Circles Fatigue: The Dark Side Of Google+

Wow, what a silly attempt to criticize G+ for a brilliant and yet optional feature. He complains about having to manage too many circles. Ok...so group everyone in one circle, simple enough eh? You don't have to classify your contacts, you can simply put them in an "All" circle. Plus, are you saying it's easier to manage all your friends as individuals like you have to on FB? At least Google provides a way of classifying your friends, better than no way at all. Having too many Circles is the user's fault, and yet in the end, it doesn't even matter since you can easily treat all your contacts as one Circle.<p>If Google+ does not end up succeeding, it will not be because people get "Circles Fatigue". Sad attempt to be overly critical here.

How did this guy ever organize his buddy list when he used AIM or whatever? It's painful for a day, but it's not like people move between groups very often, and unless you are a celebrity it's an infrequent task after the initial setup. Plus, they've made the UI for it slippery smooth (kudos to Google+ for the effort there).

He is right, in that circles do take a little more thought... probably a little more than social network users are used too. There's a little bit of strategy involved in arranging circles usefully.<p>I'm not quite so sure that people realize circles are mostly a tool for sorting people (and not content) and controlling your broadcasts out, and less for sorting incoming broadcasts by topic. Seems like a lot of people just have awry expectations with the concept of circles.<p>Most people will probably have a few redo's on their circle arrangements in their future, as they start to grasp how they actually function. Some people might get frustrated and even quit.<p>Definitely not tired of it though... though I do wonder what its like for a famous person who gets thousands of followers - that might get a little old.

From the article """ It's overwhelming. Perhaps I'm slightly OCD, but even the process of creating a group name has become a hassle. I had friends from "Fast Company" and then friends from "FastCompany.com;" roommates from "6E" (my apartment number) and roommates from college; and even a group called "Top Gun," whose purpose I struggle to remember. Several of my Circles had just one "friend." A "Circle" of one might sound a little zen, but it mostly just sounds sad. After a while, I simply gave up. """<p>YOu can't blame google when you start creating groups for individuals. You can limit anything to an individual just like you would to a circle, so there's no real point to that.

I've experienced this "circle fatigue", but it's mainly because the service is new and I'm adding people to my circles on a daily basis as they get invited so it gets kind of irritating having to think which circle 10 people fit in everyday. Once more people come on I don't think it'll be much of an issue? I get like one FB friend request a week so if G+ is similar and I have to put someone into a circle once a week I don't think it's an issue.<p>Also, if someone doesn't like using the circles then what is stopping them from just putting everyone in one circle?

I think people are putting way too much time and effort into circles.<p>If you have something you want to share with a select group of people (who have a shared interest, obviously) then make a Circle for them and share it.<p>Other than that, don't fret about it.<p>I have a few very broad Circles that I initially classify people into (they usually only get put in 1 Circle) and that's been good enough so far.

It's still early. Google tends to roll out only mostly-baked things for the first edition, and then APIs to let you do what you want. While it's a little rough now, I fully expect it to get more polish in time.<p>I, for one, look forward to the API the most. Specialized tools for specialized uses - you can't please everyone with a single web interface. See also: tweetdeck.