3 ms·
He [Vic] says that he is trying to make sure a positive tone gets set here. Like when a restaurant doesn't allow people who aren't wearing shirts to enter. He s
by naner 15y ago
He [Vic] says that he is trying to make sure a positive tone gets set here. Like when a restaurant doesn't allow people who aren't wearing shirts to enter.
He says it isn't about real names. He says he isn't using his legal name here. He says, instead, it is about having common names and removing people who spell their names in weird ways, like using upside-down characters, or who are using obviously fake names, like "god" or worse.
There are a few problems with this as implemented in Google+. (Correct me if I'm misinformed, I haven't been able to keep on top of all the new news.)
EDIT: I made some wrong assumptions, particularly about how your Google accounts are tied together, see Matt's reply below.
1) The rules are apparently not being made clear. If I see "no shirt, no shoes, no service" on the entrance I know exactly what that means. When you sign up for Google+ I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "Upside down characters and offensive names will lead to all your Google accounts getting irreversibly banned." Maybe there's some language buried in the TOS. That's not good enough.
2) Google is changing the rules (or enforcement of the rules) late in the game. If someone has had a Gmail account for 5 years using a pseudonym and Google just now decides to lock them out of it when they try to sign up for Google+, that is Google's fault. At least warn them of the offense before banning or prevent them from using Google+ while still allowing access to their Gmail.
3) No recourse. I know Gmail is a free service, but people still use it for registering on financial websites and priceless family correspondence. It is tied to someone's identity. Google needs to have a well defined and timely path of recourse for people who get banned for minor offenses. Directing all customer support requests to /dev/null is not acceptable.
- Matt_Cutts 15y agoWe have documentation about the names policy for Google Profiles: http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271 http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?answer=... Your #2 and #3 points seem to assume that if your profile name violates the policy, your Gmail access is suspended, but that's not true. If your profile is suspended for not having a real/common name, that only affects services that use your profile (Google+/Buzz/+1). It doesn't affect other services like Gmail, Blogger, Docs, or Calendar that don't use your profile. So you can continue to use Gmail even if you can't use Google+. Finally, even though Gmail will work even if you can't use Google+, there is recourse to appeal a name suspension. Here's the url to use for an appeal: http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=name_appeal http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/request.py?hl=en&...
- mrsebastian 15y agoWhat happened in that case where the kid updated his Google Profile to show his age (under 13), and he ended up losing access to his Gmail account? There's obviously some interaction between Google Profile/Google+ and Gmail.
- qeorge 15y agoThat was a bit different. In the US, you basically can't provide online services like Gmail to anyone < 13 years old. When the kid created his Gmail account he must have lied about his birthday (or they wouldn't have let him signup). Then when he did his Google+ profile, he gave his real age. Google, now knowing his real age, didn't have much choice. That said, the haziness around what will get your Google account banned is keeping me off Google+. Even if the terms are nuanced, I don't have any faith that my account would be restored if it were suspended in error.
- btilly 15y agoWhen the kid created his Gmail account he must have lied about his birthday (or they wouldn't have let him signup). No. When the kid was identified as being from the Netherlands, they didn't bother asking his age because he doesn't live in a country where it is a legal issue. Then they asked him for Google+, and once they discovered his age they banned him due to the US law.