When news first emerged about Google+, the latest social media project by the search behemoth, I didn't pay much attention to it.

I guess after the bewilderment that Google Wave induced and the disappointment that Google Buzz generated, I felt indifferent about Google's social media efforts.

Then, I got a unexpected notification in my Gmail inbox informing me that I had been added to someone's Circle.

NONEThat person was Arystle Kuan, a blogger and Twitterer whom I've interacted with online but never met in person.

So, I checked out Google+ to see what it's all about.

First thing I did was fill out my basic profile. After that I categorized Arystle under one of the Circles that Google+ offers by default "friends", "family", "acquaintances" and "following". You can also create your own categories.

Google has wisely made it so that the people in your network do not know which Circle you've classified them under, thus avoiding awkward or potentially embarrassing situations. Imagine if someone cared enough about you to lump you under "family" but you had placed them under "acquaintances".

Google+ wants you to categorize all the people in your network, something Twitter and Facebook don't do. This feature made me a think a little. Is it a good innovation to make users categorize the various people in their network?

I'm not sure whether it's good or not, but it does make sense when you think about it. All of us have different groups of people we know. For example, I have friends who are in the tech sector, and those who are into politics, and yet others who are judo players, and so on.

NONEMany of them don't overlap. The kind of things that I talk about with one group would be of little interest to those in the other groups. Google+ has a solution for this: whenever you make a posting, you can decide which group can see it.

So, if I should decide to post something about Bersih 2.0, I would naturally make it accessible to my political friends. If I were to post something about the World Judo Championships, naturally it would be targeted at my judo group. And so on.

Thinking outside the circle

The concept of Circles, or independent groups of friends, is not something unheard of. Facebook has a way for you to create "lists" and "groups", both of which are designed to help you categorize you friends.

Neither one is popular though, either because the interface is not quite as elegant and seamless as the one on Google+, or perhaps because people are not bothered to categorize their friends online.

In the days after joining Google+, people slowly started adding me to their Circles. Some I knew well, some I knew not so well, and some I did not know at all.

The last bit intrigued me. How did such come across my profile and why would they be interested in adding me to their Circles?

If it were Twitter, it would make sense. After all, I tweet regularly. Same thing for my Facebook page. But with Google+, I had strangers adding me before I even made a single posting.

NONEIn fact, my very first posting was precisely about how intrigued I was that complete strangers were adding me. This elicited a reply from Mei Ying Teoh, a digital marketing specialist, who posted:

"Same thoughts here. I have really random people adding me. I was told I should be flattered instead ;p"

Besides Circles, the site has many of the things you'd expect from a social networking platform, such as the ability to post comments in a stream (just like the ones on Facebook and Twitter) and the ability to conduct group chats (Facebook groups have that too).

Google+ has one feature with very strong potential though: "hangout." The option basically allows you to video chat. That might not seem like a big deal, but "hangout" allows you to have simultaneous chats with up to 10 people. Now that's something new.

So, will Google+ be a hit? Or will it be a dud like Wave (now defunct) and Buzz (pretty much dead in the water)?

It's still early, but if I were a betting man, I'd say Google+ will be a minor hit. It'll be around. Some people will use it but most will stick to Facebook because all their friends are there. Why migrate to a new social media network when you already have one that serves your purpose well, right?

Unlike Twitter, which is truly a different animal from Facebook, Google+ is a direct competitor. And in social media, usually it's a zero-sum game.

In this case, it's either Google+ or Facebook, but not both. Just look at MySpace and Friendster and you'll understand why.

OON YEOH is a new media consultant. You can follow him on www.twitter.com/oonyeoh.