[dos1]

For one, I don't really feel like the expletive in the title helped his cause at all. A better title would have been "Facebook suggests groupings of your friends for you!"

I also thought his example was contrived. I mean, is there anyone who's so worried about their social networks that they will hem and haw over whether someone is a coworker or drinking buddy or whatever? And if there is someone like that, well thank goodness Google+ supports their neuroses!

[dylangs1030]

Some of the author's point was precisely that being neurotic - and by extension, highly organized - itn't in of itself completing any work. Up to a point it's efficient, but then it becomes very unefficient. It's like someone continually micromanaging folders on the desk instead of actually completing the paperwork.

[dos1]

I don't understand the point of your comment. What are you clarifying or trying to refute? What is your opinion on the matter? The author never even uses the word neurotic. That was my word. His point is that people who like to dilly dally with trivial organization are wasting time; not being productive. I certainly agree with him. My point was that if there's someone who enjoys that kind of thing, well more power to them and it's great that there are social networks out there that support that behavior.

[dylangs1030]

I know it was your word, not the author's; I was agreeing that being that tidy is not productive and offering a comment on the point.

[king_magic]

I think it's a perfect example. Setting up Google+ Circles is a lot of work - work that I really wish I didn't have to do. And yes, there are plenty of people who have to be very careful about who sees what posts on social networks, especially when coworkers are involved.

[dos1]

I'm envious. If dragging and dropping some icons constituted "a lot of work" in my life, then I'd be a very happy man.

[king_magic]

It's not just "dragging and dropping some icons", it's forcing you to evaluate each of your contacts based on some criteria you come up with. That takes work I'd rather not waste my time doing.

[scott_s]

"Shit work" is a common enough phrase that it seemed appropriate to me.

[tensor]

A phrase is not deemed appropriate solely because it is common. There are and have been many inappropriate common phrases in use over the years.

The author had an interesting point, but I found his use of "shit work" over and over to be distasteful enough to not want to read his blog again. It is an overloaded and crass term that only served to hurt his otherwise interesting argument.

[scott_s]

I felt it was appropriate because the phrase, even if it was crass, exactly captured what he was talking about. I like it when people use the best word or phrase to describe something, even if it's a crass phrase.

[Skillset]

Perhaps "poo work" or "feces work" would have been more apropos.

[scott_s]

But those are not well known phrases. If you mean "shit work," say "shit work." To do otherwise is bad writing.

[dos1]

When I think of shit work, I think of working in a manufacturing plant at one station for 12 hours a day, getting two 15 minute breaks and a 30 minute lunch. When I think of organizing lists on Twitter, well, I think of that as a fleeting annoyance at worst.

[drivebyacct2]

Facebook also supports my "neuroses" [sic] too. And thankfully. I have tech friends, family, and high school friends that don't know what "linux" is. I like to share articles, a lot, for discussion. I'm "neurotic" because I like to target who I share that stuff with?

[dos1]

I just checked and the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosis uses the word "neuroses" as a plural several times. What is the correct way to spell this word if not the way I spelled it? (I'm genuinely curious)

[dylangs1030]

It's "neuroses," it's like crisis and crises.

[dos1]

Right, I know. That's the word I used, and it was marked as spelled incorrectly by someone who replied to my original comment. I was wondering why?

[drivebyacct2]

I apologize, my first glance indicated that it was a misspelling. I still find it condescending to imply that targeted posting is indicative of a mental disorder.

[dos1]

It was meant to be condescending :) And I hope it was also a little tongue in cheek!