4 ms·

> I did it just now in a few minutes of Googling. A few minutes? Google literally suggests it as an autocomplete for me.

Imnimo 6y ago
That's what I get for using the address bar rather than the actual website!
strstr 6y ago
This was previously not the case. Cat is out of the bag though.
- toofy 6y ago
  The cats been out of the bag for a long, long time. I mean, look, if he had already had anonymity, I would absolutely be considerably more understanding of the outrage behind this, but let’s be honest, his name has been connected to ssc (simple google search levels of easy) for a long time. That fact has really made me question the motives behind why he chose this particular hill to die on.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    The issue was debated to death when the initial story flared up, but the strongest counter-point I saw was this: Publication of his name in a NYT feature would have made a huge difference to the awareness level of his identity, vs just being able to be sniffed out by determined online sleuths, and would have dramatically altered his identifiability with respect to his clients. I can see it both ways and don't care to argue the topic any further, but this position deserves to be put.
    - toofy 6y ago
      I think it’s a bit dishonest for us to imply it would have taken a determined online sleuth — unless we now consider anyone who would have simply googled a name to be a determined sleuth. I agree though, it’s kind of a silly thing to put much concern into. I’m done worrying about it as well lol.
      - tomhoward 6y ago
        In the original discussions, people were reporting different degrees of ease of finding his name via Google. Some said it came up in autocomplete on Google when you started typing his name, whereas others didn't get this, including myself. Perhaps it was influenced by region, as I'm outside the U.S. Of course it became a whole lot easier to identify him soon after he took down his blog, as it suddenly became a much bigger discussion topic online. But being written about in the NYT still takes it to a whole new level. Without that, it's just something that nerds like us talk about on obscure discussion forums like this. When it's in a feature article in the NYT, it becomes something ordinary people talk about at dinners and cocktail parties.
ageitgey 6y ago
I have no particular interest in SSC or this controversy around it, so I have no search history around him. I just tried this and the search suggestion drop-down totally had his full name listed. That sucks.
basch 6y ago
Google also has "related searches" at the bottom of the results page. It works both ways. Searching First Middle, the related searches return First Middle Last. Searching First Last still for the most part accomplishes what he wants, not bringing up a lot about his online life, however the related searches hint at it, by showing First Last Middle, and First Last 'Blog'.

Imnimo 6y ago

That's what I get for using the address bar rather than the actual website!

strstr 6y ago

This was previously not the case. Cat is out of the bag though.

toofy 6y ago
The cats been out of the bag for a long, long time. I mean, look, if he had already had anonymity, I would absolutely be considerably more understanding of the outrage behind this, but let’s be honest, his name has been connected to ssc (simple google search levels of easy) for a long time. That fact has really made me question the motives behind why he chose this particular hill to die on.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  The issue was debated to death when the initial story flared up, but the strongest counter-point I saw was this: Publication of his name in a NYT feature would have made a huge difference to the awareness level of his identity, vs just being able to be sniffed out by determined online sleuths, and would have dramatically altered his identifiability with respect to his clients. I can see it both ways and don't care to argue the topic any further, but this position deserves to be put.
  - toofy 6y ago
    I think it’s a bit dishonest for us to imply it would have taken a determined online sleuth — unless we now consider anyone who would have simply googled a name to be a determined sleuth. I agree though, it’s kind of a silly thing to put much concern into. I’m done worrying about it as well lol.
    - tomhoward 6y ago
      In the original discussions, people were reporting different degrees of ease of finding his name via Google. Some said it came up in autocomplete on Google when you started typing his name, whereas others didn't get this, including myself. Perhaps it was influenced by region, as I'm outside the U.S. Of course it became a whole lot easier to identify him soon after he took down his blog, as it suddenly became a much bigger discussion topic online. But being written about in the NYT still takes it to a whole new level. Without that, it's just something that nerds like us talk about on obscure discussion forums like this. When it's in a feature article in the NYT, it becomes something ordinary people talk about at dinners and cocktail parties.

ageitgey 6y ago

I have no particular interest in SSC or this controversy around it, so I have no search history around him. I just tried this and the search suggestion drop-down totally had his full name listed. That sucks.

basch 6y ago

Google also has "related searches" at the bottom of the results page. It works both ways. Searching First Middle, the related searches return First Middle Last. Searching First Last still for the most part accomplishes what he wants, not bringing up a lot about his online life, however the related searches hint at it, by showing First Last Middle, and First Last 'Blog'.