t always show up on my site…. Grrrr…  It’s supposed to be  between the Twitter & Facebook buttons.  But, as of this writing the proposal has received 108 +’s!  Let’s keep them coming !

    • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

      It is posted to Google+! :)  Recommended it using their feedback system.

      However, I’m assuming you mean the Google Plus One button…  Unfortunately, there is a JavaScript problem I’m running into with it where it doesn’t always show up on my site…. Grrrr…  It’s supposed to be  between the Twitter & Facebook buttons.  But, as of this writing the proposal has received 108 +’s!  Let’s keep them coming !

      • http://twitter.com/tulekbehar Tulek Behar

        how do you post to Google+
        thank you

  • A.j. Klein

    Here’s the only problem with this that I can see.  Infinite circles = a ton more storage space on Google servers, which they might not want right now.  What I was thinking about was to only have 1 level of “subcircle” for each circle.  So, TL;DR, you cannot make subcircles of subcircles, but you can make a subcircle under a circle.  This would limit the confusion to the people coming from FB that don’t understand what the F keys do.

    Where’s the +1 button :(

    • http://fourthdownandlong.blogspot.com/ Francesco

      There would be no such problem of space, really. Hierarchical data representations are very common and are not heavy to implement.

  • The Editor

    You know you can send a message to more than one circle at a time in the current system.

  • Woo!

    iirc Vic (or another dev) said that they tested this, and it was too confusing for the testers.

  • Nick Spreitzer

    I was just thinking the same thing!

  • Nick Spreitzer

    Dude. Your +1 button is sporadically disappearing! Right now there’s a large blank gap between your tweet button and your like button.

    • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

      Thanks Nick.  I know.  I’m working on it.

  • Paul Lannuier

    It’s “ham radio,” not “HAM radio.” It’s not an acronym, it doesn’t stand for anything. We don’t say CELL phone, GAS station or DISH washer, either. ;-)

    • DK

      It could actually be an acronym – http://www.w2aee.columbia.edu/arrl-hampromo.html

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_N47OEGF2Q66GFFUSNYXVOS3WTQ Cucchiaio

        That link doesn’t say it’s an acronym, because it’s not.

    • DK

      Also, “Home Amateur Radio” (as I learned it).

    • Maleko

      Those ham peeps are touchy aren’t they?

  • Anne Trotter

    This would be a brilliant idea. 

  • James Steiner

    I would like the ability to make a circle a member of another circle, but I would still need to be able to add the same people to different circles. It might be fun to be able to “subtract” a circle from another circle, or possibly also make a circle that is only folks common to one of more circles… however, I think 80% (i’m being conservative) of users will never figure out how to do these things, or even bother with them. I bet most users will just blurt everything to everyone. It’s much easier than having to individually pick and choose different circles (hierarchical or not) when posting. Said another way: it’s much easier to just broadcast, than to think first.

    • http://twitter.com/tulekbehar Tulek Behar

      start writing name and you have a personal message

      broadcasting is exactly the problem of facebook and a reason for scandals and divorces etcget the point? Goole learned on the expense of Facebook

  • James Steiner

    Sorry, more thoughts: In the fancy circle-selecting input box on G+, maybe adding the ability to type words like PLUS and EXCEPT between the circles, to achieve the hierarchy. Sadly, we can’t use smaller, common terms like AND or OR, because “normal” people would think that FAMILY +AND+ FRIENDS would send to *both* family and also to friends, whild us geeks and nerds would be annoyed because we know that FAMILY AND FRIENDS means “the intersection of FAMILY and FRIENDS”, i.e. only FRIENDS that are ALSO FAMILY. Anyway, all my invites would go out to “FAMILY PLUS FRIENDS EXCEPT DICKS”

    • Stb Hrnndz

      Whatever you tried to say there, just blinded one of my eyes ball.

  • Fritz Stelluto

    I like the idea and was thinking along the same lines, but I don’t think the use case makes it justice. It’s a bit too librarian and not very realistic – who splits family between ‘dad’s side” and “mum’s side”? I think it’s more important to have a structure that helps you do what you the most on G+ – i.e., post stuff. Inviting people to parties does not happen that often (ok it may if you work in PR) and i would still go through most contacts manually to avoid missing someone out.

    In order to make posting stuff faster,  I’d rather use hierarchies as a measure of closeness / intimacy of the circles – ‘circles I have no secrets for’, ‘circles that should only see my professional side’, ‘circles that I can take or leave’, etc.

    For example:

    buddies
    school friends – sports club –  close family – etc

    professional
    clientA – clientB – colleagues from job 1 – colleagues from job 2 – etc

    family and acquaintances
    distant family – book club – general – etc

    That way one can easily tell who to share pictures of their kids with, etc

    That’s how I use social networks at the moment – Facebook for close friends and family, Linkedin for professional contacts, Twitter for generic musings, etc. I’d like hierarchies to take on that function.

    • Dan

      You might not split Mum’s side and Dad’s Side, but I do split my family and the in-laws

    • Rowan

      I absolutely split my divorced parents’ relatives, much like the divorce did.  They live in different parts of the country and are not concerned with one another’s happenings very deeply at all (Mom’s side does not care that Dad’s Aunt Mildred is having surgery, and Dad’s side does not care that I am bringing the pie to Maternal Grandma’s Family Christmas).

  • Paul

    Not sure I would actually use this idea as I can place people in multiple circles. I am not a fan of trying to “file” everything into neat little categories as that’s not how I think. If I had friends that we ham radio operators, I would just place them in both circles. If I sent a message only to the ham radio circle, those 9 people would get it. If I sent an invite to everyone of my friends, those same 9 would get it as they exist in both circles.

  • http://blog.codesignstudios.com Dennison Uy

    Excellent idea, however I prefer the current non-hierarchical implementation. The hierarchy quickly becomes a tangled web as you get more and more members that cross-join multiple groups. Hierarchies will eventually become a mess and thus lose its meaning.

  • Ceril dierkkh

    Oh! Awesome Idea!

  • Michelle Toich Anderson

    I’d like a “Venn diagram” view, rather than hierarchical circles. That would show you where your circles overlap and help you figure out if you have anyone miscategorized. I have circles that really should be fully within other circles (a concept that mimics your hierarchy, actually) and a Venn diagram would show me who isn’t set up correctly. A Venn diagram view could get pretty messy, but with dynamically changing displays (click one section and it “comes forward,” etc.) I think it could work really well.

    • Leo

      Finally someone who understands that set theory is needed, not inheritance. It should be possible to create a more intuitive graphical interface. The current interface doesn’t scale with larger numbers of people.

    • KS

      I definitely like the idea of a venn diagram …. I should be allowed to share certain things only in a subset of a bigger set … or even control access depending on the group, like having a picture viewable or downloadable. You should be able to set that with a small ‘access bar’ at the side of an image, that would control that for the user group chosen.

  • http://ottodestruct.com Otto

    You can do this sort of manually. If you have a Friends circle and a sub-friends circle, then just drag all the friends in the sub-friends into the friends circle. Click on a circle and view it in the tab, then you can drag/drop all of those sub-friends into another circle too. Dupes get ignored.

  • Pingback: Google+ como fuente de información | Clases de Periodismo()

  • http://twitter.com/ThelleK Thelle Kristensen

    Some kind of hierarchical circles would be really nice!

  • Iulian Ionescu

    Cool idea overall… Having a flat system is definitely the worst possible. At this point I can also add the same person in multiple circles. Soon you definitely loose track of what is what…

  • http://twitter.com/TonySidaway Tony Sidaway

    I’ve been thinking about this too. In the end I think pretty much the same effect can be achieved without using a hierarchical or nested scheme. Just provide an operator to copy the selected items from one Circle into another, and another operator to select all people in the current Circle. Then instead of nesting the circles you’d create the circles HAM Radio, General and Closest and populated them as you see fit. Need an overview Circle for all friends? Just create a new empty Circle called Friends and for each of those three Circles select all members and copy selected people to the Friends Circle.

    Another way, even simpler, is just to add all three circles to your share list on an ad hoc basis.

    If you actually ignore the word Circle and don’t look at the pretty pictures of circular objects, a Circle is just a private tag like the ones we use in GMail.

  • Skip Franklin

    Good idea. Easier than dragging the same person into a whole bunch of circles.

  • Jadendreamer13

    Love it. I think there also needs to be a way to re-order the circles.

  • Krumbecker

    So what happens when your brother is also HAM radio operator? Just an observation of a glitch.

    • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

      Your brother can still be in two circles. Check out the last paragraph.

  • http://blog.dantup.com/ Danny Tuppeny

    DeWitt Clinton suggests it’s better to send via the “Send Feedback” option in the bottom corner, than Moderator:

    https://plus.google.com/116849139972638476037/posts/XC5yrb4tLUZ

    :-)

    • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

      Thanks Danny, that’s already been done. :)

      • http://blog.dantup.com/ Danny Tuppeny

        Cool :-) Though I meant it more for your readers too – it may be more successful than having them just vote in Moderator – maybe worth getting them to copy/paste into the Send Feedback thing :-)

        • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

          LOL!  I like it! :)

  • https://plus.google.com/104770776614693816879/ mike wood

    I like this hierarchical view. Whether they see it when they separate the wheat from the chaff, who knows. did you suggest it via the google moderator for g+ ? https://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=9fe9f 

    • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

      I have not.  Thank you Mike!  I’ll submit it now!

      • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

        Done. We should still share to spread the word but now we can vote right where Google will see it! –> http://goo.gl/mod/jOAC

  • Gene

    oh I defo like this idea =)

  • Antonio Guadagno

    I’ve heard the Venn diagram suggestion a couple of times and think those would be too cumbersome and unrealistic. The issue would be that the overlap could be too great and even impossible to show in a 2 dimensional plane without repeating circles. 

    I like the hierarchical idea. Simply allowing users to drag circles into other circles would solve this and likely be the simplest, most elegant, and quickest solution.

  • Jcat21199

    I also thought of a Venn diagram view when reading the article so that I could choose two groups rather than 1 at a time within your hierarchy. You’d have a friends circle and a family circle overlap to choose friends and family and within the friends side (and family separately) intersecting circles that allow you to choose 1, 2, or all 3 groups with one click. 

  • Guest

    Going with the hierarchical circles, “Semi-Circles” would fit the marketing analogy, no?

  • Anonymous

    Greg, I think you missed the theory behind El Goog choosing to use the circle model…Circles are meant to connect/overlap and form subsets between.  Any given circle should be able to overlap with one or several other circles (without limitation) or be entirely separate if required/desired (say to separate personal and professional) and/or an entirely different set of circles with their own subsets.  This way, you could find that one section of where for example 3 circles overlap (subset ⊆ Highschool Friends ∩ Neighborhood Friends ∩ My Family)  to put a cousin you went to the same highschool with and lives in your neighborhood but not part of your College Friends or In-Laws circles.  In your example such a cousin would have to be added separately to the subcategories under Friends and Family circles instead of a single precise intersection that posts/discusions relevant to the precise relationship will be visible. Right now neither of our ideals are possible, but hopefully soon a better model in action shows itself.  My $.02

  • Junk

    Rather than specifically have a heirarchy, I like just having the ability to add circles within circles.  That way HAM radio doesn’t have to just belong to one parent, it can belong to many parent circles.  So just being able to say all “close friends” belong to the “friends group,” and all “friends” belong to “acquaintances,” etc., I’m able to accomplish everything I want.

    I when adding people to circles, if I could just type the name of another circle in there (which would add all current and future people in said subset circle, updating accordingly), I’d be happy.

  • http://twitter.com/winwinapps Anna Palmer

    Can we add a third level- work. So friends/family/work?

    • http://www.gregorystrike.com/ Gregory Strike

      You can add as many levels as you want/need! :)  

      The above graphic is only an example of how someone may set their hierarchy up.  Mine will actually look very different than above.

  • Pingback: Google, Give Us these Google+ Features Now | Mini Laptop King()

  • Dave Michmerhuizen

    I think Google will look at that and (rightly) consider it a 1% feature, something that fairly few people will really want or use.  

    What I would like, much more simply, is some way to populate a circle but keep it out of my general stream.  Ie, on-demand only circles. 

  • Pingback: Find Tech News » Google, Give Us these Google+ Features Now()

  • Jayndough

    Oh the need for people to flow chart life. lol I suppose it could be handy to be able to add a whole circle to another circle. This would allow people that want to create a hierarchy based system an easy way of doing so. I could even enjoy the ability to add or remove whole circles of people reorganizing my friends lists like you do a business. Of course as it is I can also just add each person to the particular type of circles I want them to be a part of. I really like the simplicity and thus the fluidity of the current circle system. As long as the simplicity and fluidity were not compromised I’m all for a change like this.

  • http://twitter.com/YellingMelon Yelling Melon

    As others have pointed out, the hierarchical model is a bad one, and the set theory one is better. Obviously you would want a friendlier term.

    Think about this: I want to share a photo with all my friends who live in London. ie, only to people in both the “London” circle and the “Friends” circle. But another time I might want to share a message with all my colleagues who live in London. How would this work in your hierarchical structure? Would London be a top level category, and the “Friends” and “Colleagues” subcategories of that? Doesn’t seem to make much sense. Or would both “Friends” and “Colleagues” have “London” as a subcategory? That seems messy, and anyway, I might also want to subcategorise my friends in another way too. Like people who I play football with vs people I met at college vs people I met through music, (but then what if there’s one musician who’s also in the football team?). And what if I used to play football in London, and now I’ve moved to Edinburgh and have joined a team there? How do I differentiate? Do I have to subcategorise ad infinitum?

    If you didn’t follow all that, don’t worry. The point is that the hierarchy quickly gets way too complicated to be of any use at all. What you need is overlapping circles. Everyone in London goes in the “London” circle. Everyone who plays football goes in the “Football” circle. Everyone who I met in college goes in the “college” circle and so on. If someone’s in all three that’s fine. The one thing that would improve the flexibility of Google Plus is this: When I’m sharing content I need to be able to say “show this only to peeps in both circle A and circle B (and possibly even circle C)”. Show this to friends I went to college with. Show this to football players in London. Show this to friends in Edinburgh. Show this to family in America. Show this to colleagues who like music. Show this to friends(A) I met at college(B) who now live in London(C). Whatever.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Little/1023168216 Jim Little

    A Venn diagram view would be nice, as would a page showing just your circles, not using half the page recommending people to add.

  • Marcus

    Circle-in-a-circle or Hierachical Circle or Circle Taxonomy. It is a MUST for Google+. Visualization is a little graphical problem, but the concept is simple: Any circle can be included in any other circle, except for itself and any circle include in itself. Family can be in Friends-and-relations and in Extended Family.

  • Andrew Brown

    Hey, I agree with some of the previous posters that set operations are what you need to really handle the circles properly.  The nested, hierarchal circles kind of goes against what ‘tags’ are supposed to be all about.  In theory they look nice, but they get really messy in practice, really fast.  The cricles are a great way to categorize friends, but they are tough to make precise lists out of.  Like what if you wanted to complain about your job to your friends (except those friends who also work with you?)  Set operations would let you do this!  I wrote a couple of blog posts on it if anyone is interested:
    http://drewmate.com/2011/07/16/what-google-plus-really-needs/
    http://drewmate.com/2011/07/18/more-google-set-operations/

  • Sean Riley

    The ability to make any circle you want a tree structure would be great. You would still need to put people in more than one tree but it would be very useful.

  • Adam

    I agree with the intersection vs. union sentiments.  If I have “Friends” at “OSU” and “Friends” at “CMU” but also acquaintances at each of those schools, I’d like to have the option to send a message or invite to the intersection of Friends AND OSU that goes to people that fit in both circles, not the union  and have it go to anyone in OSU OR Friends which would send to everyone in my Friends circle as well as everyone in my OSU circle.

  • Ty Maag

    Let’s be honest… who wants this feature primarily to see how it handles Russell’s paradox?

    But seriously, this is a great proposal.  +1

  • Yngve Thoresen

    My biggest issue with Google+ right now is just this. I’m norwegian, and post mostly in norwegian, but also enjoy conversations with non-norwegians. If I could differentiate by language that would make it so much easier.

  • Konstantinos Lymperopoulos

    How about if you had the option to include the same person in multiple circles? Wouldn’t that be easier than creating/deciding about hierarchies?

  • http://twitter.com/iapprovethismsg Ben Donahower

    Has anyone heard if there is any movement on this one?

  • Tophat665

    This is more or less what I thought circles were going to be when I first heard about G+. Tree and Venn views would be cool.

  • Curious_music

    People can already be members of multiple circles. Why complicate things. If you have family that like dogs. Stick them in family and familywholikedogs. Easy.

    • Chris Harvey

      Every time you add a family member who likes dogs, you have to add them to 2 circles. That’s exactly the OP’s point… why should you have to manage that kind of complexity? Why can’t a computer do it for you?