3

I would like to create two circles. One called children and one called family. Naturally all members of children circle are also members of family circle but the family circle contains more. children is a strict subset of family. And I would like that all members of the children circle are automatically members of the family circle. How can I achieve this?

Furthermore I would like to expand this. Next I would like to create another circle called photo friends, which automatically should contain all members of the familiy circle. And after this I would like to create friends which contain all members of photo friends.

In the end I would like to publish photos: those which are only for my children, those which are for the family, those which are for my photo friends and those which are for all other friends. And I do not want to maintain for every single photo a list of circles. Instead I only want to define one single level of confidentiality for each photo. Is this possible with Google+?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

It's currently not possible in Google+ to denote a Circle as a subset of another. The setup you want to do would take the setup time down on creating multiple circles with duplicate people in order to only have to select 1 circle when sharing something, but they don't have that yet.

Improve this answer
4
  • 2
    Strange. I think this is a very basic feature for a system implementing mandatory access control. And I think the circles should be such a system. Everything else does not make much sense to me.
    – ceving
    Commented Oct 17, 2012 at 16:44
  • 1
    ahh, but they did implement a mandator access control system in the very basic sense of it. Getting more complicated than putting people in different circles could have made Google+ sound more complicated then it needed to be. Plus as you add more complexity the possibility of bugs affecting privacy/security goes up.
    – Rebecca Dessonville
    Commented Oct 17, 2012 at 18:18
  • But being able to put a circle in a circle avoids redundant configuration and allows following the DRY principal. And by this it is in the end less prone to errors.
    – ceving
    Commented Oct 18, 2012 at 10:06
  • yes, there is a subset of us that want things to be uber micro-manageable (i'm not disagreeing with you) but the complexity of those types of systems can be troublesome for functionality and user adoption.
    – Rebecca Dessonville
    Commented Oct 18, 2012 at 15:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.