
I tell them, “Well, on G+ I would post this image and my caption would say something like, ‘What better way to start a full day of editing than to have a little protein for my mind in the form of a soft-boiled egg, a little toast for the carbs to keep my fingers on the keyboard and a little coffee for the caffeine to kickstart the process.’ and then I would end my post with a curiosity to the field, “What rituals do my fellow writers have?”
After that, I pause and let that sink in…
“Yeah, but you haven’t told me what the difference is?” they ask.
“Oh… yeah… On Facebook or Twitter, I would most likely split this up into two posts.
The First caption would say, 9:00 AM. Cook egg.
The second post would then say, 9:03 AM. Eat egg.”
… Sarcasm aside, I feel the main difference is that G+ is a two-way conduit, whereas the other sites are social billboards for you to drive by, read, and choose to hit a Like button or not. This is not to say other sites are inferior to G+, it’s just that they serve a different purpose and I rely on all of them for what they are.
All that said, what rituals do my fellow writers take up to start their marathon writing/editing sessions”
I have used Facebook 3 separate times over the years and became so disgusted with it each time that I eventually cancelled my account each time. It just seems to be populated by pointlessly blabbering people and a complicated interface that is anything but intuitive.
G+ is like a group of friends who can enjoy each other without having to chatter mindlessly. Some words are great but not a constant barrage if them. A great thing about G+ is that the pictures of the posts speak metaphorically. And therefore the conversations are of a much higher caliber. Cheers!
I agree James and good point about the use of images on these contrasting sites. I use FB to keep in contact with friends who do not venture beyond FB for technology, and likewise, to let them know I am still breathing. but I do not post much beyond a picture of a soft boiled egg 😉