9 ms·

Google+ relaxes real-name policy, allows pseudonyms

135 points by rryan 15y ago

bobbles 15y ago
Does this actually allow someone to have a nickname as their only name displayed? It seems like it will only let you show it alongside your real name anyway...
sp332 15y ago
I see where it allows nicknames, but I don't see where it allows pseudonyms. Did I miss it? Edit: I see, Mashable got some quotes from Horowitz that aren't in the original Google+ post: http://mashable.com/2012/01/23/google-plus-allows-pseudonyms-nicknames/ http://mashable.com/2012/01/23/google-plus-allows-pseudonyms... Google+ is not, however, accepting new pseudonyms. This is designed for “established ones.” Horowitz explained that the new account naming option is intended for “people who have earned credit in other social systems and want to redeem that credit in Google+”. This is really important since you have to fill out a Google+ profile when you sign up for a Gmail account. I can't believe they would throw away the ability to make an anonymous email account.
- yanw 15y ago
  You don't need a G+ profile for Gmail.
  - sp332 15y ago
    I thought you needed to sign up for Gmail and Google+ if you want a Google account now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489266 But actually, there's a way to get a Gmail account without Google+ http://mail.google.com/mail/signup http://mail.google.com/mail/signup and a way to get a Google account without Gmail or Google+ https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you know the URLs.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - modeless 15y ago
      You don't need to know any special URLs either. All you have to do is stop the signup process after your Gmail account is created (step 1) but before you create your Google+ profile (step 2).
      - lreeves 15y ago
        To be fair probably 99% of people going through the sign-up flow won't realize this.
        obtu 15y ago
        Then Google will be happy to tell us users don't care about privacy: > The vast majority of users sail through our signup process -- in fact, only about 0.1% submit name appeals.
- mahyarm 15y ago
  Just put in a generic name, like Victor Huntsman. Put in whatever you want for the email address and nickname.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    If you'll read the announcement, it's pretty clear that Google+ names must pass a review process. And in case the name is "flagged", then you must provide: - References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc - Scanned official documentation, such as a driver’s license - Proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following By giving a bogus name, you'll end up losing your online Google+ identity and access to other Google services, such as Gmail.
    - tonfa 15y ago
      Wasn't it established that a bogus name would not make you lose access to gmail/docs/etc?
      - bad_user 15y ago
        Well, considering how some kids lost their Gmail account after signing up for Google+ and told the truth about their age, I wouldn't count on it.
        magicalist 15y ago
        That's COPPA, though. You could argue that they should be supporting accounts for kids under 13 with parental permission (like Yahoo does, for instance), but that's not the same thing. Edit: and to preempt some class of responses: yes, as has been covered on HN before, COPPA has a clause that says not to warn users that setting their age to under 13 will prevent them from accessing content, and that you can't (generally) let them go back and change it later.
        bad_user 15y ago
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
squiggly101 15y ago
OP is a liar.
camiller 15y ago
I thought they did that at the same time the opened to the public instead of being invite only?
bad_user 15y ago
Relevant opinion by jwz [1] ... Google's statement is obvious bullshit, and here's why. The way you "support" pseudonyms is as follows: 1. Stop deleting peoples' accounts when you suspect that the name they are using is not their legal name. 2. There is no step 2. UPDATE: Also, Google hasn't "relaxed" their policy. The name(s) you choose are still passing a review process and once a name is "flagged" you'll have to provide evidence that the name(s) in question represents you and is an "established identity". And for example, in case the name represents an online identity, you have to have a "meaningful following" -- basically, there can be only one +Madonna, except these aren't random/made-up user handles, such as on Twitter. Also, most importantly, Google+ still bans anonymity. UPDATE 2: I was partly mistaken in my conclusions. See comments by @ElbertF below. [1] http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-victory-in-nymwars/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-victo...
- rryan 15y ago
  CheapViagra DotCom has added you to her circles.
  - nknight 15y ago
    So Google suddenly can't handle some spam filtering? If I go log into my gmail account right now, am I going to find all the spam dumped in my inbox? And has the webspam team resigned en masse? Where did this sudden bout of incompetence come from, exactly?
    - jrockway 15y ago
      People tend to think Google is just its frontend. They see pictures of people and some blog-like comments and say, "I could have written that over the weekend!" Then, since they don't know how to solve the spam problem, they think that Google doesn't know how to solve the spam problem either. As it turns out, Google does have some spam-fighting ideas. Some things slip through the cracks, of course, but the algorithms are always getting better.
  - 15y ago
bdg 15y ago
I wrote an article in this to some length that discusses what kind of name you should be asking for, and why. http://cowbelljs.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-in-name-database.html http://cowbelljs.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-in-name-database... Names aren't simply complicated, they're mutable, they fit into Chris Pool's concept of "people are prismatic".
creativityland 15y ago
A little too late, don't you think?
- jrockway 15y ago
  I don't think so. Where does Facebook let me set nicknames for my account?
  - kmiyer 15y ago
    https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=131728300237162&ref_query=alternate https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=131728300237162&ref_q... (I used to have an alternate name set to provide context for friends I met through Chinese classes (who only knew me through my in-class Chinese name)).
- Xlythe 15y ago
  It's because Google+ was an attempt to appeal to the masses, not be a hackers cove. The benefit of real names is that people who know you offline can easily find you. They already know you by your given name and, because of Facebook and MySpace, they expect that to continue online. The products you can offer to people who know each other outside of the net differ vastly from the ones you can offer to people spread out among the country/world (With examples ranging from event planners to geo-tagging and facial recognition). The subgroup of people who prefer pseudo-names is relatively small compared to the larger population. It seemed pretty clear that they'd become more lax after attracting enough users who didn't mind using their given names. I am surprised that they added another field for it, though. I figured they'd just stop enforcing the policy.
  - chadmalik 15y ago
    "The subgroup of people who prefer pseudo-names is relatively small compared to the larger population" Totally untrue. I have many regular people who have totally fake or semi-fake (i.e. false last name etc.) names on Facebook. None of these are hackers, just regular people who want their identity on facebook not traceable to their real life name. I mean just to give one obvious example I have friends I met traveling from nations with massive organized crime problems. If their real name is linked to their social networking presence and they say the wrong thing about the wrong person, they can be in physical danger. This is a theoretical threat to people in the US software industry but a real one to people living in many other countries.
beastman82 15y ago
Just call me Joe Montana.
krosenberg 15y ago
Google owes its users a better explanation for why they require a real name (or real sounding name). The should go farther than just "make google like the real world". What are the benefits? Who is it really benefiting--the users or Google?
fred_nada 15y ago
This is great. I will add the pseudonym of Mortgage Loans and my profile will be the #1 result in Google.
hythloday 15y ago
I'm normally a massive Google fanboy, but I quit using Google+ because I find the no-pseudonyms policy unacceptably discriminatory[1], and I don't think this announcement really makes a difference to that. Non-Anglo-Saxon names will continue to be routinely flagged as fake, and people who want a persistent identity unlinked to details that could expose them in real life be continue to be unable to use the service. In short, Google allows cosmetic pseudonyms, which is great, but they didn't remove any restrictions that made the no-pseudonyms policy obnoxious in the first place. I'm hopeful that the "first steps" they refer to this as presage changes that will make the service more inclusive (and I can go back to my usual unthinking approval of the company). [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea... -- originally I said I found it "racist and sexist", but it's not confined to racism and sexism - pretty much everyone who suffers from disadvantage is further disadvantaged by Google's stance.
- fennecfoxen 15y ago
  I quit G+ because it's much easier to violate the terms of service on G+, and because they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms, and when you get down to it I need Gmail more. Ironic, I suppose.
  - raldi 15y ago
    > they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms Are you sure? This seems to be a persistent rumor, but other than COPA-mandated takedowns of accounts belonging to children, I haven't seen any such reports like that which stood up to scrutiny.
  - mvgoogler 15y ago
    This should definitely not have been the case for violations of the old G+ naming policy. The time the g-mail account should have been suspended is for other violations of the g-mail TOS (e.g. age, illegal content, etc).
- abrahamsen 15y ago
RexRollman 15y ago
For pete's sake, Google, if I have to reveal my real name to you at any point, then the policy equals fail.
- mvgoogler 15y ago
  You don't have to reveal your real name. Did you see Yonaton Zunger's reply on that thread?
  - nknight 15y ago
    Since that's been the problem the whole time, why is the supposed magical "it's fixed!" announcement buried in some unofficial comment? Google isn't exactly a babe in the woods anymore, they know better than this, why is everything around Google+ policy issues being handled in such a half-assed, tone-deaf manner?
    - mvgoogler 15y ago
      "buried in some unofficial comment" Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but I wouldn't characterize a public post by the Product VP for Google+ as an unofficial comment that's buried. I'm sorry that the handling has come across as tone-deaf. From my perspective the leadership had a strong vision for the product and had some strongly held assumptions and opinions about how best to achieve that vision. I see today's announced change as evidence that the leadership is listening to the feedback and looking at data and then re-checking some of their basic assumptions and adjusting. There is - of course - plenty of room to disagree. I'm not trying to get in an argument here, or to re-hash the arguments that have been going on within the company. I'm just an engineer that cares about the product and I'm trying to provide information and answer some questions
      - nknight 15y ago
        > post by the Product VP for Google+ This is kind of the point, actually. Or perhaps a side-effect of it. You (that is, Googlers in general) live in a bubble where that sort of information becomes common knowledge. You have large quantities of context unavailable to the outside world, and seem utterly unable, at least when it comes to Google+, to step outside of that context and figure out how to communicate with people outside of Google who have a billion other things to worry about in the ordinary course of their lives that are far more important to them than Google. > From my perspective the leadership had a strong vision for the product and had some strongly held assumptions and opinions about how best to achieve that vision. This is more indication of the bubble. Google's leadership may have had such a vision, and may have communicated it with some clarity internally, but it was not communicated to the outside world. By and large you guys have huge brains, but you need to shut them off for a minute. Read about Google+ from the perspective of what you probably consider to be a stupid person. Notice how nothing makes sense. Then realize that the "stupid" person you're envisioning is actually the 7 billion people on Earth who do not have the context of working at Google.
zotz 15y ago
How many Google execs that are formulating and implementing these policies spent their formative years on irc, usenet or on web boards being "ultim8haxor" or "l33tGOD"? This is akin to Metallica's BS move regarding tapers after gaining their position because of tapers. You can't ever really trust people that forget where they come from.
shadowmint 15y ago
uhuh, right. -- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:23:51 +0000 Subject: Your Google+ Appeal From: 1165307103153794475-noreply@google.com Hello, After reviewing your appeal, we have determined that your name does not comply with the Google+ Names Policy. ...
- mvgoogler 15y ago
  From the announcement: "To reiterate, the features described herein will be rolling out over the next couple days." Maybe give a few days?
  - shadowmint 15y ago
    Nope, I very much doubt it. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-plus-wrong http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-pl...
    - obtu 15y ago
      http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-plus-wrong/983 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-pl... (fixing the link)
    - mvgoogler 15y ago
      The linked article seems to mis-understand the new policy. Please read Yonatan's comments on the OP, or refer to the conversation that is happening on Yonatan's own post (https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptWGQt https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbz...). I have a lot of respect for Violet Blue, but I'd say that Yonatan is much more of an authority on the new policy than Violet. You didn't include in your post any context about the rejection - when you changed you name, what you tried to change it to, why you think it meets the need policy, etc. If you think you have a legitimate false positive, I can assure that Yonatan would be very interested in hearing the details and I would be willing to bet that if you asked a question on his post you would get a response.
  - gurkendoktor 15y ago
querulous 15y ago
how does google+ handle cultures where multiple names are routinely used?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
sabret00the 15y ago
I find this whole thing frustrating, why can I still not get my name to be "Paul (sabret00the)". I write in the first name box Paul in the nickname box sabret00the and then I can't remove the holding letter I applied previously. I then try and simply remove the W and I'm told I need to have my full name up. Why can't I just have Paul and in brackets sabret00the?

135 points by rryan 15y ago

Does this actually allow someone to have a nickname as their only name displayed? It seems like it will only let you show it alongside your real name anyway...

sp332 15y ago

I see where it allows nicknames, but I don't see where it allows pseudonyms. Did I miss it? Edit: I see, Mashable got some quotes from Horowitz that aren't in the original Google+ post: http://mashable.com/2012/01/23/google-plus-allows-pseudonyms-nicknames/ http://mashable.com/2012/01/23/google-plus-allows-pseudonyms... Google+ is not, however, accepting new pseudonyms. This is designed for “established ones.” Horowitz explained that the new account naming option is intended for “people who have earned credit in other social systems and want to redeem that credit in Google+”. This is really important since you have to fill out a Google+ profile when you sign up for a Gmail account. I can't believe they would throw away the ability to make an anonymous email account.

yanw 15y ago
You don't need a G+ profile for Gmail.
- sp332 15y ago
  I thought you needed to sign up for Gmail and Google+ if you want a Google account now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489266 But actually, there's a way to get a Gmail account without Google+ http://mail.google.com/mail/signup http://mail.google.com/mail/signup and a way to get a Google account without Gmail or Google+ https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you know the URLs.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - modeless 15y ago
    You don't need to know any special URLs either. All you have to do is stop the signup process after your Gmail account is created (step 1) but before you create your Google+ profile (step 2).
    - lreeves 15y ago
      To be fair probably 99% of people going through the sign-up flow won't realize this.
      - obtu 15y ago
        Then Google will be happy to tell us users don't care about privacy: > The vast majority of users sail through our signup process -- in fact, only about 0.1% submit name appeals.
mahyarm 15y ago
Just put in a generic name, like Victor Huntsman. Put in whatever you want for the email address and nickname.
- bad_user 15y ago
  If you'll read the announcement, it's pretty clear that Google+ names must pass a review process. And in case the name is "flagged", then you must provide: - References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc - Scanned official documentation, such as a driver’s license - Proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following By giving a bogus name, you'll end up losing your online Google+ identity and access to other Google services, such as Gmail.
  - tonfa 15y ago
    Wasn't it established that a bogus name would not make you lose access to gmail/docs/etc?
    - bad_user 15y ago
      Well, considering how some kids lost their Gmail account after signing up for Google+ and told the truth about their age, I wouldn't count on it.
      - magicalist 15y ago
        That's COPPA, though. You could argue that they should be supporting accounts for kids under 13 with parental permission (like Yahoo does, for instance), but that's not the same thing. Edit: and to preempt some class of responses: yes, as has been covered on HN before, COPPA has a clause that says not to warn users that setting their age to under 13 will prevent them from accessing content, and that you can't (generally) let them go back and change it later.
        bad_user 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

squiggly101 15y ago

OP is a liar.

camiller 15y ago

I thought they did that at the same time the opened to the public instead of being invite only?

bad_user 15y ago

Relevant opinion by jwz [1] ... Google's statement is obvious bullshit, and here's why. The way you "support" pseudonyms is as follows: 1. Stop deleting peoples' accounts when you suspect that the name they are using is not their legal name. 2. There is no step 2. UPDATE: Also, Google hasn't "relaxed" their policy. The name(s) you choose are still passing a review process and once a name is "flagged" you'll have to provide evidence that the name(s) in question represents you and is an "established identity". And for example, in case the name represents an online identity, you have to have a "meaningful following" -- basically, there can be only one +Madonna, except these aren't random/made-up user handles, such as on Twitter. Also, most importantly, Google+ still bans anonymity. UPDATE 2: I was partly mistaken in my conclusions. See comments by @ElbertF below. [1] http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-victory-in-nymwars/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-victo...

rryan 15y ago
CheapViagra DotCom has added you to her circles.
- nknight 15y ago
  So Google suddenly can't handle some spam filtering? If I go log into my gmail account right now, am I going to find all the spam dumped in my inbox? And has the webspam team resigned en masse? Where did this sudden bout of incompetence come from, exactly?
  - jrockway 15y ago
    People tend to think Google is just its frontend. They see pictures of people and some blog-like comments and say, "I could have written that over the weekend!" Then, since they don't know how to solve the spam problem, they think that Google doesn't know how to solve the spam problem either. As it turns out, Google does have some spam-fighting ideas. Some things slip through the cracks, of course, but the algorithms are always getting better.
- 15y ago

bdg 15y ago

I wrote an article in this to some length that discusses what kind of name you should be asking for, and why. http://cowbelljs.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-in-name-database.html http://cowbelljs.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-in-name-database... Names aren't simply complicated, they're mutable, they fit into Chris Pool's concept of "people are prismatic".

creativityland 15y ago

A little too late, don't you think?

jrockway 15y ago
I don't think so. Where does Facebook let me set nicknames for my account?
- kmiyer 15y ago
  https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=131728300237162&ref_query=alternate https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=131728300237162&ref_q... (I used to have an alternate name set to provide context for friends I met through Chinese classes (who only knew me through my in-class Chinese name)).
Xlythe 15y ago
It's because Google+ was an attempt to appeal to the masses, not be a hackers cove. The benefit of real names is that people who know you offline can easily find you. They already know you by your given name and, because of Facebook and MySpace, they expect that to continue online. The products you can offer to people who know each other outside of the net differ vastly from the ones you can offer to people spread out among the country/world (With examples ranging from event planners to geo-tagging and facial recognition). The subgroup of people who prefer pseudo-names is relatively small compared to the larger population. It seemed pretty clear that they'd become more lax after attracting enough users who didn't mind using their given names. I am surprised that they added another field for it, though. I figured they'd just stop enforcing the policy.
- chadmalik 15y ago
  "The subgroup of people who prefer pseudo-names is relatively small compared to the larger population" Totally untrue. I have many regular people who have totally fake or semi-fake (i.e. false last name etc.) names on Facebook. None of these are hackers, just regular people who want their identity on facebook not traceable to their real life name. I mean just to give one obvious example I have friends I met traveling from nations with massive organized crime problems. If their real name is linked to their social networking presence and they say the wrong thing about the wrong person, they can be in physical danger. This is a theoretical threat to people in the US software industry but a real one to people living in many other countries.

beastman82 15y ago

Just call me Joe Montana.

krosenberg 15y ago

Google owes its users a better explanation for why they require a real name (or real sounding name). The should go farther than just "make google like the real world". What are the benefits? Who is it really benefiting--the users or Google?

fred_nada 15y ago

This is great. I will add the pseudonym of Mortgage Loans and my profile will be the #1 result in Google.

hythloday 15y ago

I'm normally a massive Google fanboy, but I quit using Google+ because I find the no-pseudonyms policy unacceptably discriminatory[1], and I don't think this announcement really makes a difference to that. Non-Anglo-Saxon names will continue to be routinely flagged as fake, and people who want a persistent identity unlinked to details that could expose them in real life be continue to be unable to use the service. In short, Google allows cosmetic pseudonyms, which is great, but they didn't remove any restrictions that made the no-pseudonyms policy obnoxious in the first place. I'm hopeful that the "first steps" they refer to this as presage changes that will make the service more inclusive (and I can go back to my usual unthinking approval of the company). [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea... -- originally I said I found it "racist and sexist", but it's not confined to racism and sexism - pretty much everyone who suffers from disadvantage is further disadvantaged by Google's stance.

fennecfoxen 15y ago
I quit G+ because it's much easier to violate the terms of service on G+, and because they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms, and when you get down to it I need Gmail more. Ironic, I suppose.
- raldi 15y ago
  > they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms Are you sure? This seems to be a persistent rumor, but other than COPA-mandated takedowns of accounts belonging to children, I haven't seen any such reports like that which stood up to scrutiny.
- mvgoogler 15y ago
  This should definitely not have been the case for violations of the old G+ naming policy. The time the g-mail account should have been suspended is for other violations of the g-mail TOS (e.g. age, illegal content, etc).
abrahamsen 15y ago

RexRollman 15y ago

For pete's sake, Google, if I have to reveal my real name to you at any point, then the policy equals fail.

mvgoogler 15y ago
You don't have to reveal your real name. Did you see Yonaton Zunger's reply on that thread?
- nknight 15y ago
  Since that's been the problem the whole time, why is the supposed magical "it's fixed!" announcement buried in some unofficial comment? Google isn't exactly a babe in the woods anymore, they know better than this, why is everything around Google+ policy issues being handled in such a half-assed, tone-deaf manner?
  - mvgoogler 15y ago
    "buried in some unofficial comment" Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but I wouldn't characterize a public post by the Product VP for Google+ as an unofficial comment that's buried. I'm sorry that the handling has come across as tone-deaf. From my perspective the leadership had a strong vision for the product and had some strongly held assumptions and opinions about how best to achieve that vision. I see today's announced change as evidence that the leadership is listening to the feedback and looking at data and then re-checking some of their basic assumptions and adjusting. There is - of course - plenty of room to disagree. I'm not trying to get in an argument here, or to re-hash the arguments that have been going on within the company. I'm just an engineer that cares about the product and I'm trying to provide information and answer some questions
    - nknight 15y ago
      > post by the Product VP for Google+ This is kind of the point, actually. Or perhaps a side-effect of it. You (that is, Googlers in general) live in a bubble where that sort of information becomes common knowledge. You have large quantities of context unavailable to the outside world, and seem utterly unable, at least when it comes to Google+, to step outside of that context and figure out how to communicate with people outside of Google who have a billion other things to worry about in the ordinary course of their lives that are far more important to them than Google. > From my perspective the leadership had a strong vision for the product and had some strongly held assumptions and opinions about how best to achieve that vision. This is more indication of the bubble. Google's leadership may have had such a vision, and may have communicated it with some clarity internally, but it was not communicated to the outside world. By and large you guys have huge brains, but you need to shut them off for a minute. Read about Google+ from the perspective of what you probably consider to be a stupid person. Notice how nothing makes sense. Then realize that the "stupid" person you're envisioning is actually the 7 billion people on Earth who do not have the context of working at Google.

zotz 15y ago

How many Google execs that are formulating and implementing these policies spent their formative years on irc, usenet or on web boards being "ultim8haxor" or "l33tGOD"? This is akin to Metallica's BS move regarding tapers after gaining their position because of tapers. You can't ever really trust people that forget where they come from.

shadowmint 15y ago

uhuh, right. -- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:23:51 +0000 Subject: Your Google+ Appeal From: 1165307103153794475-noreply@google.com Hello, After reviewing your appeal, we have determined that your name does not comply with the Google+ Names Policy. ...

mvgoogler 15y ago
From the announcement: "To reiterate, the features described herein will be rolling out over the next couple days." Maybe give a few days?
- shadowmint 15y ago
  Nope, I very much doubt it. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-plus-wrong http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-pl...
  - obtu 15y ago
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-plus-wrong/983 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-pl... (fixing the link)
  - mvgoogler 15y ago
    The linked article seems to mis-understand the new policy. Please read Yonatan's comments on the OP, or refer to the conversation that is happening on Yonatan's own post (https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptWGQt https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbz...). I have a lot of respect for Violet Blue, but I'd say that Yonatan is much more of an authority on the new policy than Violet. You didn't include in your post any context about the rejection - when you changed you name, what you tried to change it to, why you think it meets the need policy, etc. If you think you have a legitimate false positive, I can assure that Yonatan would be very interested in hearing the details and I would be willing to bet that if you asked a question on his post you would get a response.
- gurkendoktor 15y ago

querulous 15y ago

how does google+ handle cultures where multiple names are routinely used?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

sabret00the 15y ago

I find this whole thing frustrating, why can I still not get my name to be "Paul (sabret00the)". I write in the first name box Paul in the nickname box sabret00the and then I can't remove the holding letter I applied previously. I then try and simply remove the W and I'm told I need to have my full name up. Why can't I just have Paul and in brackets sabret00the?