I believe Waves are private unless you make them public but anyone on
your wave can add people. I don't know if there is a way to limit who
can add. Of course that is similar to email as when you are emailing a
group, anyone can add another participant. Or delete a participant.
Several waves I've participated in have had someone accidently delete
portions. I'm looking now and it doesn't look like there is a way to
remove participants from a wave even if you started the wave.
You can search public waves with "with:public" in the inbox search
area. You will find hundreds or thousands to join.
Does someone want to start a Google Wave listserv list? Some folks are
dropping from this list and I think it's because of the heavy Wave
On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Karoline Dehnhard wrote:
> Here is an example of a very basic test of a wave embedded into a
> web page with a join wave button at the bottom: http://startupgrinder.com/wave
> I may have found the answer to my question about privacy - unless
> you add [log in to unmask] as a participant, your waves remain
> private (within your group). I have not tried it though so I can't
> verify this info.
> Kristofer Layon wrote:
>> I think you both have valid points. It's a very interesting tool
>> from an experimental point of view; practically, it is still
>> relatively useless. It may morph into something more compelling,
>> though, over time.
>> To me, it's kind of a large and unwieldy Swiss Army knife of a
>> tool. Other things are more simple and more reliable. Combining
>> too much in one package results not only in the general buggyness
>> of it, but then it also just becomes overwhelming to implement in
>> daily life.
>> But the application aspect does have weight. Twitter is another
>> example more like email, that is more of a standard than just a
>> proprietary channel (though it still is that, obviously). But the
>> range of desktop tools has liberated Twitter to reside on my
>> desktop and phone, but in the background just like email. I can
>> choose to read often, or choose to read less often, yet keep them
>> on all the time. So they're omnipresent yet function well
>> I haven't tried anything like this with Wave yet, but I can't
>> imagine logging into Wave and just leaving it on all day in a
>> browser window in case something interesting happens. It seems
>> like it requires immediate attention and very intentional
>> engagement for it to do its intended purpose. Though I could be
>> wrong and maybe if I didn't find so much practical utility in
>> Twitter, Wave might seem more appealing. But Wave seems more like
>> an online presentation or meeting (or -- gasp -- a live webinar);
>> Twitter is more just a casual watercooler conversation (though with
>> more people).
>> And maybe these tools appeal to various people differently,
>> depending on their personality types?
>> So anyway, see you on Twitter instead. =)
>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Zachary Johnson wrote:
>>> Huh, you sure are giving Google a lot of credit! Nothing wrong
>>> with that I suppose.
>>> Me... I'm skeptical. Email revolutionized communication and
>>> became a standard way for people to interact on the internet, but
>>> there's a thousand different email applications, both desktop and
>>> web based. There's even the divide between plain text and HTML
>>> The web browser may be a better example of a revolutionary
>>> communications platform that (despite the variety of choices
>>> available and the differences between them) comes close to
>>> presenting a "standard interface through which the majority of
>>> people interact" with the internet.
>>> Wave *may* just prove to be the standard protocol for a
>>> revolutionized internet communication (still skeptical) but I just
>>> don't see everybody interacting with the internet through some
>>> sort of Google-made Wave Browser. Google has at least been smart
>>> enough to open up the protocol, which may make a future where
>>> there are several competing Wave browsers on the market just like
>>> web browsers now. Perhaps you weren't suggesting anything more
>>> than that, Patrick.
>>> If Wave proves to be nothing more than another web application
>>> that you interact with in your web browser, then I don't really
>>> see it being *the* ubiquitous feature of post-Web 2.0. I think
>>> it'll just be one of many things we use. Well... if we use it at
>>> all. Not all of Google's inventions are successful. And so far,
>>> the few times where I thought to myself "Ooh! I could use a Wave
>>> for this!" I've been really disappointed with the User Experience.
>>> Ok, I'll give Google some credit, too: They must be doing
>>> something right if we're even having this conversation.
>>> Patrick Haggerty wrote:
>>>> Right now, I think Wave is more a toy than a full tool. Part of
>>>> that is its feature set isn't complete and part is that we're all
>>>> treating it like a toy. What I think Wave is ultimately going to
>>>> become is a unified interface for Web 2.0. If they manage to
>>>> integrate the service into social networks and blogs and forums
>>>> and so on, we'll have one interface for the majority of online
>>>> contribution and collaboration. Sure it's advertised as the next
>>>> iteration of email, but I think its greater contribution will be
>>>> to standardize the interface through which the majority of people
>>>> interact with the web.
>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Peter Fleck <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> Google Wave has been fairly successful in organizing the Other
>>>> Future of News (OFON) conference. Julio Ojeda-Zapata provides
>>>> details at the Pi Press site.
>>>> Peter Fleck
>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Patrick Haggerty
>>>> Office of Information Technology
>>>> University of Minnesota Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> Phone: 612-626-5807
>>> Zachary Johnson * Web Manager
>>> Student Unions & Activities
>>> (612) 624 - 7270
> Karoline Dehnhard
> Web Designer
> 272 Appleby Hall
> University of Minnesota
[log in to unmask]