Google Messages is testing a handy sharing menu change 9%

By Matt Horne27%

7/9/2026, 2:30:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Recency Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 806 faulty-reasoning hits from 438 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.8% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,967 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.20% of the article peer group.

Affiliate links on Android Authority may earn us a commission. 
Learn more. 
Google Messages is trying out a common-sense sharing menu change 
An extra option for the group chat era. 
Jul 9, 2026  5:30 PM ET 
Joe Maring / Android Authority 
Follow us on Google Discover Add us as preferred source 
Google Messages appears to be testing a new sharing menu with Send to a group and Send separately options. 
The feature can apparently reuse an existing group chat if you pick the same contacts. 
The option appears to be a limited test or server-side rollout, so it may not be available to everyone yet. 
Google Messages is constantly competing with other messaging apps , and it looks like sharing habits are where the app is currently being honed. 
We recently spotted Google working on a way to forward multiple messages and images at once , and now another sharing-related tweak appears to be showing up for at least one user. 
Which of these features do you most want Google Messages to add? 
In a post on Reddit , a Google Messages user shared a screenshot of a new menu that appears when sharing something to multiple contacts. 
The updated flow offers two options at the bottom of the screen: Send to a group and Send separately. 
That should make the choice much clearer when you’re firing off a link, photo, or other item to multiple people. 
Sometimes you want to start a proper group chat around whatever you’re sharing. 
Other times, you just want to send the same thing to a few people individually without creating a whole new conversation that nobody asked for. 
The feature also appears to have some useful logic built in. 
According to the Reddit poster, if the contacts you select already match an existing group chat, Google Messages will take you to that existing conversation rather than creating a duplicate group. 
The poster also says that if you try to create a group containing both RCS and MMS contacts, Messages prompts you to remove the MMS numbers and try again. 
This might not be something you can try for yourself just yet. 
It looks like a limited test or server-side rollout, so updating the app may not make the option appear. 
Still, it’s the kind of logical change that makes so much sense that it’s most likely just a matter of time. 
Let us know if the comments if you’re seeing the new sharing options. 
Google Google Messages 
Thank you for being part of our community. 
Read our Comment Policy before posting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.5%Matt Horne: 2.1%Android Authority: 4.4%Confirmation Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 1.6%Android Authority: 2.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Matt Horne: 3.3%Android Authority: 3.7%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 7.3%Matt Horne: 0.6%Android Authority: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic7.3%This article: 4.8%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.6%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 2.7%Android Authority: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Matt Horne: 5.6%Android Authority: 5.6%Framing Effect6.2%This article: 5.7%Matt Horne: 0.9%Android Authority: 1.3%Loss Aversion5.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.9%Android Authority: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.7%Matt Horne: 5.1%Android Authority: 7.0%Optimism Bias13.7%This article: 7.3%Matt Horne: 1.4%Android Authority: 1.9%Pessimism Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 5.5%Android Authority: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 1.1%Android Authority: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.2%Android Authority: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Matt Horne: 1.2%Android Authority: 4.6%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.8%Matt Horne: 2.6%Android Authority: 2.2%Recency Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.2%Android Authority: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.1%Matt Horne: 2.3%Android Authority: 2.8%Appeal to Authority1.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.7%Android Authority: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.5%Android Authority: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.2%Android Authority: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.8%Matt Horne: 3.9%Android Authority: 8.7%Hasty Generalization1.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.2%Android Authority: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.3%Android Authority: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.6%Matt Horne: 1.0%Android Authority: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion9.6%This article: 4.6%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.9%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 12.8%Matt Horne: 1.4%Android Authority: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.3%Android Authority: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.3%Matt Horne: 0.5%Android Authority: 0.4%Burden of Proof4.3%This article: 2.5%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.3%Appeal to Nature2.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.6%Android Authority: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 29.7%Matt Horne: 3.0%Android Authority: 6.1%Anecdotal29.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.3%Matt Horne: 1.2%Android Authority: 3.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.7%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.2%Middle Ground2.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.1%Android Authority: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.3%Android Authority: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 4.9%Android Authority: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.5%Android Authority: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.7%Matt Horne: 3.7%Android Authority: 12.4%Biased Writer Voice23.7%This article: 5.7%Matt Horne: 0.1%Android Authority: 2.5%Indoctrination5.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Horne: 0.0%Android Authority: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Matt Horne: 1.6%Android Authority: 7.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.0%

438 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.1%attributed speech433writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Maring • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joe Maring

100%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.0 ptsWriter: 24.0%Joe Maring: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Joe Maring: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Joe Maring: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.