Yeah, someone I don't recognize tried to share with me, and there's no way to get rid of that announcement, when I don't want to put that person in a circle.

I keep hearing the "combination of Facebook and Twitter" comment. But I must be missing something because I see nothing Twitter-like about it. Anyone willing to explain that part to me?

It just seems exactly like Facebook but without the app clutter.

I think it's because you can follow someone by adding htem to a circle without them adding you to their cirlce. They don't need to accept a friend request for you to see the streams they have marked public.

Wait, you mean she is not a Lot'er? Well that explains the restraining order she took out on me.

Ah, that's considered "Twitter-like"? So what Google has reinvented 15 years later is Livejournal (which is fine by me, I much prefer Livejournal over Facebook but everybody else moved eventually forcing me to as well).

Like anything, it's sometimes more about timing, packaging, and brand recognition than innovation.

Oh, that's fine. I just didn't consider that a "Twitter" thing so when people were saying it combined Facebook and Twitter I wasn't getting it.

But then I'm not getting what is considered remarkably different from Facebook either. I can't do anything with circles (except put people in them without approval) that I wasn't already doing on Facebook (anybody I even faintly knew who asked to be my friend got put into a list that never sees anything) and I never view my default News Feed, but a more limited list. Admittedly the interface for Circles is much simpler than the interface for Lists.

I do much prefer G+ over Facebook, but I'm not seeing anything about it that particularly moves the needle on anything. Almost everything that I like has to do with the fact that not everybody in the world is on it and there isn't the app clutter. Both of which will end if the platform is at all successful.

To me, circles are better than Facebook's lists because a) they're far easier to manage and b) Facebook's model is "everyone you know can see this except..." while Google's is "only these people you've specified can see this." It's slightly splitting hairs, but it's made a big difference in how I feel about who can see what and what I'm willing to share.

And hangout is awesome.

I'm not seeing the distinction. Especially since every time I post on G+ I have to change the default away from "Everybody in the world can see this" (It only seems to remember the filter I used for the last post about 30% of the time).

Haven't tried Hangout and I'm sure I will eventually and I'll probably be proven wrong like I am about so many things I initially resist. But video chat triggers that same visceral reaction as the thought of voluntarily spending my evenings in hell. But maybe that is piggybacking on the fact that videoconferences at work are all universally horrible experiences.

For example - I don't necessarily want to flood all of my friends and family with the Disney-related posting I do (which is on the rise again with all of the DCA news going on). But every once in a while, I know my sister would be interested in something Disney. So most of the time on a Disney related post I just select my "LoT" circle, but when I want to include my sister, I just add her name. To do the same on FB would require me to create a list that includes everyone BUT the LoT people, then ANOTHER list that includes everyone BUT the LoT people and my sister.

To me, from an intuitiveness standpoint, I find "Add individuals or groups that can see this posts" is much easier to manipulate than, "Add individuals or groups that CAN'T see this post."