Creating a new Branch requires that you specifically address people in the To field. This is akin to writing an email. You have to know whom you're writing your message to. Does Branch plan to replace the so-called void in email? If yes, I don't see any compelling reason to have a Branch. Besides, I don't see a way to have a private Branch yet and even if there is a private Branch, I don't see why I should create a Branch here when I can easily compose an email.

However, there is a way to create a Branch addressing to yourself, which counters the above situation where you have to address someone specifically. More below.

Creating a branch without addressing someone specifically is sort of confusing initially because Branch wouldn't tell you that you can create a branch in a "talking to yourself" mode. Here in lies another issue. If more people create Branch in a talking-to-yourself-and-see-if-anyone-else-in-the-wild-joins-you mode, than branch would have to decide if it is a conversation platform or a publishing platform, because how else can you distinguish yourself?

So you have to have a good community of your own in the first place before you create Branches, otherwise, you'd mostly be talking to yourself without any aim and would be fishing for responses in the dark from strangers.

This dilemma of creating community of your own on a newly built platform leads to further problems as is generally known in the social-networking works. The platform expects that you would build your community here by inviting your friends and you expect that a magic would happen and your friends would be following you (and your chatter) no matter where you go. This is ideal, the reality is not the same.

Branch here sort of taking the advantage of Twitter, it is actually well integrated with Twitter because your branches and your conversation spills over to Twitter. But again, it is only Twitter we're talking about. Would Branch initially spill over to other popular social-networking platform?

If Branch does spill over to other popular networking services than what purpose is it serving by duplicating what has already been duplicated? The initial issue is of creating a community, a sort of expectation by the Platform that each of its user would bring his/her own community over (multiply). This is a rather difficult problem because as we have seen, the perception Google Plus has created, that people are not moving off of Facebook to be on Google Plus

That's it for today. More later.

Thanks, Arif. Duly noted. Keep it coming!

So I am using Branch more often and my inbox view is filling up, all to see how far I can go with it.

I see several Featured Branches and many of them have very enticing topics on which I have much to say....but....almost all of these featured branches have plethora of comments already from the past and I don't have time to read everything. So what do I do to still be on Branch?

I branch out because that's one which which is available here by default. Branch out.

Here's my next problem.

I can branch my heart out using this feature...but do I talk to myself after I branch out or do I talk to the person whom I am branching the conversation out from?

After realizing that there's too much noise already on an enticing subject "created by someone else" and after realizing that I won't be able to do justice to the conversation without reading the whole thread....I have to decide to either leave the subject as is, or branch out. I don't favor asking to join unless I can read the conversation which has taken place already.

But in order to branch out (so I can have my own say on my own terms and on my own turf - which is what Branch is what turning out to be) I then have to decide if I should talk to myself or add that person in the To field whose branch comment I am replying.

Now here's the thing: I know I am already on the loosing ground if I start to converse more often on my own without any target companion, i.e talking to myself....but how do I know if the person I'm branching out from, is interested in knowing what I have to say if I were to address him/her directly?

This is a big freaking problem in the social networking world.

The other day I used the Branch bookmarklet to provide my comment on someone's blog post here by addressing the author in the To field (which must have sent a notification to him via Twitter). Something about this activity didn't feel right because I could very well have commented on his own blog where he is expecting responses.

A glitch? I didn't do the duplicate above.

Anyways, my commenting on Branch instead of the blog post itself, reminded me of a once heavily advertised utility by Google (I don't remember its name now) where Google were allowing people to comment on each and every website in the world but those comments would show up on the side in a separate frame owned by Google, outside of the independent website itself. I recall an uproar over it and several tech pundits were against such feature. I believe nobody used that Google service further.

It seems Branch has that specific nature in itself where it can become a commenting hub for websites without websites control and jurisdiction (management). This doesn't look right to me.

So my first realization of Branch is that it does not and would not work with people being an island in themselves. What I mean by this is that Branch requires the same methodology and technique as what other social-networking platform does, i.e, you have to have multiplicity of followers/people who are willing to listen to what you have to say. Ultimately, this problem (as I call it) is applicable here as it is everywhere else. You cannot have a platform if you are talking to yourself. You need people, you need community.

So before I go further in documenting my thoughts on Branch, I am going to add (spam?) the people I have been interacting as my initial community. Most of these people I am going to add here to this Branch are strangers, as initially, I had to stumble upon some threads in order to get in (and so I believe many people must be doing the same)...but with the hope that these strangers won't be strangers in the future.

I'm intrigued by a private branch actually. Libby added me to one last week that I wanted to answer candidly but didn't want to have it be public. I responded via e-mail instead. I would've rather kept it in Branch.

I don't want an e-mail every time someone adds to the conversation and yet...I don't want to mute it and forget about its existence. This makes me think Branch needs to be a destination site I visit like Twitter or Facebook where I check all my notifications in one place. Thoughts on that?

Yes, our goal is absolutely to make Branch a place you visit everyday.

Private branching, in the future, is definitely intriguing. For now, it's not a priority for the same reasons Pinterest doesn't let you create private boards.

Thanks for the feedback!

Notifications are key, as are building connections to aid discovery.

Private branching, to me, feels like a necessity at some point. I could see this replacing email in some organizations as it is helpful to follow the conversation and add context.

Will there be a technology that sums up people's comments one day? Arif, you're awesome, but I don't have time (at the moment) to read your comments in full. Where's the TLDR version?!

I guess this is a larger point. The reason it's easy to follow other people's Twitter convos is that they're limited in length. You do a quick check of the last few back and forths and you're done. If I jump into a Branch late, I will most likely not reread every word everyone else wrote and thus, will prob repeat what others have said. Not sure if that makes sense.

This is one of my fave features at CNN = "Story Highlights." See left hand side: cnn.com

Sorry for being that person who skims...

Callie, that's exactly the problem I am identifying with Branch, i.e, once a thread accumulates too much conversation, it looses its authenticity, i.e, you and I don't have enough time to read everything that has already transpired. This is a problem in general everywhere....though Branch seems to have introduced something new and unique, branch out!

But still, I am not very clear on how branching out would work eventually down the road.

With an analogy of dinning table discussion in the offline world, I believe this problem is simply not there. If five people are sitting and chatting and the six shows up, it doesn't take much for anyone to quickly summarize the talk so the sixth can join in with ease. On internet with threaded comments and all, particularly when the conversation gets lengthy and off topic, it is practically a big problem.

One idea is to showcase and allow people to travel to the Branches and potentially even bring Branches into the main branch with a summary/conclusion reached, no?

I have some reflection on this summary or no-summary issue. A while ago people used to worry about tons and tons of unread emails, tons of Google Reader items, etc...so they went to work and Gmail developed priority inbox (which by the way has been around in Lotus Notes before Gmail adopted it). Anyway, the point is that people used to worry about "unread" items, i.e, the information bits which are flowing through our eyes but we cannot read or feel overwhelmed to get to.

As far as I am concerned, and because I use Google Reader daily where I have hundreds of RSS feeds. I developed a state of mind of my own (no technology, just a shift in thinking) that no matter the number of unread items I see in my Google Reader, I would only care for what I can reach and read and I would not worry about what I cannot reach or read.

So now I have thousands of unread items in my Google Reader and I have no worries. I still use Google Reader to the fullest of potential and I prioritize the feeds in folders and hierarchies, but I just don't worry about what I see as "unread".

I have adopted the same technique for Twitter (as I mostly use Twitter via Lists).