Other than being able to follow people, the other big difference between it and Facebook seems to be that you cannot post something directly on a "friends" page. I wonder if that's a permanent omission or not.

I don't use Facebook much at all, but it seems like a lot of noise (usage) is simply somebody saying something directly to another person via that person's profile page. With Google+ you have to post something on your own profile and mention the other person's name.

It could be that they are trying to iron out the privacy implications. It's a bit more complex, because you have to look at it from both sides. i.e., Who is allowed to post on my profile, and also who should be able to see that post?

Random note: the circles would be more useful if you could have super-circles that were simply unions of other circles.

Yeah, that's what I would like to avoid.

I would be helpful to have a virtual circle like "Colleagues" that includes actual circles of different work environments. There may be things I'd like everybody I work with to see, and other things that only pertain to certain sub group.

As-is, you have to individually select each circle every time you post something, which would get tedious. Also, it would be useful as a way to view streams from your closest circles on a single page. I'm sure most people would rather only see a subset of their circles by default.

You could still use it as a silent observer, since it has a Twitter-like follow concept. It may seem like a slight difference from Facebook, but I think it's a brilliant way to gain momentum.

If leading experts in a variety of fields decide to switch from Twitter/Facebook to Google+ (perhaps being paid bribed to do so) that could result in a lot of followers joining just for that.

And, while it is definitely a Facebook clone (bugs and all), it does seem to be slightly better designed and slightly more fresh. That along with the somewhat popular opinion to hate on Facebook (as people hate on Microsoft), I think it has potential.

Google has a big advantage over Facebook. It's easier to tie a social network into Google's great search engine / e-mail service than it is to build search into Facebook.

Facebook should be concerned that they are about to be made obsolete "overnight." Zuckerberg should sell out completely to Microsoft, buy a private island, and enjoy the rest of his billionaire life.

It would be less spammy if you could choose who to broadcast messages to.

Say you want to post some nerdy thing that your family doesn't care about. While you could post a limited access message, it prevents the general public from casually stumbling upon the content. So it would be nice if you could post the message as public but only streamed to your nerd circle.

Or alternatively, give the ability to tag messages and let the recipient decide to opt out of certain tags.

I'm sure Google will add integrated spam apps soon enough. When they do, hopefully they add a way for a person to opt out of all application generated messages.

I joined Facebook when it was restricted to universities. So it was useful because everybody would register their courses, so you could easily connect with people you had classes with but didn't even know, etc. When they opened it up to the public it lost that focus and made it less useful as that kind of tool.

I hardly use Facebook at all... mostly just to keep up with university contacts. My profile is as private as Facebook allows, and I'm not even connected with my local friends and family on it. Once Google+ is public, I'm going to close out my Facebook account.

But I'm basically "meh" about Google+ as well, but I prefer Google's method of focusing on public profiles that can be followed. People (friends, family, strangers) can follow me, and I have no real obligation to do anything in return. Since I already have a GMail tab open at all times and use Google Search, and Google Talk, it's more convenient to just use Google+.

I think if Google+ takes any bite out of Facebook, it will be because it feels more natural as a public blogging tool.

Seems like people agree with me about how people who use Google+ as a blogging service will flood personal contacts to the point of frustration:

https://plus.google.com/117373186752666867801/posts/6WN5vhHUfoV

Edit:

I think the simplest way to solve this problem is to be asked this when you add somebody to your circles: "Do you want to see this person's public content in your stream." If you answer no, then the only content you would see is something explicitly limited to your circle.

It's not as flexible as a "publish to these circles" option (both could coexist), but it solves the issue without any fuss... especially if the publisher doesn't make use of a "publish to these circles" option.

I only have 4 people on there at the moment as most people I know use facebook. I'm hardly on that because all I ever get is people randomly posting links that are mostly warez, viruses or worst porn. I have kids and now I don't dare click on those shortened links because you cannot see where it is going to take you :/

Done. Not sure if you need a gmail account to register though.

I've added a bunch of a.cc people from Dennis's circle... you should be able to track the name from my nick

Done. Not sure if there even is a limit to the number of invites one can send out.

... Why does the Gender setting have an "Other" option? O_o

REVISION: And who's Al Lefant?