3 ms·
Google limited the appeal of G+ early on when they started enforcing their real name policy. Throwing out users when you're trying to expand the user base turn
by loudmax 14y ago
Google limited the appeal of G+ early on when they started enforcing their real name policy. Throwing out users when you're trying to expand the user base turned out to be counterproductive. But the policy seems more misguided than intentionally unattractive.
- nl 14y agoAnd we see the same problem again. The number of people who care about the real-name policy is so vanishingly small that it just doesn't matter. It's the 37 Signals cat.jpg[1] issue problem. Look at Facebook. Everyone[2] uses their real names, and it seems to have done ok. [1] Apparently some people thought it was outrageous that 37 Signals posted that the 100 billionth (or whatever) file uploaded was called cat.jpg. [2] I expect some pedantic comments here about how their friend's boyfriend uses a fake name to avoid an ex-gf. If you think that is important then may I suggest you are missing the point.
- Kylekramer 14y agoIt is funny, cause the no pseudonym policy was brought up as the reason why Google+ is an older male technologist wasteland, and vast majority of the vanishingly small number of people who care about the no pseudonym policy are older male technologists.
- nl 14y agoVery nicely put.
- Angostura 14y agoAbsolutely. Facebook's success with a wider demographic is clearly due the fact that allows pseudonyms. Wat?