Author Topic: Google+ (Read 154300 times)

Josh · « **Reply #200 on:** July 19, 2011, 09:52 AM »

I love G+. It is a great product and I think that Google are really onto a winner with this tool. I would love to see some Opera extensions ( I would use chrome, but there are too many issues with other sites I use) that mimic StartG+ and extended share. Perhaps one day, we shall see.

wraith808 · « **Reply #201 on:** July 19, 2011, 10:25 AM »

I review the "view data stored with this account" section from time to time.
-nosh (July 19, 2011, 03:09 AM)

Where do you find this?

nosh · « **Reply #202 on:** July 19, 2011, 10:28 AM »

Go into your account settings, there's a link there.

daddydave · « **Reply #203 on:** July 24, 2011, 01:13 PM »

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.
-daddydave (July 16, 2011, 06:30 AM)

I should have waited for the crawler instead of trying it right away. You can search for daddydave and find me on Google+ now. (It still suggests diddydave though.

) So I would suggest using the Other Names field if you want to be found by your forum name.

Deozaan · « **Reply #204 on:** July 24, 2011, 04:34 PM »

For those of you who don't have confidence in your vanity gplus.to URL, here's how to make your own:

http://www.cutemachi...a-google-vanity-url/

Now I have mine that I'm in control of: http://deozaan.com/+

Dormouse · « **Reply #205 on:** July 24, 2011, 06:40 PM »

I don't have a google+ account (I don't use Facebook or twitter either) but I can see that it's the first of these that I would use. Once I have friends etc with accounts to use it with.

JavaJones · « **Reply #206 on:** July 24, 2011, 08:04 PM »

I'm seeing a number of "never used social networking before" people signing up for G+. Whether it actually pulls significant market *away* from Facebook in the long run I can't say, but it does at least seem to be gaining a *unique* market of its own which is quite interesting.

- Oshyan

wraith808 · « **Reply #207 on:** July 24, 2011, 08:18 PM »

For those of you who don't have confidence in your vanity gplus.to URL, here's how to make your own:

http://www.cutemachi...a-google-vanity-url/

Now I have mine that I'm in control of: http://deozaan.com/+
-Deozaan (July 24, 2011, 04:34 PM)

Thanks! Mine is http://wraith808.com/+.

lanux128 · « **Reply #208 on:** July 24, 2011, 09:38 PM »

hmm.. Google is deleting profiles with non-real names? all other inter-related services are also affected it seems.

A striking number of Google+ accounts have been deleted in the last 24 hours as the new social network struggles with its community standards policy around real names - alienating and frightening the people it aims to serve.
-zdnet

• http://www.zdnet.com...no-clear-answers/567

mouser · « **Reply #209 on:** July 24, 2011, 09:44 PM »

I think the dirty little secret of google+ and twitter, etc. is that a huge number (the majority?) of accounts are actually created by bots for a variety of reasons. Of course no site wants to admit this because they love the headlines that make it look like huge numbers of people are joining. Maybe google is just deleting some of them.

JavaJones · « **Reply #210 on:** July 24, 2011, 10:56 PM »

Facebook has the same "real name" policy and similar automated (and possibly also manual) systems to find and remove "fake" accounts. They've been deleting/removing fake accounts for years. The difference here is that Google has a lot of other related services, all of which come under your Google Profile (identity). With G+ if they lock your account, they're locking the entire profile, which is bad. As far as I know there's no such real name requirement for Gmail or other services, so it's not right for them to let G+'s name requirements spread virally through use of G+ to other Google services.

- Oshyan

mahesh2k · « **Reply #211 on:** July 24, 2011, 11:32 PM »

I'm using fake profile name for about 2 years or so on FB. This is for facebook ads campaign. They know this already and allow that on their site. They're only deleting profiles which seems to be somehow threat to their system. Afterall there are hackers monitoring security of facebook.

As for google and privacy, check out their TOS.

11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

I wonder why they ask for mobile number while signing up to their system these days. Not to recover account or something, but to create bubble around profile with real name and mobile number.

Compared to google, there is no such strict policy from facebook(as of now but soon there will be with SSL certificate on pages) and you can easily use their services for commercial reasons with pseudo-name.

Google is not only deleting bots on their G+ but also some genuine users for some random reasons with no explanation than "violation of services".

http://consumerist.c...tal-life-shrugs.html

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/bsdnia

JavaJones · « **Reply #212 on:** July 24, 2011, 11:41 PM »

Google's TOS is actually better (last I checked) than Facebook's as far as ownership and re-use of copyrighted material. And while FB may have let you keep your "fake" profile name and, according to you they know about it and allow it, their own written policies say otherwise as far as what's allowed:
http://www.facebook.com/terms.php

Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way... You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

Though there is some provision for "usernames", but it's not clear whether these are just for Pages or not. Maybe that's what your use falls under. G+ doesn't have functionality for business use yet but when it does obviously they will need to deal with the name issue to allow company registrations.

I believe Facebook also now asks for a mobile number when signing up (or at least it has asked me for mine recently) although I don't think it's required.

- Oshyan

mahesh2k · « **Reply #213 on:** July 25, 2011, 12:04 AM »

G+ is creating special business pages and for that reason they don't allow business names on G+ as of now. Few blogs got their profiles deleted for the same reason. But this is not the case with facebook, that is why they're allowing pseudonames for business purpose(pages/groups) or ad campaigns. You can have "Tech Media Brian" or "Net.tv Andrew" with different account owner(or multiple admins) inside facebook page.

Google's TOS is actually better (last I checked) than Facebook's as far as ownership and re-use of copyrighted material.

Is there anything like "we have right to sell/use/modify your information as we please" from facebook ?

You're right, it asks for mobile phone number if there are more profiles login from same IP. If there is only one profile logged in from that ip then creating second or third doesn't trigger mobile number requirements(or maybe they allow to skip it). I am not sure how much is the limit before it asks.

nosh · « **Reply #214 on:** July 25, 2011, 01:15 AM »

An interesting writeup by Jay Freeman, the guy behind Cydia.

My personal interaction with Google+, summarized.

Spoiler

JavaJones · « **Reply #215 on:** July 25, 2011, 01:28 AM »

Facebook's is similar Google's now it seems, though used to be worse (seeming):

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Basically my understanding is these services need the license just to provide the functionality they offer. By definition they are "distributing" and "re-using" your content when they show it to others on the service, for example.

- Oshyan

mahesh2k · « **Reply #216 on:** July 25, 2011, 02:57 AM »

In case of google, data is available in search engine results and ads are likely to be presented on that data. They're also forcing webmasters to have real profile on G+ in order to have their website results linked to their profile(referring to author=rel). In case of facebook, data remains inside the network and if set can remain private (friends only). So personal information is tracked for ads and similar interests from both networks but only one network makes it public and lets other find and manipulate it the way they want (which is the point of concern).

Jibz · « **Reply #217 on:** July 25, 2011, 04:37 AM »

Most sites where you upload stuff to have it shown to other people have something along those lines in their legalese, Ryan Estrada made this nice TOS to English picture (yes, that's a link to a G+ post, *twilight zone theme* etc.

):

mahesh2k · « **Reply #218 on:** July 25, 2011, 09:15 PM »

Most sites where you upload stuff to have it shown to other people have something along those lines in their legalese

Point is google is not just another site with such TOS. Google is search engine with bot that can crawl almost any site on web unless asked not to. Google has search dominance because it can crawl plenty of stuff from the web without notifying the original authors. They make money from this by showing ads and redirecting users to sites while tracking their search pattern. Most of other sites are restricted within their own domain name for business. There is no such limitation for google because they have bot to crawl web and use that data to attract users to their search engine.

Basically google is crawling web to make index, show ads based on available data, track user activity on search results, IP and respective behavioral tracking and use it for commercial purpose. The reason scroogle, duckduckgo and other privacy based search engines exist is because google is yet to officially offer such service. SSL version of google still has tracker code that tracks the source in first query.

Explanation given by ryan doesn't address these issues at all. Nowhere google is offering any official view of "do not track" and "privacy filter". Besides if we connect this piece of puzzle with ryan's defense of google, it doesn't make sense at all. That type of writeup works on people who have no clue about SEO, "DNT" and "Privacy Filter".

mouser · « **Reply #219 on:** August 02, 2011, 03:58 PM »

A while ago i wrote:

I think the dirty little secret of google+ and twitter, etc. is that a huge number (the majority?) of accounts are actually created by bots for a variety of reasons. Of course no site wants to admit this because they love the headlines that make it look like huge numbers of people are joining. Maybe google is just deleting some of them.

Here's a peak at the shady underbelly:
http://gawker.com/58...r-followers-are-fake
It discusses how a politician has paid for over 800,000 fake twitter accounts to make it look like he is popular.

When you read how some web service has millions of "people" signing up per day.. There's a good chance that almost all of those accounts are fake accounts creating by bots for various purposes, all bad. The incentives are completely one sided for this kind of thing -- the companies make money from the fake accounts, and the services get the benefit of looking popular and trendy. There is no incentive to not inflate the account numbers wildly and look the other way while it happens.

Deozaan · « **Reply #220 on:** August 02, 2011, 05:57 PM »

A while ago i wrote:
I think the dirty little secret of google+ and twitter, etc. is that a huge number (the majority?) of accounts are actually created by bots for a variety of reasons. Of course no site wants to admit this because they love the headlines that make it look like huge numbers of people are joining. Maybe google is just deleting some of them.

Here's a peak at the shady underbelly:
http://gawker.com/58...r-followers-are-fake
It discusses how a politician has paid for over 800,000 fake twitter accounts to make it look like he is popular.
-mouser (August 02, 2011, 03:58 PM)

From the article you linked:

While it would be impossible to survey all of Gingrich's followers, a cursory glance immediately turned up a few accounts that featured odd names, no personal information, no followers, no posts, and a small follow list.

Yeah, and a cursory glance of my followers will immediately turn up the same thing, and I have less than 40 followers. Imagine how many of these strange bots/accounts I would have if I had over a million followers. You don't have to pay for bots to follow you on twitter. For reasons I can't comprehend, they do it by themselves.

I'm also not sure if this affects my followers, but I've also attempted to prune my follower list by blocking/reporting for spam the accounts I think are spammers/bots.

You've got a public figure who the media love to make look bad, you've got an anonymous source with information that makes him look bad, and you've got Gawker not investigating whether or not it is true but essentially reporting it as fact. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm just saying that the article is basically "he said/he said, we glanced at but didn't really investigate" with very little journalistic integrity.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, but in my opinion that article does not remove all reasonable doubt. (In other words, I also wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't true.)

40hz · « **Reply #221 on:** August 02, 2011, 08:39 PM »

You've got a public figure who the media love to make look bad,
-Deozaan (August 02, 2011, 05:57 PM)

IMO this particular gent does a pretty good job of that all by himself regardless of what "the media" (whoever that is) says about him.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #222 on:** August 02, 2011, 09:20 PM »

I experimented with Google+ and here is what i noticed -

1. Anyone can follow any other profile in Google+ and you've no control over who can follow you. (This will kill twitter for sure if G+ takes off). In facebook you can choose folks to peak inside your profile,same with orkut.
2. No groups feature. Only group type thingy that you can create is with hangout and that too with limited set of folks. Hangout != groups in facebook or communities in orkut. So people who spend more time in forums are going to hate hangouts.
3. By default Google+ is sharing every post with public stream(even if you select particular circle). Bug ?
4. Sparks feature is not at all making sense to me. It looks like niche news board to me.
5. I didn't noticed any feature that tempts me to stick with G+ except people i follow on twitter are sharing more of their stuff on G+ now.

rgdot · « **Reply #223 on:** August 02, 2011, 11:31 PM »

My thoughts

1. Despite what everybody says I think twitter is too different to be a competitor. '140 characters quick glance' will always have its user base and appeal.
2. Why not circles? To me circles is the next step in evolution of groups. Actually it's probably the only feature of Google+ I would call innovative.
3. As far as I have seen Google+ defaults to the last used sharing method. Public, your circles, etc.
4. Sparks feels like a mashup. RSS feed/google reader/suggested sites. In my opinion if not improved it won't survive a chopping block.

wraith808 · « **Reply #224 on:** August 03, 2011, 10:16 AM »

1. Anyone can follow any other profile in Google+ and you've no control over who can follow you. (This will kill twitter for sure if G+ takes off). In facebook you can choose folks to peak inside your profile,same with orkut.
-mahesh2k (August 02, 2011, 09:20 PM)

No, that's not true. You can block others from following you. It even says that in the e-mail notification you receive.