5 ms·

or, for these particular people -- just use a fake name. Not starpony76, but Mike Jones or Jane Smith. Google does not need to allow starpony76 to allow you to

by rmrm 15y ago

or, for these particular people -- just use a fake name. Not starpony76, but Mike Jones or Jane Smith. Google does not need to allow starpony76 to allow you to be Mike Jones or Jane Smith. They will happily allow you to be perfectly safe as Jane Smith. Conversely, don't post anything publicly and lock down your profile. My profile on G+ has my name. That's it. If someone "found" me on G+, they find my name. If they are stalking me, they already know my name I would guess. They won't get anything else unless I choose to give it to them. Which is broadly similiar to me choosing to email something to them. Don't message your stalker! There are plenty of good positive reasons in the "pro" camp for allowing any kind of name someone wants to call themselves, including starpony76. But there are also plenty of good reasons to oppose it. Like not having a network filled with ridiculous spammy, crude, borderline offensive names just (primarily) because people like being clever.

saurik 15y ago
If you don't like someone's name, you don't have to circle them, and you can always block them if they insist on commenting on your public posts (which they probably won't be doing anyway). (Oh, and if they are spam, please report them as spam: Google cares a lot about ridding spam, and that is an entirely separate issue from "starpony76".)
- rmrm 15y ago
  Every single thread I read at G+ would be filled with their names, its not my public posts I'm worried about -- it quite possibly destroys the value of everyone elses public posts for me. There would be no escape from it, I am not going to block every SEO EXPERT XChange, Mr Piddles, Big Johnson, L33tB0Y username that would innundate every well known and heavily followed G+ user. I'll just get annoyed instead. I am not comparing the trauma of tasteless names everywhere to being stalked -- but it would quite possible keep me from wanting to use the site. Along with a lot of other people. Which also has the effect of causing the person you are talking about not wanting to use it, either. Any name you want was allowed for Buzz, and was certainly a turn off.
  - saurik 15y ago
    Is this a common complaint about Twitter? I have never heard this as the reason someone won't use Twitter: the argument seems to come from a minority of users who come out of the woodwork to back services like Google+ during issues like this. (In essence, I find it interesting that you chose to pull Buzz as your first-line example, despite the fact that Buzz failed for all kinds of other reasons against a competitor that seems to have no trouble with an "any name goes" policy.)
    - rmrm 15y ago
      I don't know what a common complaint is against Twitter. But Google+ shares Buzzes stream/comment structure exactly -- in that comments on a post are heavily highlighted and constantly thrust in front of you. I don't just follow X, I follow X+ whoever comments on his posts, and my stream is very highly reactive to those comments. Twitter does not work like G+ does. G+ does however work exactly like Buzz does in this respect (for public posts). I consider myself a fairly regular guy, and yes the naming (among other things, but the ridiculous names of people I'm not following, specifically) annoyed me to no end on Buzz. So yes, considering G+ is a Buzz clone when it comes to public posts and comments -- it will annoy me on G+, and I assume I'm not alone. Buzz is the most perfect first-line example that exists.
      - saurik 15y ago
        For accuracy, do you mean "whomever comments on posts you comment on"? As far as I've been able to tell, comments on posts you do not "have any stake in" do not appear on your stream.
        rmrm 15y ago
        Perhaps you are thinking of notifications, they behave as you describe. I am talking about my stream, or someone elses stream of posts, or a post as a unit. The comments ride along with all of them, in their entirety. They may be in some state of partial collapse, but they are always there. Looking at my stream, by screen space the comments generally occupy about 1/3 as much real estate as the parent post. On posts I've never interacted with. This is by design obviously -- and when the comments are good, its great. When the comments are bad, its bad. Time will tell whether G+ ends up with the type of community that can support this very in your face community intensive model.

by rmrm 15y ago

saurik 15y ago

If you don't like someone's name, you don't have to circle them, and you can always block them if they insist on commenting on your public posts (which they probably won't be doing anyway). (Oh, and if they are spam, please report them as spam: Google cares a lot about ridding spam, and that is an entirely separate issue from "starpony76".)

rmrm 15y ago
Every single thread I read at G+ would be filled with their names, its not my public posts I'm worried about -- it quite possibly destroys the value of everyone elses public posts for me. There would be no escape from it, I am not going to block every SEO EXPERT XChange, Mr Piddles, Big Johnson, L33tB0Y username that would innundate every well known and heavily followed G+ user. I'll just get annoyed instead. I am not comparing the trauma of tasteless names everywhere to being stalked -- but it would quite possible keep me from wanting to use the site. Along with a lot of other people. Which also has the effect of causing the person you are talking about not wanting to use it, either. Any name you want was allowed for Buzz, and was certainly a turn off.
- saurik 15y ago
  Is this a common complaint about Twitter? I have never heard this as the reason someone won't use Twitter: the argument seems to come from a minority of users who come out of the woodwork to back services like Google+ during issues like this. (In essence, I find it interesting that you chose to pull Buzz as your first-line example, despite the fact that Buzz failed for all kinds of other reasons against a competitor that seems to have no trouble with an "any name goes" policy.)
  - rmrm 15y ago
    I don't know what a common complaint is against Twitter. But Google+ shares Buzzes stream/comment structure exactly -- in that comments on a post are heavily highlighted and constantly thrust in front of you. I don't just follow X, I follow X+ whoever comments on his posts, and my stream is very highly reactive to those comments. Twitter does not work like G+ does. G+ does however work exactly like Buzz does in this respect (for public posts). I consider myself a fairly regular guy, and yes the naming (among other things, but the ridiculous names of people I'm not following, specifically) annoyed me to no end on Buzz. So yes, considering G+ is a Buzz clone when it comes to public posts and comments -- it will annoy me on G+, and I assume I'm not alone. Buzz is the most perfect first-line example that exists.
    - saurik 15y ago
      For accuracy, do you mean "whomever comments on posts you comment on"? As far as I've been able to tell, comments on posts you do not "have any stake in" do not appear on your stream.
      - rmrm 15y ago
        Perhaps you are thinking of notifications, they behave as you describe. I am talking about my stream, or someone elses stream of posts, or a post as a unit. The comments ride along with all of them, in their entirety. They may be in some state of partial collapse, but they are always there. Looking at my stream, by screen space the comments generally occupy about 1/3 as much real estate as the parent post. On posts I've never interacted with. This is by design obviously -- and when the comments are good, its great. When the comments are bad, its bad. Time will tell whether G+ ends up with the type of community that can support this very in your face community intensive model.