4 ms·
Am I the only one that sees the comedic potential in this? Rate something 5/5. For example for a review of a restauraunt say "5/5. Sure beats eating rats infec
by Ygg2 13y ago
Am I the only one that sees the comedic potential in this?
Rate something 5/5. For example for a review of a restauraunt say "5/5. Sure beats eating rats infected with syphilis." or "4/5. Tastes like leprosy! Smells like porn locker!"
And I'm just being very bad here: http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336 http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/08703...
- hrjet 13y agoThis is exactly what I thought. How are they going to be sure that the review is actually honest and relevant. What if I say something contradictory in the review? Or post irrelevant stuff in it? The only way they could avoid such face-palms would be to do some sort of natural language analysis. Or have humans curate and cherry-pick the reviews. The latter one would be worrying indeed. People are already ruffled up about their emails being scanned automatically. If their G+ posts are going to be scanned and cherry-picked by humans, it's even more unsettling.
- code_duck 13y agoEmails are expected to be private. Publicly shared posts in a social network are expected to be public, so I would not be concerned that someone is reading them.
- hrjet 13y agoBut they are not just doing this for publicly shared posts. Even posts which are shared privately will appear besides the ad when a person whom you have shared the post with is viewing the ad. That by itself is not a problem. However, to curate the post, somebody from Google would have to read it. Else, they have really good natural language processors.