11 ms·

Why I won't get a Google+ Custom URL

259 points by vrypan 13y ago

pearjuice 13y ago
PROTIP: Just redirect vrypan.com/plus to your G+ page. Bonus: Use vrypan.com/+
devindotcom 13y ago
I almost claimed a custom URL yesterday when I was writing up the YouTube comment change and in the process updating my G+ profile. They wanted my number to claim it, which I believe they already have for 2-factor on Gmail. In the end the whole process with YouTube was so galling that I just deleted my whole account. As OP notes, it's not like Google+ was the first place people would look for me, and it's not a useful resource for me, so why have it at all?
- cloudwalking 13y ago
  Deleting your account was less galling than using your phone number to confirm your identity? Hm.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - devindotcom 13y ago
    No, the whole YouTube thing. Having a channel, unchecking a bunch of boxes and worrying about extra policies - having an extra Google+ page with its own Talk address and inbox, in addition to the channel's inbox, etc. I just realized I don't use it, probably won't ever, and it'll only keep trying to get me to connect via other means, so I thought I'd nip it in the bud.
    - cloudwalking 13y ago
      If you don't use it, why don't you just ignore it, like 99% of most YouTube uploaders? All of these recent Google+ changes, aside from "Real Names," only affect people with a large YouTube following. I absolutely support you deleting your YouTube account in protest of the ever-increasing Google+ requirements. But at least call it what it is--deleting your account in protest.
      - rejoinder 13y ago
        Actually I sympathise with the poster here. I just tried to get back to the personalised vanity chooser thing in G+, and ended up clicking on Settings then to Account, which got me to a google account page. On the right handside there is a link to a profile, and there's a nickname listed. I can't even remember what that's for or what that profile belongs to. There's even some reference to Buzz that I thought I'd killed. I go around in circles. And don't even get the whole Youtube integration thing. So I just back away from it and try and ignore it. You get overloaded. I'm not at the point of deleting my account, but not far off - mainly out of confusion.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Given that the name I use for G+ (and HN) isn't one I'm ordinarily known by, having any metadata which tracks back to me that others could find is a definite negative. I've got my reasons. I prefer it this way. It's beyond annoying that Google keep insisting on trying to link various accounts and/or grabbing my personal data. And the harder they pull, the harder I push back. There's nothing that's changed my impression of Google, in a negative way, so much as using G+ and observing the commentary of its leadership (Eric Schmidt in particular, but Vic Gundotra and Larry Page as well). Yes, some individual Google engineers do tend to give me hope, but I'm seeing the fish as increasingly likely to have been rotten from the head. That the company appears far preferable to Facebook I'd freely concede, but talk of damning with faint praise.
ye 13y ago
I don't understand why they call it "custom". More like "assigned".
- akkartik 13y ago
  You can technically apply to make it anything you want, and the set of allowed names should technically be far larger than the set of disallowed ones. But I'm waiting to see if they'll let me take +akkartik rather than +KartikAgaram, so we'll see.
  - lingben 13y ago
    how? what's the process?
  - mmahemoff 13y ago
    They made it possible to request a different URL for maybe 12 hours after launching custom URLs, but quickly stopped offering it. Probably got inundated with requests. By the time I got my invite (about a day after they started sending them), there was no such link. Also, they weren't just allowing people to register any old nickname or brand name. It was probably more about letting people make minor corrections.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sblawrie 13y ago
Panayotis, you spelled the word "intellectual" wrong on your homepage.
- vrypan 13y ago
  Fixed. Thanks.
reidrac 13y ago
This is weird. I could suggest a custom URL typing it myself. The form said that it would be reviewed but it got approved straight away. May be is because I just used Google's suggestion but removing the accent in my surname (I don't like them in an URL, and besides is the same thing I use in LinkedIn). That was 9 days ago.
- lingben 13y ago
  what is the process for this? do you have to wait till they approach you or is there an online application?
  - reidrac 13y ago
    My session expired and had to log in again, and there was a form. I didn't apply or anything like that. As I said it felt a little bit buggy ("we'll review your request", and then it was approved straight away), may be Google has refined the process.
    - lingben 13y ago
      so nothing triggered it? just random?
- saraid216 13y ago
  They released a giant wave of "everyone gets custom URLs" recently. It was announced somewhere or other. I thought I was special until I saw that.
- neves 13y ago
  The guy had a lot of options, mine was just one. Take or leave.
cloudwalking 13y ago
Honest question: are these terms of service significantly different than other services? Do Twitter / Github / etc have similar terms?
- bluetidepro 13y ago
  I came here to point this out. I would imagine other services have pretty much the same exact lingo in their terms. I think the author should definitely look into those before he claims Google+ to be worse. It seems like a very bias judgement before he does his background on the other services.
  - jodrellblank 13y ago
    But he isn't trying to "unbiasedly compare services" not claim google+ is worse.
- hk__2 13y ago
  From GitHub TOS: > GitHub, in its sole discretion, has the right to suspend or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Service, or any other GitHub service, for any reason at any time. Such termination of the Service will result in the deactivation or deletion of your Account or your access to your Account, and the forfeiture and relinquishment of all Content in your Account. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time.
  - declan 13y ago
    That to me looks broader than Google, Twitter, or Facebook's TOU. I look forward to the impassioned post highlighted here on HN saying: "Wait, wait, wait! Did they say that they may decide to charge me for my Github account in the future? And that they may remove it 'for any reason at any time?' A Github account is an identifier. I'll use it to identify myself on this service. I'll link to it from my website. I may print it on a business card. Like Github said in their email, I'll use it to 'make software development more collaborative.' But they can take it away for any reason or deactivate it? No way. Github is not a place I own, it's a place Github is kind enough to let me visit and have some limited activity, but they can always kick me off or ask for an (unspecified) rent." Sigh.
usaphp 13y ago
I think the author is making it a bigger deal than it really is, nothing stops google from bringing down the google plus or any other service he might be using(just like google reader or wave) so according to his logic (printed on business card etc...) you can't even have a long unfriendly URL because google can shut down google plus any day they want to or just start charging people.
- anoncow 13y ago
  Google Profiles used your email id as your unique identifier which made more sense. Now I have an email id, a name and a g+ profile unique url which are all different.
uladzislau 13y ago
Why the phone verification is required to claim a custom URL? Custom URL is a poor incentive to provide Google your phone number.
- cing 13y ago
  Agreed. I simply do not own a cellphone so a custom URL isn't possible.
- josefresco 13y ago
  I have a mobile number but have opted out of texting (they are blocked so I don't get charged) and instead use a free texting app which also assigns me a virtual number. Unfortunately the verification text from Google does not make it through. I tried two texting apps, and even tried my normal cell number hoping that Google had some agreement with my carrier to pass the code along. Seems odd that Google would risk turning me away from Plus simply because I cannot receive texts. Get over it Google, I'm not giving you my cell number. Find another way to verify my identity, I only use practically all of your services and have given you pretty much all of my personal information at one point over the last dozen years.
  - clauretano 13y ago
    those verification texts work when sent to google voice numbers, for what it's worth (plenty of other similar systems break when you give them gvoice numbers)
- zalew 13y ago
  "People who have this phone number may be able to find you on Google services." yeah, no thanks.
vonskippy 13y ago
His reasoning can be applied to all free social media, which is a valid reason, and why smart people should avoid the step back in time to a central AOL-esque media hub. He has his own domain, what more does he need? Why feed the social media black hole (all things enter - nothing escapes)?
davidjgraph 13y ago
Here's how it works. The techies create something. The legals come along and say, OK, to release that in the wild it needs some T&Cs that cover our arses for everything and then some, because people keep sueing us. In practice, would Google ever dare invoke this on a large scale? No, you know that. Yes, there should be some transparent process that is undertaken if yours were revoked, but Google only like stuff that scales, manual processes like that don't. And really, if the ability to revoke your URL at any time wasn't in the T&Cs, do you really think it would make any difference to the revoke rate? Sure, nobody in their right mind would depend on such a URL sticking around, but this post isn't "Why I won't get a Google+ Custom URL", it's "Why I won't use a Google+ Custom URL as the primary mechanism to link to myself online". I don't see much argument against just claiming one, if you're already a g+ user.
- pseudometa 13y ago
  You forgot the part where the business guys come in and ask why they aren't making money off this and decide to either cancel the service or start charging for it.
  - jamesbritt 13y ago
    The claim-page I saw says that at some point they may charge for it. I expect they will, if they ever think people have come to rely on it. I took my name URL but have no plans to publicize it. I don't own it.
  - jotm 13y ago
    Google Reader, never forget :-)
- hugi 13y ago
  Indeed. A huge corporation would never do anything unethical for money.
  - AYBABTME 13y ago
    It's not about ethics, it would just not make very much sense to charge people for their G+ handle when: - They struggle to get adoption from users. - They offer all these other, more essential/complex, services for 'free'(Gmail/Search/Docs/Calendar/Android). - Anybody can turn around and use the long form, unless your G+ is part of your marketing and as such, you use it as part of a business. Really, I think they only put that condition there so they can eventually monetize handles that are used by other Big Corp.
echeese 13y ago
What I did before I got mine, was redirected mydomain.com/+ to my Google+ profile, it's shorter, and more importantly, I control it.
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  Oh, clever. I set up plus.jamesbritt.com to redirect to my g+ profile page. Yours is cooler. :)
wnevets 13y ago
Doesnt twitter and facebook have the same type of ToS?
sarreph 13y ago
Unfortunately, there is likely [please correct me if I'm wrong] a similarly-worded array of clauses in the contracts for many of their other services (or even g+ itself), that if taken seriously (i.e. not in a legalese manner), would likely cause a similar level of unjust alarm.
gesman 13y ago
For this exact reason I registered my own 1-letter URL shortener domain and use it to create my own custom redirects whenever I want without submitting to someone's BS TOS. It's better to promote your own brand than someone else's. Send me email at: g@c.gg :)
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  I got curious and checked c.gg and I see it is for sale. Are you selling your own shortener domain you used to create your own short URL's ?
  - gesman 13y ago
    I tried to build business on it (didn't have time/resources to push it) then sell it in the past, but it didn't happen. Then I started seeing more and more value having your own, really short and easy to type URL shortener - for exact reason author wrote this post. I plan to set it up like my personal "tiny.cc" allowing for vanity urls for easy navigations For example: http://c.gg/regex http://c.gg/regex http://c.gg/az http://c.gg/az
    - zrail 13y ago
      I have the same thing on pkn.me. That just resolves to my normal blog which redirects to the canonical URL. So I can have, for example, http://pkn.me/r http://pkn.me/r for my resume and http://pkn.me/mmp http://pkn.me/mmp for my book landing page. I used to give random 5 letter strings to my posts as their ID but now I actually put some thought into it so I can have good, rememberable short URLs.
- anoncow 13y ago
  Can you give us some backstory on how you acquired a single letter domain name, please.
  - gesman 13y ago
    I wanted to find a 1-letter domain that was the easiest to type on a keyboard (with my 2-finger typing habit). I think that was back in 2006-ish days. So i found that typing keys C + . + GG requires an absolutely minimal amount of physical finger effort as hands are almost perfectly positioned above these keys. So I registered these. In fact back then there were a plenty of other 1-letter domain available up for a grabs. I used to do professional photo business and registered GO.GL - as my first name is Gleb (still have business cards laying around with this address). At the same time i thought that registering GOO.GL would be cool too - but back then the greenland (owner of this TLD) charged $50/yr + the only way you can register is by sending them a FAX. So I didn't bother. I am actually good at picking decent domain names even today.
torbit 13y ago
There like domain names. No surprised at all. I'm surprised twitter hasn't charged yet.
macspoofing 13y ago
Is this really any different then the T&C that governs your cryptic https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/ https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/ url? Whatever the current T&Cs says, google can certainly reclaim or start charging for your current plus url, and heck even your google account. Google can do whatever the heck they want, and you really have no recourse.
ywyrd 13y ago
That's why I never agree to anyone's terms and conditions online.
chestnut-tree 13y ago
How did Google not realise when they launched Google+ that URLs that end in ridiculously long strings of numbers (107350252619396782277) was a poor idea? Now it feels like they're adding a sticking plaster to fix their initial design decision. Google+ on the whole seems quite poorly designed from a UX perspective. Most people seem to use Google+ like a blog, but the two column card layout on the desktop (three columns on some Google+ sites) makes it impossible to read posts in chronological order. This is so blazingly obvious, one can only wonder why Google went ahead with this pattern. If the site is optimised for mobile (which seems to be the case), why do they push the same design to desktop? The way comments open up in a small scrollable panel also makes for a pretty miserable experience on the desktop. As does clicking a tag and having to explore everying from within the constricted space of a card (again why do they push this pattern to desktop users if it's intended for mobile users?) Can you actually add titles for Google+ posts? It doesn't seem so. This means you redundantly repeat the name of the blog author as the title of every single card/post. And what's with the bizarre gigantic image at the top of the page that only reveals itself when you scroll to the top? Was this meant to be a delightful surprise feature? It just feels odd. Finally, there is a button on the left-hand side of the page in the header. It looks like a button, it's shaped like a button. But when you move your mouse pointer over the button, a menu appears automatically (on rollover). If it's meant to be a rollover drop-down menu, then don't make it look like a clickable button. As always with Google and their UX, it's one step forward, two steps back (IMO).
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  Most people seem to use Google+ like a blog, but the two column card layout on the desktop (three columns on some Google+ sites) makes it impossible to read posts in chronological order. This is configurable. I set it back to the single column precisely because the crowded page of mostly images didn't suit me. Can you actually add titles for Google+ posts? It doesn't seem so. This means you redundantly repeat the name of the blog author as the title of every single card/post. People seem to have adopted the practice of bolding the first line of there post content (using asterisks) to have it stand out as a title. Seems to work pretty well, at least when scanning down a page of posts. As for your other observations: Yeah, there's a bunch of odd clunky shit going on. Greasemonkey has been a big help for me. :) There are also some Chrome extensions that mitigate some of the g+ UX pain.
edent 13y ago
Also worth noting is that you cannot change the url once assigned. So, better hope you don't get married - or that a serial killer has the same name as you. http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/10/googles-broken-name-policy-again/ http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/10/googles-broken-name-policy-a...
Ensorceled 13y ago
Why I won't get a Custom URL: > Many people have the same name. Add a few extra letters or numbers to this URL to get one that is unique for you. Why would I want yet another "MyName<randomcrap>" identifier? How does that help friends and family remember or identify me? What purpose does it serve? I'm yet another person with a nickname that identifies me all over and has for years, I too own the domain. But Google+ keeps insisting I have my "real name" ... except it's not my real name because I have to add random crap to be unique. I have no idea why they cling to this.
- simoneau 13y ago
  Even though I prefer +simoneau, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=simoneau https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=simoneau, I had come around to living with +MatthewSimoneau (if only to keep someone else from getting it). When it required me to add some trailing garbage after my name though, I also canceled the process.
  - liyanage 13y ago
    Same here, I don't understand why I'm forced to append junk, and I'm pretty sure my first/last name alone aren't taken. I canceled at that point.
    - liyanage 13y ago
      Interesting, a day later I got an e-mail that let me claim my full name without suffix.
  - danellis 13y ago
    How are they deciding who has to have a suffix, then, if there's no +MatthewSimoneau already? I got +DanEllis no problem.
- mrb 13y ago
  "I have no idea why they cling to this." Not saying that I agree or disagree with Google, but they have explained their reasoning here: "It's recommended that you go by your first and last name because it will help you connect with people you know and help them find you." - https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271?hl=en https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271?hl=en
suryamp 13y ago
Alright you guys, I'm gonna blow your minds. Try this kind of link: profiles.google.com/[YOUR USER NAME HERE] For example, vrypan's custom link would be: http://profiles.google.com/vrypan http://profiles.google.com/vrypan
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  Sweet. But how does this work? I'm not the only James Britt on g+, but profiles.google.com/jamesbritt goes to my profile page.
  - CCs 13y ago
    It uses your gmail id. This "profile.google.com/<emailid>" is there before the Buzz time, long before Google+.
    - jamesbritt 13y ago
      Interesting. Some data points: I have a few gmail accounts. One is for james.g.britt, but profiles.google.com/jamesgbritt does not resolve to the g+ page for that email address. I also have a g+ page for james@neurogami.com (via google apps) profiles.google.com/neurogami takes me to the g+ page for that e-mail address.
- josteink 13y ago
  That's a neat trick until you say "Google apps" and it all falls apart.
- jzwinck 13y ago
  I see it works for vrypan, but it doesn't work for me. It gives me a 404 error and I have no idea why.
- icedog 13y ago
  Yea, I remember having my Google Profile back in the day, before + or Buzz.
kibwen 13y ago
I noticed the same clause in the TOS last week and was taken aback. Ideally I'd love to be able to distribute my Google+ URL with the same confidence as I distribute my email address: namely, if you send a message to this address, you can guarantee that I'm the one who receives it. The fear here is that, should Google start charging for this "service" in the future, and should I decline to play along, someone else could squat on my former URL and intercept any traffic intended for my page. Please, Google, for my own peace of mind, either make this a paid service up-front, or pledge that a given URL will always alias to the same individual. (Though perhaps the email analogy is a bad one, since IIRC both Yahoo and MSN periodically release long-dormant addresses back into the eligible pool. Though still unsettling, it's a more reasonable approach than "we may force you to start paying us an unknown amount at some unknown future date".) Ultimately, I was about to go through with it anyway until I realized that doing so would require me to register a phone number with my Google account, which I have so far avoided. That requirement was the final straw.
- grecy 13y ago
  > I was about to go through with it anyway until I realized that doing so would require me to register a phone number with my Google account, which I have so far avoided. That requirement was the final straw That's exactly how I feel. I try very hard to not give my number out, why the hell does google force me to tell them, just to get a URL?
  - tobyjsullivan 13y ago
    If I had to guess, and this really is just a guess, I'd say the phone number requirement is an attempt to discourage whatever the short-url equivalent of domain squatting is.
  - sp332 13y ago
    I think it's for Google accounts in general. Even getting a gmail account requires this.
    - grecy 13y ago
ensmotko 13y ago
My custom Google+ URL is http://google.com/+AnžePečar http://google.com/+AnžePečar even though typing letters with diacritics is nearly impossible on 99% of the keyboards out there. I should have kept the random numbers...
- ghuntley 13y ago
  https://plus.google.com/+AnzePecar https://plus.google.com/+AnzePecar redirects to http://google.com/+AnžePečar http://google.com/+AnžePečar so infact you now have two URL shorteners. Native tongue and english.
- sp332 13y ago
  http://google.com/+An%C5%BEePe%C4%8Dar http://google.com/+An%C5%BEePe%C4%8Dar isn't pretty, but at least it's typable. Edit: whoa ghuntley, good find!
ez77 13y ago
Does anybody know if Google plans to allow claiming a deleted account... ever? I'm hoping that since I was granted +MyName in G+ I will be allowed to recover (long story) MyName@gmail.com... (It was MyName@googlemail.com and I wasn't happy... and let it expire...)
anoncow 13y ago
While choosing a unique url you also give Google the right to (almost) publicly list your mobile number (Helping a user find you if they know your number). I can see websites, which store all possible number combinations to drive page views, trying to get username, email and other details from this Google feature. Soon everyone who gives Google their mobile number will have their name, G+ profile and possibly email id made public.
declan 13y ago
<vrypan> is upset that Google+'s TOU for custom URLs gives the company too much unfettered discretion. In reality, Google+'s overall TOU for the service also gives the company plenty of discretion. As do similar ones from Twitter and Facebook. (Gasp! Bulk-delete your accounts now!) The overall Google+ TOU says, for instance, "Google reserves the right to restrict the content on your Google+ Page at its discretion." Facebook says you can't create "more than one personal account" or provide any "false personal information," which probably half of the folks on HN have done at some time or another. Facebook can "remove any content or information you post on Facebook" if, in its own discretion, the company feels like it violates the TOU. Twitter's TOU says it can "create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time without prior notice to you." The company can delete tweets "at our sole discretion." And so on. In reality, as <davidjgraph> says, Google (and Facebook and Twitter) would not invoke this on a large scale. There would be a reputational impact. The language does come from the lawyers, but largely because of the plaintiff's bar, not because SV GCs enjoy adding this language to TOUs. tl;dr: If you're going to assume the worst from every company, you might as well never create any account or log in anywhere.
louthy 13y ago
The reason I won't get a custom URL is because after getting the "Click here to get your custom URL" email, I was informed I had to give them my mobile number before this process was achievable. It seems Google is on an absolute mission to get my mobile number, they've been relentlessly hinting that it's essential that I give it to them for what feels like forever. No Google, you cannot have it. Please, stop asking.
- wyclif 13y ago
  Note that you don't have to give Google your mobile number. You can use a Google Voice number.
  - louthy 13y ago
    That's not really the point is it? They said they couldn't give me a personalised URL unless I gave them my mobile number. Clearly I could have given them any number. It's the fact they're holding features to ransom that I find utterly disturbing. Do no evil. Yeah right.
  - officialjunk 13y ago
    But to create a google voice number, you provide your phone number...
math0ne 13y ago
I'm sure the exact same things apply to the current unfriendly url you are using now.
ultimatedelman 13y ago
i thought this article was going to be about how the "verify your phone number" system doesn't actually send you a text message to verify your phone, thus making it impossible to actually claim said custom URL....
brm 13y ago
When you read this, think about how many words an otherwise smart man wrote about something that's completely inconsequential. Down-vote me all you want but please consider how you're spending your brain power.
josteink 13y ago
I have a name which is 100% unique in the world. There are no other people with my combination of first name and last name. Not in my ØÆÅ country. Not on the planet. None. Not making this up. It's a unique one. Certifiably. And Google has the balls to ask me to create a Google+ URL with lots of numbers and gibberish added? What? They can just seriously fuck off.
- riffraff 13y ago
  as a data point, to me it simply proposed +GabrieleRenzi, which may be unique in g+ but is certainly not unique worldwide (heck, there are at least 4 people named like me on facebook). So maybe they just decided that something like "€∂gàr sm0ll" should be considered the same as "edgar small" ?
iamleppert 13y ago
In other news, Google can do whatever they want with URLs they own & control. To think that your long number URL is any less safe is equally as amusing as thinking just because they give you a vanity URL, it's yours forever. Google will do what they like with any Google-owned property.
keeblus 13y ago
Tl;dr I like to whine.
privasectech 13y ago
I wrote about this over a week ago, also they demand your cell phone number and apparently don't allow you to change it. http://privasectech.com/2013/10/terms-service-google-vanity-url/ http://privasectech.com/2013/10/terms-service-google-vanity-...
joeblau 13y ago
I got mine! The only place that I didn't get my name exactly the way I want it is on Twitter.
amakaruk 13y ago
This is based on inductive reasoning: This process is heading toward a time when your online identity corresponds directly to your personal ID. This will create a debate between at least two sides: 1. Privacy rights activists will argue that tech companies are complicit with the NSA and that we should fear totalitarianism and a police state's repression. 2. Others will argue that this verisimilitude between the online self and the material self provides for security and convenience. On the one hand you have those that value freedom and on the other hand you have those that value convenience.
carrot 13y ago
Wow, I didn't know that. I got the same e-mail and went all the way through with this exact same processor for one of my "pages". When I think about it, I don't really care as much about that G+ page as the other related social networking profiles, but this would still affect me if it were enforced at some point in the future. Well, I made the change, unlike you. Score one for actually reading the TOS.
benmarks 13y ago
Wait, you read the T&C's?
kolev 13y ago
Google's decision is stupid: they make one person happy and a gazillion others with the same name - pissed off. I'm not sure if any business wants to be in this position. I'm boycotting it as I have the proper username with Twitte, Facebook, LinkedIn - you name it. Why would I want to be something that doesn't represent me on Google+? Sorry, but we have choices and only a small portion of my friends use Google+ anyway. Poor choice, Google - if you started in the beginning, it would have been a good choice, but it's a bit too late for such nonsense. I still have not been offered a vanity name anyway and a bunch of people with a couple of friends were. You either do at for all at once or you don't at all. People take it as fair if somebody was first to register it. People think it's unfair when Google decides.
archagon 13y ago
At this point, I'm not even sure how my identity is split up on Google's servers between my original Google account, my Google Plus account, and my legacy YouTube account. Sometimes I feel like I'm logged into three different things at once. And now I can't even use my original username as my Google Plus URL? Does that mean that my legacy YouTube account is no longer active? Or has it been merged with my Google Plus profile without my consent, despite consistently clicking on "no thanks" every time the window popped up? This sort of quagmire causes me to unconsciously stop using the services causing it. Already, I've found myself much less interested in liking and favoriting YouTube videos.
- sugarenia 13y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. The experience is very jarring, plus the whole "use your real name in YouTube" thing that Google has got going on is annoying at best.
INIT_6 13y ago
Gplus.<mydomain>.com I fixed this problem a while ago.
- gesman 13y ago
  Make it: me.<yourdomain>.com (In case big G will decide to abandon G+) :)
yuletide666 13y ago
Wait, people still use Google+?
- noarchy 13y ago
  When did they start? I follow some tech sources there, mostly related to Android (and therefore, tied into Google's ecosystem anyway), but that's about it.
slowdown 13y ago
One more important thing about these custom URLs: 1) Your Google+ profile is publicly indexable by searh engines. 2) Having a custom URL means anyone searching for your name on Google is going to find out your Google+ profile easily. Basically, your identity is now even more easier to discover. (When contrasted to the ordinary Google+ URL of random numbers) 3) If you are using the same profile picture on Google+ as your Facebook, people can track your Facebook profile, too. This is bad if you have a fairly active social life, but wanting a bit of a privacy.
Guillaumeish 13y ago
What about a workaround? I'm /guillaumeish pretty much everywhere, and using my "real name" it's against my religion. I can't do it. I got no time to test it atm (and I don't remember the G+ policies on name changes) but couldn't you just change your name to "Vry Pan", refresh and claim the VryPan handle... than change your name back to whatever it was before? They have a time restriction like facebook?
GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
Why I won't read articles that begin with "Why I"
saurik 13y ago
They authorized "JayFreemansaurik" and "JaysaurikFreeman" (both of which are highly confusing to even parse) for me, and the form won't even let me try to request "saurik" so I also gave up and am just a number. FWIW, I was totally OK in a world without usernames. The problem with usernames is that people figure out how to take them from you, and they get burned forever. What happens when we all die? I respected the numbers. When they added the username mechanism that seemed to be selling out on that wonderful principal. The result also is clearly suboptimal: cocacola has a username, but pepsi is just a number (as their trademark is too short).
kuahyeow 13y ago
Got the +Custom Url in the end, despite the unchangeability. Does this matter much, if one has their own domain name, anyway ? Btw, the long form url still works
leepowers 13y ago
> A URL is an identifier. I'll use it to identify myself on this service. I'll link to it from my website. I may print it on a business card. Like Google said in their email, I'll use it to "point folks to my profile". But they can take it away for any reason or decide to charge me a (yet unknown) amount of money in the future? No way. I'll stay with my current, unfriendly one, https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/ https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/ Uh, what makes you think that Google doesn't have the right to take away the numeric URL or charge money for the numeric URL? (Or simply change the URL structure/scheme for Google+ at any point in the future.) Whether you use a numeric URL or personalized URL is irrelevant: Any service/server you don't control can change at any time for any reason. You should always direct people to a domain you own and control, even if all that domain does is auto-redirect to your current Google/Facebook/Github/whatever profile.
ivanbrussik 13y ago
facebook - choose whatever username you want HN - choose whatever username you want twitter - choose whatever username you want reddit - choose whatever username you want tumblr - choose whatever username you want Google+ - we choose it for you, you can't change it, we might charge you for it, and we might also take it away at some point also - why does G+ need to insert the /u/0 after the domain name? twitter, facebook and the rest you can simply type domain.com/username but G+ just needs to make it so much less user friendly.
- cloudwalking 13y ago
  Seriously, did you read any of the other comments on this thread? Facebook: "If you select a username or similar identifier for your account or Page, we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe it is appropriate" Twitter: "We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, to suspend or terminate users, and to reclaim usernames without liability to you." Reddit: "Service Provider or third parties may charge you fees for products or services offered for sale through the Website, and/or for access to portions of the Website or the Website as a whole" AND "Provider may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, suspend or terminate the access of and take other action against users, subscribers, registrants and account holders" Tumblr: "Tumblr reserves the right to refuse registration of, cancel, or modify a Tumblr URL in its sole discretion." And finally, you don't need any "/u/0" after the domain name. See: https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds
  - ivanbrussik 13y ago
    these are all terms of service considerations. you can still choose a username upon signup for almost any social media account except G+. g+ is the only service that assigns a username to you. i did not know that about /u/0, thanks!
- raldi 13y ago
  The /u/0 just means you're using multilogin. For example, if you log in as foo@gmail.com, and then log in as bar@gmail.com via multilogin, gmail.com/u/0/inbox/whatever will take you to foo's email, and gmail.com/u/1/inbox/whatever will take you to bar's. You can thus have adjacent tabs accessing both accounts simultaneously. Also, /u/0 is the default; you can remove it from the URL and it'll continue working just fine.
shurcooL 13y ago
I tried to get a Google+ custom URL and couldn't. They require a phone number to send you a confirmation SMS. I no longer have this protocol (due to an abundance of more technically advanced, and free to use alternatives).
gcb1 13y ago
im pretty sure those 3 points are true of any service, anywhere.
pkrumins 13y ago
You all already have a nice looking google+ url, you just don't know about it. It's: http://profiles.google.com/first_part_of_your_gmail_email For example, my email is peteris.krumins@gmail.com, and my google+ url is: http://profiles.google.com/peteris.krumins .
- gohrt 13y ago
  Does everyone have that, or only people who created Google Profiles before Plus replaced them?
a3_nm 13y ago
At least the TOS are honest and transparent. Even if Google did not warn specifically that they can kick people out or start asking for money, they would of course be free to do so. So, is it worse if Google reminds you that you have no guarantees whatsoever? ...
lyricalpolymath 13y ago
We hacked this nonsense by creating a simple redirect on our website: http://eyevel.com/G+ http://eyevel.com/G+ ;) You can too! It's a simple htaccess line or a router on your app put this into the .htaccess of your host and change where appropriate (yourdomain, extension and G+ long userID) RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^yourDomain\.com$ [OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.yourDomain\.com$ RewriteRule ^B\@G\+$ "https\:\/\/plus\.google\.com\/103815970554408703928\/posts" [R=301,L]
espadrine 13y ago
I remember having been similarly surprised by the TOS. However, the only annoyance and consequence of it, to me, is that I cannot share the link anymore than I used to. So I switched, and I'll switch back if they ask me to pay. I am much more worried about them discontinuing Gmail. Since Reader, I have no idea what they are ready to kill.
goldenkey 13y ago
An example of such shenanigans is WeWorkRemotely.com. It was posted to HN recently, and was totally free. Less than a week later and they want $200 for a listing. Egregious behavior, especially for something put on by 37 signals.
cuillevel3 13y ago
The argument makes no sense. URLs are not meant to point to the same resource forever. They are not 'permanent'. And Google won't just start billing his credit card without consent...
atmosx 13y ago
Doesn't ALL free services have he same sort of clause? I'm missing what's new compared to using... put here any the non-paid service online? EDIT: Here are Gmail Terms of Service[1]: --- Modifying and Terminating our Services We are constantly changing and improving our Services. We may add or remove functionalities or features, and we may suspend or stop a Service altogether. --- What happens if they suddenly suspend their service? NOTHING! :-) we all hope and have many reasons to believe that they wont do that, anytime soon. [1]: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
mxuribe 13y ago
I firmly believe that using uncontrolled urls - such as facebook, g+, etc. - on business cards, print material, or even as your established "online home" is unwise. I think its better to maintain/publish urls originating from a domain name that YOU control...And then create links (with underlying associated metadata "rel=me" style links) or setup redirects...Such as: YourDomain.com/gplus or YourDomain.com/linkedin...etc... This leaves YOU in control. Can be done on the really cheap. And if google, fbook, linkedin, or any of these services changes things around such as urls, or UI, or ToC, or anything YOU don't agree with, then you kill the redirection/links. Quick, easy and from one central point. Granted their sites will have a little more SEO juice up front...And, maybe I'm being idealistic, but eventually all search engines will begin to see that YOUR domain is the authoritative point on the web for YOU...and that the start point is YOUR domain not the myriad of social networks.
- sigkill 13y ago
  I agree with this. Something like <first><lastname>.<tld>/social or /card and have that page list all your fb, g+, linkedin twitter links. Bonus, you get a permanent email address that NO ONE can take away from you, for life.
lemcoe9 13y ago
I will soon make a post: "Why I don't care that you won't change your Google+ Custom URL."

259 points by vrypan 13y ago

PROTIP: Just redirect vrypan.com/plus to your G+ page. Bonus: Use vrypan.com/+

I almost claimed a custom URL yesterday when I was writing up the YouTube comment change and in the process updating my G+ profile. They wanted my number to claim it, which I believe they already have for 2-factor on Gmail. In the end the whole process with YouTube was so galling that I just deleted my whole account. As OP notes, it's not like Google+ was the first place people would look for me, and it's not a useful resource for me, so why have it at all?

cloudwalking 13y ago
Deleting your account was less galling than using your phone number to confirm your identity? Hm.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- devindotcom 13y ago
  No, the whole YouTube thing. Having a channel, unchecking a bunch of boxes and worrying about extra policies - having an extra Google+ page with its own Talk address and inbox, in addition to the channel's inbox, etc. I just realized I don't use it, probably won't ever, and it'll only keep trying to get me to connect via other means, so I thought I'd nip it in the bud.
  - cloudwalking 13y ago
    If you don't use it, why don't you just ignore it, like 99% of most YouTube uploaders? All of these recent Google+ changes, aside from "Real Names," only affect people with a large YouTube following. I absolutely support you deleting your YouTube account in protest of the ever-increasing Google+ requirements. But at least call it what it is--deleting your account in protest.
    - rejoinder 13y ago
      Actually I sympathise with the poster here. I just tried to get back to the personalised vanity chooser thing in G+, and ended up clicking on Settings then to Account, which got me to a google account page. On the right handside there is a link to a profile, and there's a nickname listed. I can't even remember what that's for or what that profile belongs to. There's even some reference to Buzz that I thought I'd killed. I go around in circles. And don't even get the whole Youtube integration thing. So I just back away from it and try and ignore it. You get overloaded. I'm not at the point of deleting my account, but not far off - mainly out of confusion.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Given that the name I use for G+ (and HN) isn't one I'm ordinarily known by, having any metadata which tracks back to me that others could find is a definite negative. I've got my reasons. I prefer it this way. It's beyond annoying that Google keep insisting on trying to link various accounts and/or grabbing my personal data. And the harder they pull, the harder I push back. There's nothing that's changed my impression of Google, in a negative way, so much as using G+ and observing the commentary of its leadership (Eric Schmidt in particular, but Vic Gundotra and Larry Page as well). Yes, some individual Google engineers do tend to give me hope, but I'm seeing the fish as increasingly likely to have been rotten from the head. That the company appears far preferable to Facebook I'd freely concede, but talk of damning with faint praise.

ye 13y ago

I don't understand why they call it "custom". More like "assigned".

akkartik 13y ago
You can technically apply to make it anything you want, and the set of allowed names should technically be far larger than the set of disallowed ones. But I'm waiting to see if they'll let me take +akkartik rather than +KartikAgaram, so we'll see.
- lingben 13y ago
  how? what's the process?
- mmahemoff 13y ago
  They made it possible to request a different URL for maybe 12 hours after launching custom URLs, but quickly stopped offering it. Probably got inundated with requests. By the time I got my invite (about a day after they started sending them), there was no such link. Also, they weren't just allowing people to register any old nickname or brand name. It was probably more about letting people make minor corrections.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

sblawrie 13y ago

Panayotis, you spelled the word "intellectual" wrong on your homepage.

vrypan 13y ago
Fixed. Thanks.

reidrac 13y ago

This is weird. I could suggest a custom URL typing it myself. The form said that it would be reviewed but it got approved straight away. May be is because I just used Google's suggestion but removing the accent in my surname (I don't like them in an URL, and besides is the same thing I use in LinkedIn). That was 9 days ago.

lingben 13y ago
what is the process for this? do you have to wait till they approach you or is there an online application?
- reidrac 13y ago
  My session expired and had to log in again, and there was a form. I didn't apply or anything like that. As I said it felt a little bit buggy ("we'll review your request", and then it was approved straight away), may be Google has refined the process.
  - lingben 13y ago
    so nothing triggered it? just random?
saraid216 13y ago
They released a giant wave of "everyone gets custom URLs" recently. It was announced somewhere or other. I thought I was special until I saw that.
neves 13y ago
The guy had a lot of options, mine was just one. Take or leave.

cloudwalking 13y ago

Honest question: are these terms of service significantly different than other services? Do Twitter / Github / etc have similar terms?

bluetidepro 13y ago
I came here to point this out. I would imagine other services have pretty much the same exact lingo in their terms. I think the author should definitely look into those before he claims Google+ to be worse. It seems like a very bias judgement before he does his background on the other services.
- jodrellblank 13y ago
  But he isn't trying to "unbiasedly compare services" not claim google+ is worse.
hk__2 13y ago
From GitHub TOS: > GitHub, in its sole discretion, has the right to suspend or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Service, or any other GitHub service, for any reason at any time. Such termination of the Service will result in the deactivation or deletion of your Account or your access to your Account, and the forfeiture and relinquishment of all Content in your Account. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time.
- declan 13y ago
  That to me looks broader than Google, Twitter, or Facebook's TOU. I look forward to the impassioned post highlighted here on HN saying: "Wait, wait, wait! Did they say that they may decide to charge me for my Github account in the future? And that they may remove it 'for any reason at any time?' A Github account is an identifier. I'll use it to identify myself on this service. I'll link to it from my website. I may print it on a business card. Like Github said in their email, I'll use it to 'make software development more collaborative.' But they can take it away for any reason or deactivate it? No way. Github is not a place I own, it's a place Github is kind enough to let me visit and have some limited activity, but they can always kick me off or ask for an (unspecified) rent." Sigh.

usaphp 13y ago

I think the author is making it a bigger deal than it really is, nothing stops google from bringing down the google plus or any other service he might be using(just like google reader or wave) so according to his logic (printed on business card etc...) you can't even have a long unfriendly URL because google can shut down google plus any day they want to or just start charging people.

anoncow 13y ago
Google Profiles used your email id as your unique identifier which made more sense. Now I have an email id, a name and a g+ profile unique url which are all different.

uladzislau 13y ago

Why the phone verification is required to claim a custom URL? Custom URL is a poor incentive to provide Google your phone number.

cing 13y ago
Agreed. I simply do not own a cellphone so a custom URL isn't possible.
josefresco 13y ago
I have a mobile number but have opted out of texting (they are blocked so I don't get charged) and instead use a free texting app which also assigns me a virtual number. Unfortunately the verification text from Google does not make it through. I tried two texting apps, and even tried my normal cell number hoping that Google had some agreement with my carrier to pass the code along. Seems odd that Google would risk turning me away from Plus simply because I cannot receive texts. Get over it Google, I'm not giving you my cell number. Find another way to verify my identity, I only use practically all of your services and have given you pretty much all of my personal information at one point over the last dozen years.
- clauretano 13y ago
  those verification texts work when sent to google voice numbers, for what it's worth (plenty of other similar systems break when you give them gvoice numbers)
zalew 13y ago
"People who have this phone number may be able to find you on Google services." yeah, no thanks.

vonskippy 13y ago

His reasoning can be applied to all free social media, which is a valid reason, and why smart people should avoid the step back in time to a central AOL-esque media hub. He has his own domain, what more does he need? Why feed the social media black hole (all things enter - nothing escapes)?

davidjgraph 13y ago

Here's how it works. The techies create something. The legals come along and say, OK, to release that in the wild it needs some T&Cs that cover our arses for everything and then some, because people keep sueing us. In practice, would Google ever dare invoke this on a large scale? No, you know that. Yes, there should be some transparent process that is undertaken if yours were revoked, but Google only like stuff that scales, manual processes like that don't. And really, if the ability to revoke your URL at any time wasn't in the T&Cs, do you really think it would make any difference to the revoke rate? Sure, nobody in their right mind would depend on such a URL sticking around, but this post isn't "Why I won't get a Google+ Custom URL", it's "Why I won't use a Google+ Custom URL as the primary mechanism to link to myself online". I don't see much argument against just claiming one, if you're already a g+ user.

pseudometa 13y ago
You forgot the part where the business guys come in and ask why they aren't making money off this and decide to either cancel the service or start charging for it.
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  The claim-page I saw says that at some point they may charge for it. I expect they will, if they ever think people have come to rely on it. I took my name URL but have no plans to publicize it. I don't own it.
- jotm 13y ago
  Google Reader, never forget :-)
hugi 13y ago
Indeed. A huge corporation would never do anything unethical for money.
- AYBABTME 13y ago
  It's not about ethics, it would just not make very much sense to charge people for their G+ handle when: - They struggle to get adoption from users. - They offer all these other, more essential/complex, services for 'free'(Gmail/Search/Docs/Calendar/Android). - Anybody can turn around and use the long form, unless your G+ is part of your marketing and as such, you use it as part of a business. Really, I think they only put that condition there so they can eventually monetize handles that are used by other Big Corp.

echeese 13y ago

What I did before I got mine, was redirected mydomain.com/+ to my Google+ profile, it's shorter, and more importantly, I control it.

jamesbritt 13y ago
Oh, clever. I set up plus.jamesbritt.com to redirect to my g+ profile page. Yours is cooler. :)

wnevets 13y ago

Doesnt twitter and facebook have the same type of ToS?

sarreph 13y ago

Unfortunately, there is likely [please correct me if I'm wrong] a similarly-worded array of clauses in the contracts for many of their other services (or even g+ itself), that if taken seriously (i.e. not in a legalese manner), would likely cause a similar level of unjust alarm.

gesman 13y ago

For this exact reason I registered my own 1-letter URL shortener domain and use it to create my own custom redirects whenever I want without submitting to someone's BS TOS. It's better to promote your own brand than someone else's. Send me email at: g@c.gg :)

johnchristopher 13y ago
I got curious and checked c.gg and I see it is for sale. Are you selling your own shortener domain you used to create your own short URL's ?
- gesman 13y ago
  I tried to build business on it (didn't have time/resources to push it) then sell it in the past, but it didn't happen. Then I started seeing more and more value having your own, really short and easy to type URL shortener - for exact reason author wrote this post. I plan to set it up like my personal "tiny.cc" allowing for vanity urls for easy navigations For example: http://c.gg/regex http://c.gg/regex http://c.gg/az http://c.gg/az
  - zrail 13y ago
    I have the same thing on pkn.me. That just resolves to my normal blog which redirects to the canonical URL. So I can have, for example, http://pkn.me/r http://pkn.me/r for my resume and http://pkn.me/mmp http://pkn.me/mmp for my book landing page. I used to give random 5 letter strings to my posts as their ID but now I actually put some thought into it so I can have good, rememberable short URLs.
anoncow 13y ago
Can you give us some backstory on how you acquired a single letter domain name, please.
- gesman 13y ago
  I wanted to find a 1-letter domain that was the easiest to type on a keyboard (with my 2-finger typing habit). I think that was back in 2006-ish days. So i found that typing keys C + . + GG requires an absolutely minimal amount of physical finger effort as hands are almost perfectly positioned above these keys. So I registered these. In fact back then there were a plenty of other 1-letter domain available up for a grabs. I used to do professional photo business and registered GO.GL - as my first name is Gleb (still have business cards laying around with this address). At the same time i thought that registering GOO.GL would be cool too - but back then the greenland (owner of this TLD) charged $50/yr + the only way you can register is by sending them a FAX. So I didn't bother. I am actually good at picking decent domain names even today.

torbit 13y ago

There like domain names. No surprised at all. I'm surprised twitter hasn't charged yet.

macspoofing 13y ago

Is this really any different then the T&C that governs your cryptic https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/ https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/ url? Whatever the current T&Cs says, google can certainly reclaim or start charging for your current plus url, and heck even your google account. Google can do whatever the heck they want, and you really have no recourse.

ywyrd 13y ago

That's why I never agree to anyone's terms and conditions online.

chestnut-tree 13y ago

How did Google not realise when they launched Google+ that URLs that end in ridiculously long strings of numbers (107350252619396782277) was a poor idea? Now it feels like they're adding a sticking plaster to fix their initial design decision. Google+ on the whole seems quite poorly designed from a UX perspective. Most people seem to use Google+ like a blog, but the two column card layout on the desktop (three columns on some Google+ sites) makes it impossible to read posts in chronological order. This is so blazingly obvious, one can only wonder why Google went ahead with this pattern. If the site is optimised for mobile (which seems to be the case), why do they push the same design to desktop? The way comments open up in a small scrollable panel also makes for a pretty miserable experience on the desktop. As does clicking a tag and having to explore everying from within the constricted space of a card (again why do they push this pattern to desktop users if it's intended for mobile users?) Can you actually add titles for Google+ posts? It doesn't seem so. This means you redundantly repeat the name of the blog author as the title of every single card/post. And what's with the bizarre gigantic image at the top of the page that only reveals itself when you scroll to the top? Was this meant to be a delightful surprise feature? It just feels odd. Finally, there is a button on the left-hand side of the page in the header. It looks like a button, it's shaped like a button. But when you move your mouse pointer over the button, a menu appears automatically (on rollover). If it's meant to be a rollover drop-down menu, then don't make it look like a clickable button. As always with Google and their UX, it's one step forward, two steps back (IMO).

jamesbritt 13y ago
Most people seem to use Google+ like a blog, but the two column card layout on the desktop (three columns on some Google+ sites) makes it impossible to read posts in chronological order. This is configurable. I set it back to the single column precisely because the crowded page of mostly images didn't suit me. Can you actually add titles for Google+ posts? It doesn't seem so. This means you redundantly repeat the name of the blog author as the title of every single card/post. People seem to have adopted the practice of bolding the first line of there post content (using asterisks) to have it stand out as a title. Seems to work pretty well, at least when scanning down a page of posts. As for your other observations: Yeah, there's a bunch of odd clunky shit going on. Greasemonkey has been a big help for me. :) There are also some Chrome extensions that mitigate some of the g+ UX pain.

edent 13y ago

Also worth noting is that you cannot change the url once assigned. So, better hope you don't get married - or that a serial killer has the same name as you. http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/10/googles-broken-name-policy-again/ http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/10/googles-broken-name-policy-a...

Ensorceled 13y ago

Why I won't get a Custom URL: > Many people have the same name. Add a few extra letters or numbers to this URL to get one that is unique for you. Why would I want yet another "MyName<randomcrap>" identifier? How does that help friends and family remember or identify me? What purpose does it serve? I'm yet another person with a nickname that identifies me all over and has for years, I too own the domain. But Google+ keeps insisting I have my "real name" ... except it's not my real name because I have to add random crap to be unique. I have no idea why they cling to this.

simoneau 13y ago
Even though I prefer +simoneau, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=simoneau https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=simoneau, I had come around to living with +MatthewSimoneau (if only to keep someone else from getting it). When it required me to add some trailing garbage after my name though, I also canceled the process.
- liyanage 13y ago
  Same here, I don't understand why I'm forced to append junk, and I'm pretty sure my first/last name alone aren't taken. I canceled at that point.
  - liyanage 13y ago
    Interesting, a day later I got an e-mail that let me claim my full name without suffix.
- danellis 13y ago
  How are they deciding who has to have a suffix, then, if there's no +MatthewSimoneau already? I got +DanEllis no problem.
mrb 13y ago
"I have no idea why they cling to this." Not saying that I agree or disagree with Google, but they have explained their reasoning here: "It's recommended that you go by your first and last name because it will help you connect with people you know and help them find you." - https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271?hl=en https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271?hl=en

suryamp 13y ago

Alright you guys, I'm gonna blow your minds. Try this kind of link: profiles.google.com/[YOUR USER NAME HERE] For example, vrypan's custom link would be: http://profiles.google.com/vrypan http://profiles.google.com/vrypan

jamesbritt 13y ago
Sweet. But how does this work? I'm not the only James Britt on g+, but profiles.google.com/jamesbritt goes to my profile page.
- CCs 13y ago
  It uses your gmail id. This "profile.google.com/<emailid>" is there before the Buzz time, long before Google+.
  - jamesbritt 13y ago
    Interesting. Some data points: I have a few gmail accounts. One is for james.g.britt, but profiles.google.com/jamesgbritt does not resolve to the g+ page for that email address. I also have a g+ page for james@neurogami.com (via google apps) profiles.google.com/neurogami takes me to the g+ page for that e-mail address.
josteink 13y ago
That's a neat trick until you say "Google apps" and it all falls apart.
jzwinck 13y ago
I see it works for vrypan, but it doesn't work for me. It gives me a 404 error and I have no idea why.
icedog 13y ago
Yea, I remember having my Google Profile back in the day, before + or Buzz.

kibwen 13y ago

I noticed the same clause in the TOS last week and was taken aback. Ideally I'd love to be able to distribute my Google+ URL with the same confidence as I distribute my email address: namely, if you send a message to this address, you can guarantee that I'm the one who receives it. The fear here is that, should Google start charging for this "service" in the future, and should I decline to play along, someone else could squat on my former URL and intercept any traffic intended for my page. Please, Google, for my own peace of mind, either make this a paid service up-front, or pledge that a given URL will always alias to the same individual. (Though perhaps the email analogy is a bad one, since IIRC both Yahoo and MSN periodically release long-dormant addresses back into the eligible pool. Though still unsettling, it's a more reasonable approach than "we may force you to start paying us an unknown amount at some unknown future date".) Ultimately, I was about to go through with it anyway until I realized that doing so would require me to register a phone number with my Google account, which I have so far avoided. That requirement was the final straw.

grecy 13y ago
> I was about to go through with it anyway until I realized that doing so would require me to register a phone number with my Google account, which I have so far avoided. That requirement was the final straw That's exactly how I feel. I try very hard to not give my number out, why the hell does google force me to tell them, just to get a URL?
- tobyjsullivan 13y ago
  If I had to guess, and this really is just a guess, I'd say the phone number requirement is an attempt to discourage whatever the short-url equivalent of domain squatting is.
- sp332 13y ago
  I think it's for Google accounts in general. Even getting a gmail account requires this.
  - grecy 13y ago

ensmotko 13y ago

My custom Google+ URL is http://google.com/+AnžePečar http://google.com/+AnžePečar even though typing letters with diacritics is nearly impossible on 99% of the keyboards out there. I should have kept the random numbers...

ghuntley 13y ago
https://plus.google.com/+AnzePecar https://plus.google.com/+AnzePecar redirects to http://google.com/+AnžePečar http://google.com/+AnžePečar so infact you now have two URL shorteners. Native tongue and english.
sp332 13y ago
http://google.com/+An%C5%BEePe%C4%8Dar http://google.com/+An%C5%BEePe%C4%8Dar isn't pretty, but at least it's typable. Edit: whoa ghuntley, good find!

ez77 13y ago

Does anybody know if Google plans to allow claiming a deleted account... ever? I'm hoping that since I was granted +MyName in G+ I will be allowed to recover (long story) MyName@gmail.com... (It was MyName@googlemail.com and I wasn't happy... and let it expire...)

anoncow 13y ago

While choosing a unique url you also give Google the right to (almost) publicly list your mobile number (Helping a user find you if they know your number). I can see websites, which store all possible number combinations to drive page views, trying to get username, email and other details from this Google feature. Soon everyone who gives Google their mobile number will have their name, G+ profile and possibly email id made public.

declan 13y ago

<vrypan> is upset that Google+'s TOU for custom URLs gives the company too much unfettered discretion. In reality, Google+'s overall TOU for the service also gives the company plenty of discretion. As do similar ones from Twitter and Facebook. (Gasp! Bulk-delete your accounts now!) The overall Google+ TOU says, for instance, "Google reserves the right to restrict the content on your Google+ Page at its discretion." Facebook says you can't create "more than one personal account" or provide any "false personal information," which probably half of the folks on HN have done at some time or another. Facebook can "remove any content or information you post on Facebook" if, in its own discretion, the company feels like it violates the TOU. Twitter's TOU says it can "create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time without prior notice to you." The company can delete tweets "at our sole discretion." And so on. In reality, as <davidjgraph> says, Google (and Facebook and Twitter) would not invoke this on a large scale. There would be a reputational impact. The language does come from the lawyers, but largely because of the plaintiff's bar, not because SV GCs enjoy adding this language to TOUs. tl;dr: If you're going to assume the worst from every company, you might as well never create any account or log in anywhere.

louthy 13y ago

The reason I won't get a custom URL is because after getting the "Click here to get your custom URL" email, I was informed I had to give them my mobile number before this process was achievable. It seems Google is on an absolute mission to get my mobile number, they've been relentlessly hinting that it's essential that I give it to them for what feels like forever. No Google, you cannot have it. Please, stop asking.

wyclif 13y ago
Note that you don't have to give Google your mobile number. You can use a Google Voice number.
- louthy 13y ago
  That's not really the point is it? They said they couldn't give me a personalised URL unless I gave them my mobile number. Clearly I could have given them any number. It's the fact they're holding features to ransom that I find utterly disturbing. Do no evil. Yeah right.
- officialjunk 13y ago
  But to create a google voice number, you provide your phone number...

math0ne 13y ago

I'm sure the exact same things apply to the current unfriendly url you are using now.

ultimatedelman 13y ago

i thought this article was going to be about how the "verify your phone number" system doesn't actually send you a text message to verify your phone, thus making it impossible to actually claim said custom URL....

brm 13y ago

When you read this, think about how many words an otherwise smart man wrote about something that's completely inconsequential. Down-vote me all you want but please consider how you're spending your brain power.

josteink 13y ago

I have a name which is 100% unique in the world. There are no other people with my combination of first name and last name. Not in my ØÆÅ country. Not on the planet. None. Not making this up. It's a unique one. Certifiably. And Google has the balls to ask me to create a Google+ URL with lots of numbers and gibberish added? What? They can just seriously fuck off.

riffraff 13y ago
as a data point, to me it simply proposed +GabrieleRenzi, which may be unique in g+ but is certainly not unique worldwide (heck, there are at least 4 people named like me on facebook). So maybe they just decided that something like "€∂gàr sm0ll" should be considered the same as "edgar small" ?

iamleppert 13y ago

In other news, Google can do whatever they want with URLs they own & control. To think that your long number URL is any less safe is equally as amusing as thinking just because they give you a vanity URL, it's yours forever. Google will do what they like with any Google-owned property.

keeblus 13y ago

Tl;dr I like to whine.

privasectech 13y ago

I wrote about this over a week ago, also they demand your cell phone number and apparently don't allow you to change it. http://privasectech.com/2013/10/terms-service-google-vanity-url/ http://privasectech.com/2013/10/terms-service-google-vanity-...

joeblau 13y ago

I got mine! The only place that I didn't get my name exactly the way I want it is on Twitter.

amakaruk 13y ago

This is based on inductive reasoning: This process is heading toward a time when your online identity corresponds directly to your personal ID. This will create a debate between at least two sides: 1. Privacy rights activists will argue that tech companies are complicit with the NSA and that we should fear totalitarianism and a police state's repression. 2. Others will argue that this verisimilitude between the online self and the material self provides for security and convenience. On the one hand you have those that value freedom and on the other hand you have those that value convenience.

carrot 13y ago

Wow, I didn't know that. I got the same e-mail and went all the way through with this exact same processor for one of my "pages". When I think about it, I don't really care as much about that G+ page as the other related social networking profiles, but this would still affect me if it were enforced at some point in the future. Well, I made the change, unlike you. Score one for actually reading the TOS.

benmarks 13y ago

Wait, you read the T&C's?

kolev 13y ago

Google's decision is stupid: they make one person happy and a gazillion others with the same name - pissed off. I'm not sure if any business wants to be in this position. I'm boycotting it as I have the proper username with Twitte, Facebook, LinkedIn - you name it. Why would I want to be something that doesn't represent me on Google+? Sorry, but we have choices and only a small portion of my friends use Google+ anyway. Poor choice, Google - if you started in the beginning, it would have been a good choice, but it's a bit too late for such nonsense. I still have not been offered a vanity name anyway and a bunch of people with a couple of friends were. You either do at for all at once or you don't at all. People take it as fair if somebody was first to register it. People think it's unfair when Google decides.

archagon 13y ago

At this point, I'm not even sure how my identity is split up on Google's servers between my original Google account, my Google Plus account, and my legacy YouTube account. Sometimes I feel like I'm logged into three different things at once. And now I can't even use my original username as my Google Plus URL? Does that mean that my legacy YouTube account is no longer active? Or has it been merged with my Google Plus profile without my consent, despite consistently clicking on "no thanks" every time the window popped up? This sort of quagmire causes me to unconsciously stop using the services causing it. Already, I've found myself much less interested in liking and favoriting YouTube videos.

sugarenia 13y ago
Exactly my thoughts. The experience is very jarring, plus the whole "use your real name in YouTube" thing that Google has got going on is annoying at best.

INIT_6 13y ago

Gplus.<mydomain>.com I fixed this problem a while ago.

gesman 13y ago
Make it: me.<yourdomain>.com (In case big G will decide to abandon G+) :)

yuletide666 13y ago

Wait, people still use Google+?

noarchy 13y ago
When did they start? I follow some tech sources there, mostly related to Android (and therefore, tied into Google's ecosystem anyway), but that's about it.

slowdown 13y ago

One more important thing about these custom URLs: 1) Your Google+ profile is publicly indexable by searh engines. 2) Having a custom URL means anyone searching for your name on Google is going to find out your Google+ profile easily. Basically, your identity is now even more easier to discover. (When contrasted to the ordinary Google+ URL of random numbers) 3) If you are using the same profile picture on Google+ as your Facebook, people can track your Facebook profile, too. This is bad if you have a fairly active social life, but wanting a bit of a privacy.

Guillaumeish 13y ago

What about a workaround? I'm /guillaumeish pretty much everywhere, and using my "real name" it's against my religion. I can't do it. I got no time to test it atm (and I don't remember the G+ policies on name changes) but couldn't you just change your name to "Vry Pan", refresh and claim the VryPan handle... than change your name back to whatever it was before? They have a time restriction like facebook?

GalacticDomin8r 13y ago

Why I won't read articles that begin with "Why I"

saurik 13y ago

They authorized "JayFreemansaurik" and "JaysaurikFreeman" (both of which are highly confusing to even parse) for me, and the form won't even let me try to request "saurik" so I also gave up and am just a number. FWIW, I was totally OK in a world without usernames. The problem with usernames is that people figure out how to take them from you, and they get burned forever. What happens when we all die? I respected the numbers. When they added the username mechanism that seemed to be selling out on that wonderful principal. The result also is clearly suboptimal: cocacola has a username, but pepsi is just a number (as their trademark is too short).

kuahyeow 13y ago

Got the +Custom Url in the end, despite the unchangeability. Does this matter much, if one has their own domain name, anyway ? Btw, the long form url still works

leepowers 13y ago

> A URL is an identifier. I'll use it to identify myself on this service. I'll link to it from my website. I may print it on a business card. Like Google said in their email, I'll use it to "point folks to my profile". But they can take it away for any reason or decide to charge me a (yet unknown) amount of money in the future? No way. I'll stay with my current, unfriendly one, https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/ https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/ Uh, what makes you think that Google doesn't have the right to take away the numeric URL or charge money for the numeric URL? (Or simply change the URL structure/scheme for Google+ at any point in the future.) Whether you use a numeric URL or personalized URL is irrelevant: Any service/server you don't control can change at any time for any reason. You should always direct people to a domain you own and control, even if all that domain does is auto-redirect to your current Google/Facebook/Github/whatever profile.

ivanbrussik 13y ago

facebook - choose whatever username you want HN - choose whatever username you want twitter - choose whatever username you want reddit - choose whatever username you want tumblr - choose whatever username you want Google+ - we choose it for you, you can't change it, we might charge you for it, and we might also take it away at some point also - why does G+ need to insert the /u/0 after the domain name? twitter, facebook and the rest you can simply type domain.com/username but G+ just needs to make it so much less user friendly.

cloudwalking 13y ago
Seriously, did you read any of the other comments on this thread? Facebook: "If you select a username or similar identifier for your account or Page, we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe it is appropriate" Twitter: "We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, to suspend or terminate users, and to reclaim usernames without liability to you." Reddit: "Service Provider or third parties may charge you fees for products or services offered for sale through the Website, and/or for access to portions of the Website or the Website as a whole" AND "Provider may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, suspend or terminate the access of and take other action against users, subscribers, registrants and account holders" Tumblr: "Tumblr reserves the right to refuse registration of, cancel, or modify a Tumblr URL in its sole discretion." And finally, you don't need any "/u/0" after the domain name. See: https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds
- ivanbrussik 13y ago
  these are all terms of service considerations. you can still choose a username upon signup for almost any social media account except G+. g+ is the only service that assigns a username to you. i did not know that about /u/0, thanks!
raldi 13y ago
The /u/0 just means you're using multilogin. For example, if you log in as foo@gmail.com, and then log in as bar@gmail.com via multilogin, gmail.com/u/0/inbox/whatever will take you to foo's email, and gmail.com/u/1/inbox/whatever will take you to bar's. You can thus have adjacent tabs accessing both accounts simultaneously. Also, /u/0 is the default; you can remove it from the URL and it'll continue working just fine.

shurcooL 13y ago

I tried to get a Google+ custom URL and couldn't. They require a phone number to send you a confirmation SMS. I no longer have this protocol (due to an abundance of more technically advanced, and free to use alternatives).

gcb1 13y ago

im pretty sure those 3 points are true of any service, anywhere.

pkrumins 13y ago

You all already have a nice looking google+ url, you just don't know about it. It's: http://profiles.google.com/first_part_of_your_gmail_email For example, my email is peteris.krumins@gmail.com, and my google+ url is: http://profiles.google.com/peteris.krumins .

gohrt 13y ago
Does everyone have that, or only people who created Google Profiles before Plus replaced them?

a3_nm 13y ago

At least the TOS are honest and transparent. Even if Google did not warn specifically that they can kick people out or start asking for money, they would of course be free to do so. So, is it worse if Google reminds you that you have no guarantees whatsoever? ...

lyricalpolymath 13y ago

We hacked this nonsense by creating a simple redirect on our website: http://eyevel.com/G+ http://eyevel.com/G+ ;) You can too! It's a simple htaccess line or a router on your app put this into the .htaccess of your host and change where appropriate (yourdomain, extension and G+ long userID) RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^yourDomain\.com$ [OR] RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\.yourDomain\.com$ RewriteRule ^B\@G\+$ "https\:\/\/plus\.google\.com\/103815970554408703928\/posts" [R=301,L]

espadrine 13y ago

I remember having been similarly surprised by the TOS. However, the only annoyance and consequence of it, to me, is that I cannot share the link anymore than I used to. So I switched, and I'll switch back if they ask me to pay. I am much more worried about them discontinuing Gmail. Since Reader, I have no idea what they are ready to kill.

goldenkey 13y ago

An example of such shenanigans is WeWorkRemotely.com. It was posted to HN recently, and was totally free. Less than a week later and they want $200 for a listing. Egregious behavior, especially for something put on by 37 signals.

cuillevel3 13y ago

The argument makes no sense. URLs are not meant to point to the same resource forever. They are not 'permanent'. And Google won't just start billing his credit card without consent...

atmosx 13y ago

Doesn't ALL free services have he same sort of clause? I'm missing what's new compared to using... put here any the non-paid service online? EDIT: Here are Gmail Terms of Service[1]: --- Modifying and Terminating our Services We are constantly changing and improving our Services. We may add or remove functionalities or features, and we may suspend or stop a Service altogether. --- What happens if they suddenly suspend their service? NOTHING! :-) we all hope and have many reasons to believe that they wont do that, anytime soon. [1]: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/

mxuribe 13y ago

I firmly believe that using uncontrolled urls - such as facebook, g+, etc. - on business cards, print material, or even as your established "online home" is unwise. I think its better to maintain/publish urls originating from a domain name that YOU control...And then create links (with underlying associated metadata "rel=me" style links) or setup redirects...Such as: YourDomain.com/gplus or YourDomain.com/linkedin...etc... This leaves YOU in control. Can be done on the really cheap. And if google, fbook, linkedin, or any of these services changes things around such as urls, or UI, or ToC, or anything YOU don't agree with, then you kill the redirection/links. Quick, easy and from one central point. Granted their sites will have a little more SEO juice up front...And, maybe I'm being idealistic, but eventually all search engines will begin to see that YOUR domain is the authoritative point on the web for YOU...and that the start point is YOUR domain not the myriad of social networks.

sigkill 13y ago
I agree with this. Something like <first><lastname>.<tld>/social or /card and have that page list all your fb, g+, linkedin twitter links. Bonus, you get a permanent email address that NO ONE can take away from you, for life.

lemcoe9 13y ago

I will soon make a post: "Why I don't care that you won't change your Google+ Custom URL."