All content in this presentation is property of the authors, not the presenter. No copyright claims are made, and

redistribution is strongly prohibited.

Talking inCircles

Sanjay KairamMichael J. Brzozowski

David HuffakerEd H. Chi

Paper by

Benjamin ReedPresented by

800 million

“In situations where readership may not be clearly delineated, users often underestimate the size of their potential audience.”

personal professional

coworkersfamily

friends recruiters

selective sharing

BobbyjoeMikeMooreSteveJobsJennyCraigiWantAPumpkinNotAnOptimistIsThisCool

jwnkfqeuo2nqdf8723unidjwxweiquh823ejdipmw80293823Iq9h832eouinus98a0ijdas98djj08j12e92083jeiqwnkdm2908Xinu098qj2e08h23rq0h08q7hqihq23ue80j2q3eu8h23e07hqiuheoiuqhweiuqheuhqweuio

weiquh823ejdipmw80293823

Xinu098qj2e08h23rq0h08q7h

1. public posts2. selectively shared (posts using

circles)3. posts targeted to specific users

3 Visibility Types of Posts

1. public posts2. selectively shared (posts using

circles)3. posts targeted to specific users

33.9%74.8%

% of Users3 Visibility Types of Posts

10.3%

1. public posts2. selectively shared (posts using

circles)3. posts targeted to specific users

33.8%67.4%

% of Posts3 Visibility Types of Posts

5.8%

Coding Circle Names my fam

Best friendsDon’t

even know

Mi Familia

Sales people

AlterEgos

label

family

Jane Jacob

2 High Level Categories life facets

• work (employee/employer relationships)

• school (education circles)

tie strength• Strong relationships ‘best’• Weak relationships ‘extended’

Results

Two Conclusions• some users are selectively sharing• the majority of circles were named to group life facets, tie strength,

and topical interest

• 2500 asked• 300 qualified• 168 participated• 6 demographically uncertain• Remainder 74.2% male (various ages)• 12 selected for semi-structured

interviews

The Participants

• Describe their most recent post• Why did they share it?• Who did they share it with?• Why did they share it with only … ?

The Task

• 21.8% privacy• 23% interests of those in a circle• 7.9% explicit content• 43% based on acquiring the most

interactions from the content.

Reasons for Not Sharing Publicly

• Inner circles (tight-nit groups)• Structured groups (Church groups)• Interest Groups (Knitters)• Catch-All (for everone else)

Types of Circles

“Circles reflect a need to manage content separately for different life facets (with a focus on ‘professional’ life) and according to tie strength.”