Somewhat related to point 7: Integrate Circles with Google Chat, and allow users to set different visibility per Circle.
As buggy as Facebook Chat is, this feature exponentially increases the value proposition for me. (You can leave certain Friend Lists offline, while having others online.)
It's 2011 and even companies like Skype still haven't implemented this, despite it being requested repeatedly by users.
You can't honestly expect users to have the same 'Available', 'Busy', or 'Invisible' status for a chat list that could contain hundreds of people ranging from friends and family to classmates, business contacts, acquaintances, etc.
When working on a project, I need to appear 'Available' to everybody else involved, while leaving other contact groups offline so as not to be contacted about trivial matters that don't require an immediate response.
Other people I've discussed this with have said things like not wishing to be 'Available' to work colleagues outside of work hours.
The list is endless, and any company that takes Instant Messaging seriously needs this. IM isn't going anywhere.
Regarding Circles + Chat: If you turn on chatting on Google+ it will ask you which Circles you want to be visible to. I'm not sure if this applies to all instances of Talk, and it looks like you can only say "I am visible to these Circles" (later configurable with the little dropdown next to the chat list in G+), but otherwise it seems to match what you're looking for.
You're right, to some extent it is what I'm talking about, however they state "People in these circles who also enable chat will be able to see when you're online and chat with you." and it feels like more of an all-or-nothing system (adding or removing Circles entirely from Chat).
Whereas Facebook's single-click 'on the fly' interface is superior to this - all groups always visible, one-click online and expanded, one-click offline and collapsed.
I think that was one of my first suggestions with the Send feedback button. But, you can add only certain circles right now that will be able to see you online.
din't is easily a sticky key or a fast-typing error. It happens to any of us and doesn't necessarily say that the person has a separate first language.
Furthermore, even though it's good form to read over a message you're sending and remove the typoes, grammar-os and other such issues, it doesn't always happen :)
Not really directed to you (unless you have the answer):
Is there any way for regular people (i.e not large corporations or Kevin Rose) to request a screen name from twitter, assuming that they have a registered business with the same name? I realize twitter isn't mandated to do so, but it would be nice if small startups or individuals could request screen names if the screen name is inactive.
I tested this by entering the address of my former blog. It ranked high in "vendor trustworthiness" even though there is no commercial aspect to the site at all. It has a high child safety rating even though some of those posts contain very strong language.
Ratings come from users of the WOT browser extensions. Users are able to rate sites based on their personal experience with them. Sites with poor reputation yield warnings from the extension upon later visits.
If no one has rated you, your rating will stay positive, or neutral, until someone does.
That's what I expected. Like I said, my test site wasn't "neutral", it was clearly rated positive on vendor reliability and child-friendliness. So what it boils down to is that someone arbitrarily gave taketake.com a very negative rating, not necessarily based on anything real. I'm not saying it may not be justified, but this kind of reputation system is clearly very flaky and prone to manipulation.
Anybody notice how it shares the name with HTC's 'ThunderBolt' 4G phone being released, and how it looks like both Intel and HTC have trademarks on the word?
It's perfectly reasonable for two entities to have trademarks on the same word, so long as they aren't in the same business. In this case (without looking at the relevant legal paperwork), HTC could trademark 'Thunderbolt' with respect to phones, mobile devices, whatnot, while Intel may have the trademark with respect to peripheral data connections. Nobody (except maybe Monster Cable) would have an issue with that arrangement.
And what if a phone one day wants to support a Thunderbolt interface? I think that they're a bit too close to one another, both being parts of the consumer electronic space.
Thunderbolt the phone, however, can be expected to have a much shorter lifespan than a new connector like this.
