5 ms·

If the number of users affected is as 'vanishingly small' as a Google spokesman indicated then you'd think they'd be able to contact them - at least the paying

If the number of users affected is as 'vanishingly small' as a Google spokesman indicated then you'd think they'd be able to contact them - at least the paying customers?

eviks 4y ago
That's what they are doing - via an article in a reputable news organization!
MikeDelta 4y ago
Makes me wonder: if the amount of users affected is vanishingly small, then why implement it, as it sounds like a vanishingly small problem to me?
- _a9 4y ago
  Probably a very small amount of people abusing it somehow (How a lot of files can be abused i dont know), like how a small amount of people abused the old gsuite unlimited plan to store petabytes for $12/m
  - alpaca128 4y ago
    Then why doesn't Google use their standard solution and just ban those vanishingly few users, pointing to an ambiguous "terms of service violation" and then ignoring all their support requests for a lifetime?
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      How is that better than just limiting their account until they delete the files?
      - alpaca128 4y ago
        It's not better, but based on past occurrences it seems to be the favorite method applied by Google and <insert any multi-billion IT corporation>.
- hennell 4y ago
  Faulty logic. Just because the user count is small doesn't mean the problem is. Banning the letter ö from names on hacker news would affect a vanishingly small amount of users. But if threads needed 100 times more processing and were much slower to load when a user with a ö posted, the problem itself is quite large. Without knowing the full circumstances of why they're doing this, what problems it solves you can't really say if it's a good solution or not. We can however absolutely complain about the "no notice, no advice, no assistance" way it was implemented.
lazide 4y ago
Abusive behavior is almost always long tail (unless it becomes well known that folks can get away with it, then it ‘fattens up’). They almost certainly did contact those specific customers, but are sending a warning out publicly for folks who would be a problem so they go somewhere else/don’t do it to begin with. It’s the ‘police press release’ method of community moderation, like announcing a speed trap. Cloud services like G Drive depend on oversubscription anyway. If every customer hit the limit, it would be a problem for them.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  This is Google; I don't know why you'd be giving them the benefit of the doubt in terms of communicating with their customers. We all know they don't. The fact that threads like these even exist indicate that Google did not, in fact, tell their users: - https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/268606830?pli=1 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/268606830?pli=1 - https://forum.rclone.org/t/new-limit-unlocked-on-google-drive/36136 https://forum.rclone.org/t/new-limit-unlocked-on-google-driv...

If the number of users affected is as 'vanishingly small' as a Google spokesman indicated then you'd think they'd be able to contact them - at least the paying customers?

eviks 4y ago

That's what they are doing - via an article in a reputable news organization!

MikeDelta 4y ago

Makes me wonder: if the amount of users affected is vanishingly small, then why implement it, as it sounds like a vanishingly small problem to me?

_a9 4y ago
Probably a very small amount of people abusing it somehow (How a lot of files can be abused i dont know), like how a small amount of people abused the old gsuite unlimited plan to store petabytes for $12/m
- alpaca128 4y ago
  Then why doesn't Google use their standard solution and just ban those vanishingly few users, pointing to an ambiguous "terms of service violation" and then ignoring all their support requests for a lifetime?
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    How is that better than just limiting their account until they delete the files?
    - alpaca128 4y ago
      It's not better, but based on past occurrences it seems to be the favorite method applied by Google and <insert any multi-billion IT corporation>.
hennell 4y ago
Faulty logic. Just because the user count is small doesn't mean the problem is. Banning the letter ö from names on hacker news would affect a vanishingly small amount of users. But if threads needed 100 times more processing and were much slower to load when a user with a ö posted, the problem itself is quite large. Without knowing the full circumstances of why they're doing this, what problems it solves you can't really say if it's a good solution or not. We can however absolutely complain about the "no notice, no advice, no assistance" way it was implemented.

lazide 4y ago

Abusive behavior is almost always long tail (unless it becomes well known that folks can get away with it, then it ‘fattens up’). They almost certainly did contact those specific customers, but are sending a warning out publicly for folks who would be a problem so they go somewhere else/don’t do it to begin with. It’s the ‘police press release’ method of community moderation, like announcing a speed trap. Cloud services like G Drive depend on oversubscription anyway. If every customer hit the limit, it would be a problem for them.

mynameisvlad 4y ago
This is Google; I don't know why you'd be giving them the benefit of the doubt in terms of communicating with their customers. We all know they don't. The fact that threads like these even exist indicate that Google did not, in fact, tell their users: - https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/268606830?pli=1 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/268606830?pli=1 - https://forum.rclone.org/t/new-limit-unlocked-on-google-drive/36136 https://forum.rclone.org/t/new-limit-unlocked-on-google-driv...