Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (9984.181)
    I may as well throw in on the invite beg: daffydlejeune42 (at) gmail.com

    I've mostly avoided the social networking stuff, but was planning to sign up for facebook next month. But I like the looks of Google+ better.
    •  
      CommentAuthordispophoto
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011 edited
     (9984.182)
    just set one up a couple days ago, photogeek (at) gmail

    a much friendlier networking system without the stupid farmville crap. or my aunts poking me constantly. mmm...

    edit to add: Me!
  2.  (9984.183)
    Unfortunately it, Google+ still has FaceBook's "We can use the stuff you post in any way we see fit including selling it to advertisers." (Read the TOS). Mind you, they don't claim ownership like Tumblr does, so a thumbs in the middle there.

    The silver linings so far are no fucking game requests or pokes. I can also put people I don't give a damn about but can't safely block without sad feelings in a circle of their own and ignore them.

    These alone make it a vast improvement over FaceBook.
  3.  (9984.184)
    Thanks for the invites oddbill, dispophoto and chrisanthropic.

    Here's me

    I think I've added just about everybody to my Whitechapel circle.

    I'd kill for there to be some sort of 'Public Circle' set-up where you can Join a Circle and it will automatically create that circle in your profile and add anyone else who joins that circle to it (I guess that's sort of how Facebook Groups work?). Though maybe that would defeat the purpose slightly, since potentially your employers or family members could see that you're in that circle and jump into it, too.

    [edit]The people search is also sort of fucked up. I can search people that I know for a fact are on it, and it will tell me it can't find them, so I have to go to the profile of somebody who has that person in a circle and then go to my original target's profile and add them to a circle.
    • CommentAuthorEmperor
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.185)
    Unfortunately it, Google+ still has FaceBook's "We can use the stuff you post in any way we see fit including selling it to advertisers." (Read the TOS). Mind you, they don't claim ownership like Tumblr does, so a thumbs in the middle there.


    Although there have been numerous blog postings along the lines of "OMG Google is stealing my stuff" (see last week's "OMG Dropbox is stealing my stuff" drama) but they usually miss out the preceding lines ToS which say that all copyright remains with the creators of the content. All then they require is permission to host your stuff and serve it up to people who want to see it (which is why you uploaded it there in the first place), with added permission to resize it if required and general do the other things you'd need from an image/video/file hosting site. At least with the dropbox business it seemed to come from from a genuinely incompetent rewriting of the ToS that had to be swiftly updated, the Google+ ToS business seems to be largely down to bloggers posting clickbait (and it works too).

    There are problems and niggles that need addressing - Warren and Neil Gaiman have flagged up issues for folks with a large online, early-adopting fanbase, and they need to make sure they aren't too draconian on people using pseudonyms or not using their photo, etc. basically things that will hopefully addressed when or not long after it goes live - I just don't think this is one, bar a few tweaks to clarify the situation better.
    •  
      CommentAuthorphill_sea
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.186)
    also there, and it feels quite . . . underpopulated at the moment, so feel free to add me.

    I started a Whitechapel cirlce of friends just for y'all.


    lrc.phill@gmail.com
    • CommentAuthorALE
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.187)
    Obligatory plea for an invite: flame.forged.soul (AT) gmail.com thanks.
    •  
      CommentAuthordiello
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.188)
    Got ya, Phil and Ale :)
    • CommentAuthorALE
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.189)
    Damn that was fast thanks diello (and Fawndolyn, David Lejeune, Chrisanthropic and Neil)!
  4.  (9984.190)
    Searching for people via their e-mail address never works for me. It's very annoying.
    • CommentAuthoricelandbob
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.191)
    i second that David

    Well i got invited over the weekend. And now i'm on. Here's my profile.

    It does look good, but i have no real pressing need for it yet, as for many people i know, the power of Facebook is just too strong. But i think that i will find myself using it more and more over the coming months...
    • CommentAuthorALE
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.192)
    just scroll through the 1200+ people that have Warren in a circle...ok bad idea.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAshflex
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.193)
    Any chance of an invite off anyone? Dont use Facebook much, but from what I hear this is better/less annoying.
    restless.red.13 (at) googlemail.com If anyone would be so kind?
  5.  (9984.194)
    Ashflex, it should be on its way.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAshflex
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.195)
    Thanks for the quick invite Mike, I'll get it up and hopefully add some people from here.
  6.  (9984.196)
    I currently have 5 friends that I really know in a circle. And over 40 of you lunatics in a Whitechapel circle.
    This makes me strangely happy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAshflex
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.197)
    Heres mine. Just need to add something to it now.
  7.  (9984.198)
    Only 40, Rob?

    I discovered a nifty trick when a friend of mine did a circle specific post: If you click on 'limited' on that post, it'll show you everyone else who that post was shared with. So, for example, if you're having a hard time finding Whitechapel people, you could click on oddbill's SMID post, and hit 'Limited' and see who it went to. Unfortunately they limit it to only showing you 21 profiles, and it probably skews toward only showing people that are already in your contacts, but it's handy if you've only got a couple Whitechapelers and are looking for more.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlan Tyson
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.199)
    It seems to me that, with as cautious as people are being about Google+ (what with all the "read the fine print" posts going around, as well they should be) that Facebook's greatest tactic in hangstringing any future opponents was to fuck up in all the ways they did - we found that out too late, as most of us signed on with Facebook early, and now we're suspicious of anything else that looks like it.

    I sincerely doubt that was the plan from the start, but still. Ironic.
    • CommentAuthorEmperor
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
     (9984.200)
    This seems a more balanced take on the Google+ ToS issue that seems to arise a couple of times a day: Google user licenses: Clarification would be nice, but no need to panic - their ToS might be of concern to professional photographers but most folks will probably be OK but the wording does need some tweaking to help reassure people.