topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Friday March 29, 2024, 3:42 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Google+  (Read 144853 times)

Armando

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,727
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #150 on: July 11, 2011, 10:34 AM »
For me file it under layered security practice. The obscurity layer, granted not the best...but still worth using. Just because the information can be put together doesn't mean it needs to be prepackaged, preassembled, and printed on a T-shirt with a freaking bow on top. Make'em work for it. ;)

Exactly how I see it. I.e.: Anybody who really wants to know who is Armando and where he lives will probably be able to. However, it won't be readily available. It's wise to separate the various facets of your identity with various pseudo, scramble paths a bit for those who aren't necessarily your friends -- not that I have any enemies...

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,646
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #151 on: July 11, 2011, 11:13 AM »
If someone has a web site, and a link in their signature in a forum, then you've basically got their info.

Quite true for many (if not most) of us. But for the average Yum-Yack (FB class luser) whois amounts to wizardry.

mahesh2k

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,426
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #152 on: July 11, 2011, 11:48 AM »
I don't know how much recruiters hunt for personal information in other countries or HR/Peers use the personal  stuff posted on FB or Tweet in their favor, but here in this part of the world keeping office folks away from FB/Twitter account does help. Other than that people try to put you in box -religious/political. If you're not dancing on their tunes then you're pretty much socially fooked up. So far i have managed to keep social life- ' offline and online' separate. I had trouble with that in past so i prefer to keep things anonymous. I do have few places where i use my real name+URL(like DC) but 99% these are the safe places and don't lead to much of personal information about me. Here we have weird social environment, people don't care about privacy on the net and share a lot of *real* information, on the other hand they hesitate to share anything about their life if you meet them offline, which is funny IMO.

rxantos

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #153 on: July 11, 2011, 10:01 PM »
I must be getting old, as I do not understand why exactly the appeal of sharing all your information with a single company. Specially when this company is having more information on everyone than a state intelligence agency.

I can understand the appeal for companies, but certainly not for individuals.

mahesh2k

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,426
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #154 on: July 12, 2011, 08:58 AM »
Check post by Pierre Far

https://plus.google....86/posts/GpKh6iDE4ci

Also to take it from a searcher's perspective, authorship is a way for us to communicate to the searcher that "person X is the author of this search result, and here is their photo". In this situation, the searcher is best served with a photo of a person, not , for example, a cartoon or a car or, like me, my cat. In short: it's your content and we want your photo next to it!

I'm sure anonymous affiliate marketers, web site owners are now forced to sign up with google plus for rel=author thingy and for the better search engine listing. This is like taking over the web by google because large percentage of web users using google and advertisers and other publishers having no alternative than revealing their strategic sites or products tied to single profile. I'm sure there are many other issues with using real picture or attaching google profile to rel=author tag.

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,857
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #155 on: July 12, 2011, 10:04 AM »
The more I read about G+ heavy-handedness, the more I think I'm gonna build my own if I ever feel the desperate need to be part of a "social" network.  ;D
« Last Edit: July 12, 2011, 10:09 AM by 40hz »

mahesh2k

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,426
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #156 on: July 12, 2011, 10:19 AM »
It's not limited to social network anymore, they're extending it to webmasters/writers/authors using rel=author tag. So if mouser wants to rank higher for doco then he needs to use rel=author with his real picture in google profile. If he fails to do that then chances are there that people who rank for the keyword (donationcoder) are going to be verified profile owners. If your online income is dependent on search engine traffic then staying anonymous is going to hurt for sure. ;) This whole social search is overkill IMO.

nosh

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,441
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #157 on: July 12, 2011, 10:25 AM »
I somehow don't see most of the Facebook crowd uprooting themselves from their cozy established networks to join Google+, which seems geekier and less fun. FB definitely has an upper hand here, they have the masses. They just have to react and tweak in whatever G+ is doing better, to nullify the advantage.

I'll just come out and say it, a big part of me wants Google+ to fail. Orkut is a running joke here and I can't even remember the name of their latest FAIL ("Wave"... I googled it... irony! :) ). It just feels wrong that they can keep fucking up and coming back because they have obscene amounts of money to throw around. :down:

I don't trust Facebook, I trust Google even less.
 

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,857
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #158 on: July 12, 2011, 10:36 AM »

It just feels wrong that they can keep fucking up and coming back because they have obscene amounts of money to throw around.


But isn't that just what's been called The American Way? ;D :P


nosh

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,441
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #159 on: July 12, 2011, 10:49 AM »
I'd like to see some smarter, less in-your-face Americans, get a shot at things. :(

superboyac

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,347
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #160 on: July 12, 2011, 10:54 AM »
The more I read about G+ heavy-handedness, the more I think I'm gonna build my own if I ever feel the desperate need to be part of a "social" network.  ;D

I agree 100% with this.  I'm starting to look into ways to use the internet as a connection only, but have private networks setup for myself and friends.  That is, all the content is on our own servers, and it's private and just meant for us.  Chatting, everything included.  I just see no reason why we have to continue to push for having all our software run in browsers.  It was so much better (in my opinion) when we had servers and clients for all this stuff.  I'm going to go back to that.

nosh

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,441
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #161 on: July 12, 2011, 11:09 AM »
I know this is fake, but I'm sending it to everyone I know anyway.  :P

qM3TM.png

FUD FTW!  ;D

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,857
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #162 on: July 12, 2011, 02:57 PM »
I'd like to see some smarter, less in-your-face Americans, get a shot at things. :(




@nosh - Very well said. Very well said indeed...

(Hope you don't mind if I quote you someday.)

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,857
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #163 on: July 12, 2011, 03:16 PM »
I'm starting to look into ways to use the internet as a connection only, but have private networks setup for myself and friends.

I've actually toyed with the idea of resurrecting a FidoNet. It would be a private affair. Strictly by invite. But any registered member could extend an invitation.


                   __
                  /  \
                 /|oo \
                (_|  /_)
                 _`@/_ \    _
                |     | \   \\
                | (*) |  \   ))
   ______       |__U__| /  \//
  / FIDO \       _//|| _\   /
 (________)     (_/(_|(____/



Problem is, my old guard" friends are 100% for it. (As long as I set it up.  :-\) Its really big advantage (in the unlikely event of a catastrophic backbone crash) is it could be run (like POTS phones) without the Internet. You could even implement it to run using shortwave radio if you had to.

But the young 'uns all insist on something less retro like Elgg or Boonex's Dolphin.

Not that it really matters. It's the community rather than the software that makes the difference.

Maybe that's why I prefer dropping by this forum whenever I'm feeling social rather than pine for FB and its ilk? :)

« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 06:12 AM by 40hz, Reason: corrected spelling error »

Tuxman

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,466
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #164 on: July 12, 2011, 03:18 PM »
In Germany, some old mailbox networks are still "alive", so ...  8)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,288
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #165 on: July 12, 2011, 04:21 PM »
I'm finding the Google+ UI somewhat rough. I tried to add my cousin as he's already on, but I could only invite him using his email address. It needs a bit more polish.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

nosh

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,441
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #166 on: July 12, 2011, 08:42 PM »
@40hz, you're most welcome to. I did feel a little icky about the "in-your-face" part though, probably would have put it differently if I'd been more thoughtful. :) "Less-omnipresent"?  ;D

rgdot

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 2,192
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #167 on: July 12, 2011, 10:20 PM »
The uprooting thing has been achieved before, facebook itself took on MySpace and killed it and added generations of its own users. Others have existed too.
Friendster was big for a while and I would argue - and this is something nobody mentions - that 'per capita' internet users friendster wasn't much smaller than facebook is today (if that makes sense. May be Orkut too, etc.)

zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,299
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #168 on: July 13, 2011, 10:20 AM »
I have a brother serving life in prison, and through me he keeps in touch with family and friends using facebook. However, many prisons are making new rules that preclude prisoners from being online in any form. At least with Google+ I can retain his 'circle' of friends and contacts without fear of being shutdown. Prison is SO boring, it offers a lifeline for old contacts to keep up with him without the extreme censorship found in the prison mail room. And you'd be amazed at how many people are [still] curious about routine prison life.

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • default avatar
  • Posts: 11,186
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #169 on: July 15, 2011, 09:31 PM »
We need a thread here for people to put their names in associated with their username on DoCo.  People are adding me left and right, and a lot of them I don't recognize.  And with no way to send someone a message associated with the add, there's really no way to know who anyone truly is.

Thoughts?

JavaJones

  • Review 2.0 Designer
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,739
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #170 on: July 15, 2011, 11:42 PM »
I've had similar issues Wraith. Fortunately pretty much all of them are invited by a DC person, so if you look at their "people in common with you" or "following", you'll usually see another DC-er. But I agree it's not the ideal way to be able to figure out how to categorize people.

- Oshyan

rgdot

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 2,192
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #171 on: July 15, 2011, 11:52 PM »
This calls for a custom profile field 

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 40,896
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #172 on: July 16, 2011, 12:48 AM »
This calls for a custom profile field

good idea, i shall add.

daddydave

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 867
  • test
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #173 on: July 16, 2011, 06:30 AM »
I've had similar issues Wraith. Fortunately pretty much all of them are invited by a DC person, so if you look at their "people in common with you" or "following", you'll usually see another DC-er. But I agree it's not the ideal way to be able to figure out how to categorize people.

- Oshyan

Oddly enough, Google+ profiles have an Other Names field, but even though I have put daddydave there and made it world-viewable, you can't find me by that name (it suggests that I may have meant diddydave). "Plus" it doesn't seem to show up on the actual public profile either.

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,857
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Google+
« Reply #174 on: July 16, 2011, 06:37 AM »
I was just reading an article by Jeffrey A. Tucker over at the Ludwig van Mises Institutes website entitled: Google Plus: Learning from Failure. (Link to full article here.)

In the midst of several predictable observations about Google and G+ was a very astute observation (emphasis added):

the problem with Buzz was its presumption of homogeneous friend networks, Google surely noted that Facebook's infrastructure has the same problem. It aggregates everyone as either friend or nonfriend. Whether it's family, an acquaintance, a business associate, a teacher, or your psychologist, they are all in the same category. People have made fun of this for years, but mostly we've gotten used to it.

Still, this is the number-one complaint made about the culture of Facebook. There are ways around it, but they are tricky. You can create groups of friends and move people around within them. This works for some people, but most users are way beyond the point of making this viable.

G+ saw an opportunity here. It corrected not only the failure of Buzz but also the mostly hidden failure of Facebook. With G+, there is no such thing as a random friend. Just as in real life, everyone with whom we associate has a particular role. Your brother can be just your brother or he could also be a business associate, a fan of classical music, an associate from church, and a hunting buddy. He could be some or none. It is up to the end-user to decide.

Then the next paragraph identified something I had never thought about - but may well be the one killer insight or feature in G+ that will put it (at least for the short term) over the top.

G+ has a very elegant and painless way of dealing with "friends" you no longer want - or didn't really want to begin with:

The humiliation and hurt that comes with de-friending someone is completely gone. If you have had a falling out with someone, you move them from this circle to that one — or remove them from all circles. There is no brazen and stinging announcement. The person merely ceases to receive updates from your posting feed. Peace at last!

That brought me to a halt. Because one of the things my GF (and other friends who are on FB) are always  debating is how to ignore or snub people that annoy them without handing down the ultimate insult of publicly "defriending" them. (In fairness, most times it's not that these people are actually bad - it's just they're often royal PITAs.)

Looks like G+ has come up with the cyber-equivalent of the caller ID and answering machine on your telephone. The chief real benefit of which is that they give you the ability to selectively not take a call - without being too obvious about it! (That's why half the messages left on answering machines begin with "I know you're there - pick up your damn phone!"  ;D)

And even though most people being "phone shunned" soon put two and two together, there's not enough there for them to be able to conclusively prove, or even politely accuse you of ducking them.

I think that's a little difference that's going to make a big difference for G+ adoption.

 8)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 06:47 AM by 40hz »