top | item 2737152

Hackers to follow on G+?

103 points| enterneo | 14 years ago | reply

currently following Guido van Rossum: https://plus.google.com/115212051037621986145/posts

Who others are there on G+ ?

43 comments

order
[+] amirmc|14 years ago|reply
I have a better question. How many of these people are actually posting? It feels a little pointless to follow a bunch of people who have no public posts.

I've gone through all the links in this thread (at the time of writing) and included only those where I can see posts (i.e more than just uploading a profile photo). I've simply copy/pasted the links from the original submitters into this post. Hope it's useful. (edit: I also put them all in a spreadsheet which anyone can edit http://bit.ly/nBqc8e)

Guido van Rossum: https://plus.google.com/115212051037621986145/posts

Ian Bicking: https://plus.google.com/104537541227697934010/posts

Michael Foord: https://plus.google.com/u/1/114852031032123777881/posts

Simon Willison: https://plus.google.com/u/1/106366615678321494423/posts

Brett Cannon: https://plus.google.com/u/1/115362263245161504841/posts

Graham Dumpleton: https://plus.google.com/u/1/114657481176404420131/posts

Waldemar Kornewald: https://plus.google.com/u/1/112495598999878465094/posts

Eric Florenzano: https://plus.google.com/u/1/109591387819364984777/posts

Randall Munroe: XKCD. https://plus.google.com/111588569124648292310/posts

Matt Cutts: https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202/posts

Brad Fitzpatrick: https://plus.google.com/115863474911002159675/posts

Scott Hanselman: https://plus.google.com/113698589973698283456/posts

Ryan Dahl: https://plus.google.com/115094562986465477143/posts

Andy Hertzfeld: https://plus.google.com/117840649766034848455/posts

Adrian Holovaty: https://plus.google.com/113607435918549143249/posts

Armin Ronacher: https://plus.google.com/116865269069705863179/posts

Don Stewart: https://plus.google.com/115274377971493973150/posts

Paul Buchheit: https://plus.google.com/111732375221065535359/posts

[+] sssparkkk|14 years ago|reply
So, how are these hackers sharing their technical insights on G+ without bothering their real-life friends and family?

That's right, they aren't.

Unless you manually add all your followers to a 'followers' circle and share to that (and subsequently pollute your default stream with your followers' posts) there's currently no way on G+ to keep your technical public persona apart from your more personal, private one.

[+] wccrawford|14 years ago|reply
Is that really a concern? For now, their friends and family can ignore any posts they don't care about, just like Facebook.

Hopefully, G+ will eventually implement tagging and people can filter out tags they don't like.

[+] suhailsherif|14 years ago|reply
The easiest way to correct this would be to allow posting to intersections, disjunctions of circles. It's gonna come for sure.
[+] dfxm12|14 years ago|reply
In all honesty, if these people really care about this, they'll have an account for their "online personality" and a personal account.

See the difference between Facebook fan pages and actual Facebook profiles. Of course, now the problem is that there is no elegant way (currently) to manage 2 G+ accounts...

[+] wisty|14 years ago|reply
I've always though that personae-based would be better than circle-based. You could even have people like the former _why who have an entirely separate online presence.
[+] seri|14 years ago|reply
It seems to me that the most active use for G+ at the moment is as a broadcasting system, very much like Twitter. Maybe Google has envisioned this, maybe not. I admit I didn't. I thought Google would have done whatever it takes to promote more intimate and private communication among close friend circles.

But while G+ is arguably a better broadcasting system than Twitter, it is still broken. A tech celeb would love to consistently post tech stuffs, but while this activity satisfies his geeky followers, it would annoy his friends and families. And there is no way a tech celeb can manually add his followers into different circles.

I imagine if G+ fixes this problem, it will completely replace Twitter in no time at all.

One solution is to introduce a concept called Channels.

Suppose I follow DHH. The problem is DHH has a lot of interests, ranging from Ruby, entrepreneurship, to Forbes bashing (DHH fans bear it with me here). Now DHH doesn't know who among his followers cares about which of his interests, but he creates some Channels, namely "Ruby", "Entrepreneurship", "Forbes Bashing", etc anyway, so followers can filter themselves.

Now a Rails guy found DHH's G+ page. He would like to follow DHH, but he doesn't care so much about DHH's financial insight. Now that when he adds DHH to his "Follow" Circle, he can choose to pick some among many DHH's Channels and everyone is happy.

Finally, DHH's "public" posts are only visible to those who specifically added him to the "Follow" circle.

[+] NinetyNine|14 years ago|reply
I've been working on an early stage startup which does something very similar to this, although less celebrity focused and more on common circles. It's funny actually, when Google+ happened, I figured they did exactly what we've been working on, but they didn't. Seeing as everyone on HN seems to want something like this now though, it seems to be putting a lot of pressure on.
[+] mkr-hn|14 years ago|reply
Sounds like it would work like the feed-anywhere system on WordPress. I could grab the robotics feed from an interesting person at example.com/robotics/feed/ and easily forget that it's actually a competitive crochet blog.
[+] soilandreyes|14 years ago|reply
I guess the reason is that for most people, almost none of their personal friends have signed up - only their techie circles are there.
[+] scorpion032|14 years ago|reply
[+] nikcub|14 years ago|reply
these urls are terrible
[+] xsltuser2010|14 years ago|reply
You can use profiles.google.com/yourname (if you haven't excluded your profile from search)
[+] yuvadam|14 years ago|reply
This.

I don't get it. Google already has usernames - why not use them?

[+] gubatron|14 years ago|reply
I guess Google doesn't need to care about SEO