15 ms·

Google+ now lets you use any name you want

407 points by srathi 12y ago

pacomerh 12y ago
I still like G+ but this comes a little too late
eco 12y ago
I kind of wish Google would have let you pick which display name to use on a per-circle basis. Then I could use a pseudonym with strangers, a nickname with friends, and my real name with family.
- rhizome 12y ago
  They would have to hire the best of the best in order to implement something like that.
- dm2 12y ago
  It's generally best to leave features out, then only add them when it's determined to be necessary. If they had that from the start and later decided to remove it, people would go insane.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  I always feel like these services are designed wrong. You want to be able to have multiple identities for different people, but having one organization that can associate them all with one another defeats a lot of the purpose of that. Especially if you're using it for anything that could get you into real trouble if e.g. someone were to break into that service and obtain or publicly disclose all the associations, like democracy activists in oppressive countries. You can always create completely separate accounts and then use them over Tor one at a time blah blah blah, but that's a huge usability failure. What you really want is a UI that allows you to sign in to multiple accounts without the server knowing they're all the same person (which means native software, probably with something like Tor automatically using separate circuits for each account), and then allows you to seamlessly receive messages for any of them and clearly delineates which account you're sending from when you post something.
  - aiiane 12y ago
    Chrome Profiles is almost that, except without the built-in Tor.
  - rm445 12y ago
    For most of us, most of the time, having the central site aware of all our pseudonyms wouldn't be a problem. Even if they divulged your identity upon lawful (court order) request. Even if they consistently targeted advertising at you, through some kind of layer that let advertisers aim at demographics without revealing ID. Most of the time, it would be enough to have some sort of unified Google login (in a Google iframe or whatever), offered as a service to different sites on the Web, and different pseudonyms available that __don't reveal your 'true' ID or other pseudonyms to the site owner__. I'm a little surprised that Google haven't offered some kind of 'Google Identity' service to the web at large based on this sort of idea. It wouldn't be good enough for activists in oppressive regimes, but it would offer a convenience to general people who like to keep separate identities on different sites.
    - JadeNB 12y ago
      > I'm a little surprised that Google haven't offered some kind of 'Google Identity' service to the web at large based on this sort of idea. The problem, I think, is that, given the current "don't be evil, just creepily self-serving!" attitude that seems to guide Google, no one would trust them. Even if one could trust them to keep one's identity private at launch, I am sure that anything like this would come loaded with the kind of "T&C may change without notice at any time" codicil that would allow them to permit themselves to disclose your identity later.
      - aiiane 12y ago
        The popularity of "Sign In with Facebook" seems to belie that.
        JadeNB 12y ago
        I think that I disagree (that this is a counterexample); it shows that people want a 'one-stop' identity solution, but not that they trust Facebook to keep their identity private.
- aiiane 12y ago
  This becomes exceedingly complex (and unintuitive enough that it's likely to cause more problems than it solves) which you consider overlapping circle membership.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    Agreed, and heaven forbid you screw up making a change. Now everyone on your Fetish circles list sees your real name accidentally or your family and coworkers see you as BondageBoy69.
  - ejain 12y ago
    It would be easy to have your "cover" blown, e.g. by a friend (who sees your real name) innocently mentioning your real name in the reply to one of your posts that's visible to a larger circle...
- modeless 12y ago
  Much better would be if I could pick names to display for other people. That way when my friend chooses a silly nonsense pseudonym I can replace it with the name I want to see.
  - hobs 12y ago
    This is a feature steam added that I really liked. 1. You have a canonical URL that identifies the user. 2. The user can have any name they want, and the name will only change if you are in a chat room, adding a (2) if they are a duplicate name. 3. Finally, you can add tags and a nickname (separately) so you can always see whatever name YOU assign to the person and the person in question can represent themselves anyway they want. Steam is one of the few social networks I participate in because I truly believe it adds some value to the basic digital distribution model. Say what you will about the ability to resell games or DRM or what have you, it is a compelling product.
- notatoad 12y ago
  that is almost exactly how Google+ has worked for some time now. Your actual identity (real name required) was your main profile, and you can set up as many pages as you like with whatever pseudonyms you want. A page functions as a Google+ identity that can follow other people or pages and can be added to other peoples' or pages' circles, so each pseudonym has a totally distinct set of circles. It's actually a pretty clever system, but the UI and language makes it somewhat unclear what do do with it all.
  - pawelk 12y ago
    Yeah, it's a UX problem. The feature is right there, but had they renamed "Pages" to "Identities" it would possibly get some traction.
  - e12e 12y ago
    > the UI and language makes it somewhat unclear what do do with it all. That's quite an understatement. The other aspect, is the lack of transparency Google has when making policy and product changes. Like suddenly trying to change app reviews and youtube comments from a pseudonymous to a real-name activity. Without any confidence in their service and policy stewardship, it's hard to trust them not to change this stuff randomly too.
moomin 12y ago
Great, now I can use my secret identity there. Admittedly, pretty much anything is effectively secret when I use G+.
dcc1 12y ago
Wow the whole post reads as if they planned it all along. When it reality it seems like this is a last ditch attempt to save the wreck that google+ has become.
pkorzeniewski 12y ago
Funny how they make it sound like it was all planned, rather than "This was stupid idea that made many, who wanted to stay anonymous, avoid using G+". I remember when G+ launched and almost everyone was criticizing this idea - maybe they should listen to the majority of potential users and G+ wouldn't be such ghost-town?
- bduerst 12y ago
  If I were to speculate, it has probably been in the works for months now. G+ changed leadership back in April, and the winds probably changed direction with it. [1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/googles-top-social-networking-executive-departs http://bigstory.ap.org/article/googles-top-social-networking...
  - aiiane 12y ago
    Longer. Edited to add: Yonatan also mentions in a comment on the official post that "Vic was 100% involved in the process and approved the whole thing months ago." I can vouch that this is the truth.
  - psbp 12y ago
    Yonatan Zunger claims that Vic Gundotra approved the change.
    - aestetix 12y ago
      I won't believe that unless Vic can prove it. edit: I'm being downvoted, but remember that Vic is the one who pushed the names policy in the first place.
      - aiiane 12y ago
        It's still possible to change your mind. Also, some things to consider: (a) Yonatan is the tech lead for G+. This is something he would be an authority on. (b) I also work for Google, have no particular reason to be loyal to Vic [I've opposed the names policy from the start], and I'm also willing to vouch that Vic approved it. So if you still don't think that's enough to believe it, well, that's your prerogative, but I doubt anything is going to convince you in that case.
badloginagain 12y ago
Thank you, no. My account is going to remain deactivated.
mladenkovacevic 12y ago
I wonder if this was done to appease the existing YouTube users that refused connect the account to a Google+ account with their real name. Anybody who was already on Google+ didn't mind the real-name policy, but they certainly weren't going to tell millions of YouTube people "Sorry we don't have a place for you anymore." I am still skeptical that many YouTube members will create Google+ profiles as a result of this.
- danielweber 12y ago
  They finally forced my G+ identity to be primary on my YouTube account a few weeks ago, despite me trying for years for it not to happen.
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    You can undo that.
    - bagels 12y ago
      How?
      - bronson 12y ago
        And why? Why should he (she?) undo something done by G+?
      - InclinedPlane 12y ago
        https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657858?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657858?hl=en
        c23gooey 12y ago
        That link says it will only work for accounts connected within the last fourteen days. I find this whole thing really off putting. First they force my youtube account over to Google+. The a few months down the track say - 'whoops, sorry about that - but you cant have your old account back'
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Aldo_MX 12y ago
My favorite part, is when they tried to sell us the idea that the real name enforcement was the best improvement that could happen to youtube. I would had preferred a sincere apology for screwing things up, was it really hard to admit failure??? Even Microsoft has apologized for previous failues like Windows 8 and Internet Explorer!!! But anyway... with this announcement Google+, and in general, any Google-owned public website like Youtube has lost any credibility to me.
- MartinCron 12y ago
  I once even got a product manager apologize for the woefully substandard test automation tools built into Visual Studio. Perhaps my finest hour.
  - bignaj 12y ago
    The people who work at Microsoft are just regular humans, too, you know. Why does it make you so gleeful to hear this?
    - Aldo_MX 12y ago
      Because, unlike the other 99.99% of tech companies, they acknowledge publicly the frustration they have caused with the issues of their product. The least I want is a company that claims everything they do is perfect, and pretends nothing is wrong.
- danielweber 12y ago
  I need to apologize to people who said that G+ was shoved at us. I successfully avoided any forced association of my G+ account with my YT account for a long time, and I said it wasn't being forced on us. Until somehow somewhere something happened and they became linked, and I'm afraid to mess with it any more lest I find them even more merged into leviathan.
thristian 12y ago
Great, now my online friends can find me by the name they know me by, rather than my real-world name. Or they could, if I hadn't deleted my G+ profile a year or two ago, in favour of just hanging out with them in the original venues I met them in.
x1798DE 12y ago
Finally. I know it's a bit childish, but for my pseudonymous Google account, I kept getting these notices that they were going to disable my Google+ account unless I gave them my real name, unless I could show them documentation proving that the pseudonym was my legal name, so I just found some pictures of middle fingers and that sort of thing and photoshopped them onto a photo of a license and submitted that. They give you a few chances to submit something, so I had a little fun picking out new insulting pictures for a while, until I got bored of it (which was almost instantly). Obviously it wasn't going to have any effect other than to virtually flip off some random person being paid to check IDs, but it was at least cathartic in the face of such a stupid, stupid policy.
- dogecoinbase 12y ago
  I've always liked just making an image with some leaked-but-still-technically-classified information, on the (admittedly very unlikely) off chance that someone with clearance might see it and have to get themselves debriefed.
  - jsmthrowaway 12y ago
    You should know that's a federal crime, if you're talking about leaked U.S. classified material. Simply because you see the Washington Post printing Snowden's leaks doesn't mean handling and distributing classified information isn't a crime. It is still classified and carries full force even though it has been printed; no "cat out of the bag" defense applies. Very importantly, I'm not stating an opinion on this legal situation, just pointing it out.
    - mox1 12y ago
      100% Incorrect. If the OP has a security clearance, then maybe... At most he is probably in violation of the NDA he signed, not any criminal laws. To actually violate the criminal statues around Leaking classified material you have to CAUSE ACTUAL HARM to the US government. The original leaker obviously causes harm, but the guy submitting a public document to Google for fun....that's going to be hard for a judge to believe. It's remotely feasible that a person without a security clearance could be convicted of a crime for re publishing classified documents, but it would have to be some very odd situation.
kyro 12y ago
Thanks for leading the way here, Google.
- tdicola 12y ago
  If leading the way is making a bad decision that has a huge public backlash, sticking with it for 3 years while the service languishes, and then reversing it in a last ditch effort to save face... I really hope no one else follows.
  - Sarkie 12y ago
    Woosh, that's the sound of sarcasm flying past you.
zyxley 12y ago
And yet it still expects you to put in a first name and a last name. How very Anglocentric.
- aiiane 12y ago
  That's a whole other can of worms. :) At least mononyms are supported (by entering a '.' in the last name field).
- vacri 12y ago
  It's not just the Angles that do that. Eurocentric, maybe.
- snogglethorpe 12y ago
  Presumably the terms used are locale-dependent (G+ is pretty well localized)... [and as noted in other comments, it allows mononyms as well, for everybody]
f055 12y ago
So they got to a meeting and said: "Listen guys, if allowing nick names won't jumpstart Google+ then I don't know what will. It's either this or we'll close the damn thing." 18 months from now, we'll read about the all-along-planned integration of G+ into Gmail, Drive or YouTube :P
- frandroid 12y ago
  You mean un-integration?
  - fleitz 12y ago
    Were you looking for disintegration?
    - f055 12y ago
      Disintegration! into pieces spread around gmail, drive and YT. That's probably what'll happen :)
    - aiiane 12y ago
      EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE.
- Throwaway823 12y ago
  Definitely a mistake, they took a service that wasn't working (G+), integrated, and forced it on users for services that did work. I'm curious to see what happens, because it can't just be rolled back, and I think it's removing more value than it's creating.
- Shooti 12y ago
  I think it's the reverse: the main purpose of G+ was to integrate all the services together, being a Facebook competitor was just the icing. The integration wasn't a means, it was the end itself. They haven't really lost since they still got what they needed out of it in the end: the majority of accounts have a unified profile across services, even though G+ the site is unused.
debt 12y ago
Ha, what a disaster G+ has to be for Google. They must kind of be looking at it like "ew what do we do with this thing now?" They should've taken a more holistic and serious approach to bringing your offline identity online. Instead they tried to copy FB. They should've just called it Google Identity(with the same level of seriousness as Youtube's copyright protection product: Content ID) and provided real-life perks with associating say your Driver's license number with it which maybe would allow me to renew my driver's license much more quickly. I don't know. G+ is just weak. I mean at the end of the day, they DO have your identity. I'm sure their algorithms could within a certainly small margin of error determine who I am to a reasonably high degree of probability based on nothing other than lines in a bunch of log files(DoubleClick Ad requests on various sites, YouTube video watch times, Google Searches based on time of day/location, mobile usage, etc); again, regardless of where or when or how I use Google(i.e. using igonito browsers, using a friend's phone, using a computer an internet cafe, etc.). So why not throw all that information under one umbrella, Google Identity, and provide it to me once I claim it. They're likely able to treat online "behavior" as essentially unique online fingerprints and can just associate that with individual users; that is, they don't really need uniquely identifying data(unique IDs, usernames, etc.), they just need to watch your online activity(regardless of if you're logged in or have identifying cookies, etc.) for a while in order to identify you. I assume it's because consumers probably aren't ready to know just how much data Google actually has on them AND how much information can be extracted from said data. It's likely pretty accurate and pretty scary.
- Aldo_MX 12y ago
  To be honest, one differentiator that would me use Google+ over Facebook is a -1 button. I love to dislike things, especially if disliking them would affect their Google ranking (I'm looking at you Quora and your dark patterns!). Not only I would love the -1 button, but also negative endorsement, and pretty much any Google+ feature, but with a negative twist. That would really encourage me to use Google+, or should I say Google-.
  - mmanfrin 12y ago
    A -1 button affecting search rank would be used almost entirely by dark-hat SEO firms.
aestetix 12y ago
Happy #nymwars anniversary, Google! Finally.
darklajid 12y ago
Bwahaha.. Okay, now which number do I call to get my account (moved _from_ my full name to 'Ben .' in protest during the nymwars) unblocked? I mean.. I'm not even sure I'd care at this point but are they even thinking of all the blocked users? Or do I need to send in my government issued ID to get my profile unblocked so that I can .. move away from my real name..?? Actually I just visited plus.google.com and surprisingly enough I wasn't greeted by the loop of death (previously I had a page that said that I'm blocked, with a link saying "You can check here why", which redirected to the very same page). Now I can "upgrade" and enroll. It seems. I .. need to provide a first name and a last name though.. How does that compute? Why can't I be "Ben" or "Randomthingyhere"? Real names aren't required, but first and last names are? Can't. Stop. Laughing.
- aiiane 12y ago
  You can be "Ben". https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271 https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271 Enter a '.' as the last name to use a mononym.
  - darklajid 12y ago
    Please. I laughed so hard it hurt just now. First of all, thanks a lot. So that'd be the way to sign up as "Ben". Now please revisit my original post. Did you notice what my name was, before the profile got blocked? I'll post it again. It was "Ben .". Now this hotel bar has to help me forget this link of yours as soon as possible or I'll shake my head until it falls off..
  - Leynos 12y ago
    If you enter a '.' as your surname, will G+ omit this when displaying your name?
    - aiiane 12y ago
      Yes. It will be rendered in G+ as a mononym.
      - 12y ago
bane 12y ago
Whatever.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Google is in an ugly place right now. Not only are they beholden to the advertising agency they are now the poster boy for all the NSA spying and other controversies because of their massive information footprint, real name policies, constant nagging for phone numbers in gmail, etc. Apple and others have positioned itself as privacy friendly as well, which is a double whammy. I'd love to see G+ be the seedy version of Facebook. Fake names, nudity, etc. You can't beat facebook by being facebook. Hopefully, "real names everywhere" is a fad that is dying. The search engines and employers of the world don't need to know my every political thought or see my every vacation photo. Zuckerberg's idea of the internet exists only because its profitable for him. In every other respect its insane.
- frandroid 12y ago
  tumblr's got you covered for the seedy part...
  - xavierxf 12y ago
    You know what? Why don't you check your privilege? http://mcdlr.com/check-your-privilege/ http://mcdlr.com/check-your-privilege/
    - frandroid 12y ago
      You'll have to be more clear than that. There's tons of porn on Tumblr. What are you disputing?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      I've never found anybody who both likes laughing at this kind of stuff and is actually worth listening to.
      - eropple 12y ago
barking 12y ago
I have an anonymous identity on YouTube as well as a readily identifiable one on gmail and it's been ticking me off no end the way, it seems that, google is always trying to trick me into replacing the former with the latter on youtube. Will this end now too?
- Shooti 12y ago
  The design tweak they did 2-3 weeks ago to the Account switcher on Youtube makes it readily apparent which Google account/gmail address the channel belongs to.
- hereonbusiness 12y ago
  I haven't seen the "change your name" nag-dialog for some time. What bugs me the most is that I still can't comment on videos with the Youtube account event though google converted it to a Google+ account a long time ago, it's still useless.
zmmmmm 12y ago
So this seems like a first concrete sign of a change in direction since Vic's moving on. After arguing passionately against their real name policy for so long it feels strange now that they have actually done it. On the one hand it's a hopeful sign, but on the other hand it reminds me of companies that open source their products only after they decided it failed. Is this a sign Google is positively steering G+ in a new direction or have they just given up and decided now they don't care any more they should just off load the bad PR of the real name policy? At least now I might start reviewing and rating Android apps again now that my real name isn't going to be publicly displayed to the developer.
- aiiane 12y ago
  FWIW, this policy change was in the works long before Vic left (and Vic was the one who initially approved it). G+ hasn't been given up on.
  - zmmmmm 12y ago
    Interesting info, thanks! And good to know. I like G+ and I don't want Google to give up on it.
kevinalexbrown 12y ago
I suspect the outrage had more to do with signalling than the specific issue of pseudonyms. I also suspect that signalling will become more important for web companies than most hardware companies, because I am more directly affected by what happens behind the scenes with web companies than say, a skateboard manufacturer. It's difficult to infer behind the scenes - what are they doing w/ my data, etc - without using some signals, like not allowing pseudonyms. I imagine that startups face this most dramatically, because their product is so fragile and indefinite that signalling is used to forecast where things are headed before I invest significant time and money. This goes for all kinds of signalling - how likely are they to end the product, to lose funding and shut down, to dramatically increase prices, etc. Is this true, or did most outraged (or just indifferent, but not excited) users really dislike the pseudonym policy itself?
- aiiane 12y ago
  A significant portion of disgruntled users disliked the pseudonym policy itself, either due to its direct effect on them, or its indirect effect on them due to its effect on one or more of their friends.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  I disliked the pseudonym policy itself, I found it to be a puzzling policy considering how immigrant-filled the tech industry is, and Google too. I was born in a different country, with a different name. I operate with an anglicized name, which took years to become my legal name. There was a long period where the name everyone knew me as wasn't my legal one. Nowadays my legal name isn't the same name used by family members on a different continent. Names are fluid, they're significant but ultimately just identifiers to tell us apart. I find the notion that there is a One True Name to be laughably geocentric and completely out of place in a social network (as opposed to say, the IRS). For me the pseudonym policy was a minor annoyance, making me wonder just how culturally homogenous a team of product people have to be to cook it up. For others it has been much more damaging - trans people outed being probably the most memorable one, though not the only case where an idiotic policy has had unexpectedly severe consequences.
  - 12y ago
jack-r-abbit 12y ago
I had no problem with the "G+ uses real names" thing since I just viewed it as another option for Facebook that never really took off. I did have an issue with them forcing everything to use a G+ profile. I quit leaving reviews in the Play Store because of that. And not that I ever really commented on YouTube videos but once that change was forced, it never even crossed my mind to comment. I think they should have kept G+ as "real names" and split all the other stuff back away so they didn't require real names. But I do understand why people want to use other names. I just never used G+ like that.
- bane 12y ago
  I stopped engaging with Google properties when they changes the youtube comment system and broke it in Chrome. There's some setting about external sites or something that I could go in and change to make it work, but why should I? If they can't create a comment system that works with their own browser, and double posts everything to my g+ account I don't use, why should I bother? It was like shoving peanuts down the throat of a person with a peanut allergy. No means no.
pessimizer 12y ago
>We know that our names policy has been unclear, and this has led to some unnecessarily difficult experiences for some of our users. Was their names policy ever unclear, or are they pretending that this was all just a misunderstanding?
- saraid216 12y ago
  Yes, it was unclear. The appeals process was always pretty opaque, and it was never clear what qualified as an approvable name.
  - bronson 12y ago
    What is unclear about "REAL NAME"? Google wanted whatever is printed on your driver's license or birth certificate. Anything else was not OK. (which was such an obviously idiotic policy that I hope to hear a candid explanation one day.)
    - saraid216 12y ago
      Ignoring the ethical question of whether or not Google deserved to receive your legal name, and the ethical question of whether or not it should have forced said legal name onto you as a real name, The policy was more than just "put in your real name lol". It was also about banning accounts that didn't have a real name, even where those names were legal. It was about an appeals process when you wanted to show that your name was legitimate even when the algorithm disagreed. And these things were not clear. Don't get me wrong; I've regularly defended G+ and I've used the service since being an early adopter and I find the claims that it's a "wreck" or a "ghost town" to be completely bunk. But the names policy was not clear. This isn't an ethical or philosophical question. This is just flat-out clarity. And it wasn't.
      - bronson 12y ago
        I don't quite understand. > It was about an appeals process when you wanted to show that your name was legitimate even when the algorithm disagreed. If you show your driver's license to Google, and they still don't accept it, then they are behaving irrationally. But their policy is clear as day. > It was about an appeals process when you wanted to show that your name was legitimate even when the algorithm disagreed. Again, it sounds like their algorithm was buggy and wrong. But it doesn't affect their presentation of their own policy.
trhway 12y ago
what is the fuss about? My version of "Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" (translation: "John J Johnson") was ok on Facebook, Google+, etc... yesterday, ok today and will be ok tomorrow :) I have never used my real name on Internet except for the LinkedIn (where obviously i have nothing that can be construed as an opinion of any sort :) and cases where i had to enter my CC/bank info. Ability to maintain several identities is the gift of the Internet, an additional virtual dimension added to our lives. Why wouldn't we explore it? Why voluntarily confine ourselves to the plain boring and sterile world of "real name policy" places like FB?
- SixSigma 12y ago
  Facebook is asking for official ID for new accounts in some places. I have had to change my Facebook name also. "We see you're not using your real name". I just changed it to a real sounding name that is also not my real name.
saraid216 12y ago
Wow. That's a lot of comments being unhappy about the change.
- eitland 12y ago
  That surprised me as well. Of course we are HN but I really didn't think anybody except Google wanted this.
- fl0wenol 12y ago
  Yeah, and I find it funny how many people equated to the policy change being a harbinger of an onslaught of trolling. Meanwhile I have at least three Google profiles, all with obvious (to me) fake names that I've used for a long time, since G+ ever asked me to merge my Google Mail with them. I think they're latching onto the wrong aspect of social networks, identity, and such in their complaints. The real issues are that there's no signifier for "verified" individuals (like on Amazon, maybe by way of Google Wallet?) and no way to limit +1s or comments to such users. I think that's the only way to really impose the feeling of non-anonymity on a user's comment or whatnot. Also, some of the complainers are just idiots who don't understand how to use circles to restrict interactions or comments on their content... which sucks because I actually dig Google's model there.
yuhong 12y ago
I wrote this submission, notice I emphasized the irony: http://slashdot.org/submission/1778830/google-is-gagging-user-advocates http://slashdot.org/submission/1778830/google-is-gagging-use... And for the record, I don't like real name policies but I also don't like it when people have to use throwaways or pseudonyms either. For example, I still remember this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766
higherpurpose 12y ago
What does this really change? I mean seriously. Google is the company that lets you "turn off web history", and then goes ahead and tracks it anyway. Do you have Do Not Track enabled in Chrome? Tough luck. It's just for show there, because Google doesn't respect it. So how am I to believe that using a different name and e-mail address on Google+, Google won't know I'm the same person, because of all of their tracking from Chrome, Youtube, search, and so on? And if they do that, then how is this any different than using an "alias" right now on Google+? This seems more like a PR move from Google.
- josteink 12y ago
  If you're worried Google is tracking you through chrome, you might consider switching to a more privacy centric browser you can trust, like Firefox.
iandanforth 12y ago
I almost never read posts on G+. Looking at this one reminds me why. Only 16 (16!) percent of the available area is devoted to the post content. On larger screens it would be worse. What a nightmare.
- aiiane 12y ago
  Heh, I use a custom Stylish rule for it to widen posts. https://userstyles.org/styles/87624/wider-posts-on-google-plus https://userstyles.org/styles/87624/wider-posts-on-google-pl...
- vlad003 12y ago
  I find it much easier to read when the text is in columns of that width (like newspaper) than when it's full width. According to Wikipedia, it's actually recommended to put your content in columns of about 60 characters[1]. And it's not that narrow; facebook's newsfeed is about the same width as that post on my 23" monitor. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_%28typography%29#Typographic_style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_%28typography%29#Typogra...
theophrastus 12y ago
ah the final act before G+ is shut down in favor of G++
incision 12y ago
Now the handful of people who've been waiting on such a change to start using G+ can see be immediately disappointed with how half-assed it is. I say this as someone with what seems to be an above average engagement with and opinion of G+. Circles and communities are solid concepts that could work well, but the busted functionality for posting and commenting severely limits content and conversation. Nobody, not even Google puts effort into G+ profiles. It's just another target for dumping links and hopefully driving some clicks back to your actual site/community.
kevinwang 12y ago
Man, this is way too late. Definitely feel bad for Google about Google+.
- c23gooey 12y ago
  yes - it must be a harrowing time for sergey and brin
weitzj 12y ago
Maye they finally reached a critical mass in their social graph of real people that it might be possible to match the anonymous, active people.
edoloughlin 12y ago
"For this we apologize" There's a lot of sniping at Google here, but I think they deserve some kudos for using the A word in corporate communications.
- aiiane 12y ago
  I'm happy at least someone noticed that. It's not an easy sell to any communications person anywhere in the industry. :)
- chetanahuja 12y ago
  I was at google while the nymwars were going on. The debate was just as heated and polarizing inside google as it was externally. I'm also surprised (pleasantly) to see someone use the A word here. I think this is an attempt to start over after exit and/or political defeat of certain high level execs. But I also think it may be too late. G+ has missed the bus to be anything more than the butt of jokes and hilarious memes (A google employee ate a donut, here's a picture etc..). Certainly a lesson in there somewhere about hubris and corrupting influence of power etc.
  - aiiane 12y ago
    Vic did, in fact, approve this change well before he left. (It wasn't just an overnight switch flip, hence why it took a while to actually go live - policy documents have to be rewritten and approved, ux flows have to be modified, etc.)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - chetanahuja 12y ago
      Maybe. You seem to have heard it directly from Vic. I think the more plausible scenario is the CEO finally having had enough and pulling the plug on both the name policy as well as Vic's tenure at google. How this sequence of events is then presented to the rest of the public (including rest of Google) would then be a matter of following a corporate playbook written by experts in that domain.
mindcrime 12y ago
I wanted to like Google+. Hell, I still want to like Google+. And it's still better than Facebook in some ways, IMO. But there are just a couple of nagging issues that are such big turn-offs that I can't stand visiting G+. For one, the two-column stream layout is a steaming pile of shit with no rhyme or reason to the layout and selection of items you see. And the single-column layout wastes so much space with those huge empty spaces on either side of the stream, that it just about drives me batshit crazy. Add in the fact that they have shown zero interest in giving the world a usable API, and no support for open standards (no RSS/Atom, no OpenSocial, no ActivityStrea.ms, no FOAF, etc.) and G+ - for me - falls so far short of its potential. It makes me sad, as I was really hoping Google would come along and give us a truly awesome alternative to Facebook and they fumbled the ball.
- aiiane 12y ago
  For the single-column layout, https://userstyles.org/styles/87624 https://userstyles.org/styles/87624 can help. (Though I get it - it's not a built-in thing, which reduces the value.)
bhartzer 12y ago
I don't know about you, but I have no problem using my real name. Anywhere.
- teddyh 12y ago
  Good for you. This isn’t about you, then. The people who it is about are listed here: 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...
  - Kiro 12y ago
    Not only those. I don't want to use my real name ever and I'm definitely not on that list. I just want to be anonymous and be able to write whatever I want without it harming my real persona.
    - Shish2k 12y ago
      On the flip side, I don't want to be anonymous, I want my achievements tied to my real persona --- but my real persona is "Shish" (with no surname), and G+ didn't allow that... (And apparently it still doesn't -- despite the policy change, "surname" is still a required field)
bhartzer 12y ago
Just as the NSTIC was defunded, Google changes it's real name policy.
egypturnash 12y ago
Too little, too late.
stonogo 12y ago
I'm not interested in using a web service that "lets" me do things I can already do without it.
hysan 12y ago
While a step in the right direction, Google's move to force real names AND the integration of G+ into their various services over the past few years has killed all of my goodwill towards anything Google. So, what I'm wondering is how does Google plan on rebuilding that lost goodwill? An apology is a nice gesture, but it doesn't make me trust the company. Nor does it fix any of the various screwed up UX issues due to the forced integration of G+ everywhere.
hashberry 12y ago
I refuse to become emotionally invested in G+ because Google is infamous for shutting down products that aren't used by the majority of its users. Reading all the negative comments from this post reaffirms my decision.
viraptor 12y ago
> but it also excluded a number of people who wanted to be part of it without using their real names. And people who didn't mind using their real names but were worried that Google won't think they're real enough and block their access to all services they used for years. They failed hard on that one, but now it's not even mentioned anymore. I'm slightly disappointed they just want to sweep that under the rug...
tn13 12y ago
Is there an opposite of "Streisand effect" ? If not then we might as well call it G+ effect. Google took some unreasonable steps to make G+ popular that is precisely why I stopped using G+. After G+ I have not commented on any of the YoutTube videos. When Google started uploading every photo on my android device to Google+ and downloaded all PicasaWeb albums on my phone I switched to a fake Google id to be used on my phone. I now use Flikr instead of Picasaweb (now G+). I now have around 6 fake Google Ids just to make sure Google+ does not put all my info in 1 place. I am waiting for the day Google will make G+ Compulsory for using Chrome.
- vidarh 12y ago
  You can turn off the image upload. In fact, I believe you're asked if you want to enable it in the first place.
  - tn13 12y ago
    I was very early adopter. It was by default enabled. Yeah, we can turn off features but it is hard to explain how to do it to my father.
lugg 12y ago
And once again they miss the point that so many of us never touched google plus over. The name thing was a big deal for many, but for far more was the banning itself. Getting banned on google plus for whatever google decides on a whim is against its terms of use that day (e.g. stupid name policy) will also nuke your gmail. Far too many people were dependent on a free service with zero guarantees back then, many still are - there is just no reason to risk losing your gmail over cat updates when facebook is completely separate.
- timothya 12y ago
  False. In the past, if your profile was suspended (for example, because of your name), it only affected your Google+ profile. Your Gmail still worked exactly the same. Some people spread rumours in the early days of Google+ that your Gmail would be shut down if your Google+ was suspended, but that was never the case.
  - lugg 12y ago
    I recall the suspension thing being the whole reason the name thing came to light, perhaps I am mistaken? Edit: Seems you are correct: > Horowitz also took time to dispel the rumor that a suspension of a Google+ account means that a user loses his or her access to Gmail, Google Docs or other Google services. "When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+ profile are not removed," he said. http://mashable.com/2011/07/25/google-plus-common-names/ http://mashable.com/2011/07/25/google-plus-common-names/
    - davidgerard 12y ago
      Except there were a shitload of reports of it happening anyway.
      - timothya 12y ago
        I believe that in the early days, one or two people had their whole account shut down and went around complaining that it was because of Google+'s name policy when really it was because of something completely unrelated (distributing illegal content from their account, I think). The rumours spread from their, making it seem like it was happening to a lot of people, when it really never happened at all.
a3n 12y ago
"When we launched Google+ over three years ago, we had a lot of restrictions on what name you could use on your profile. This helped create a community made up of real people, but it also excluded a number of people who wanted to be part of it without using their real names." I wanted to use my real name. My legal, backed by a name change order, mononymic name. After watching them fumble it, trying to use a space or a dot, and being told to gtfo or change it to a "real" name (and once again, fuck you very hard Google, even the TSA is able to deal with this), I left. And now I'm looking around for the giant hole in my life that can finally be filled by G+. ... looking ... looking ...
mrcharles 12y ago
This will be a great feature for 2011!
hendersoon 12y ago
I want to be able to change my Google+ name to a nickname, not showing my real name at all. And I want my gmail email to still come from my real name. As far as I can tell, there is no way to do that.
ianstallings 12y ago
I won't say that having my name keeps me from saying stupid things, but I do tone it down and work towards more positive posts because of it. Just like I try to do here (and often fail due to a huge, yet stupid, ego). I think everyone should have a choice but I encourage everyone to use their real name.
guest666 12y ago
Google still won't allow their users to use the url name as my nickname for example, my email is guest666@gmail.com, i want to use url plus.google.com/+guest666, but google won't allow me to do that, even when guest666 is available to be claim. They force me to use +(my name)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Vik1ng 12y ago
  What's even worse when you have business. We have a pretty long and unique name, yet they only offered companynamede or something like that.
- balladeer 12y ago
  That was the final blow to me. That day I removed G+ account from Google Apps mail. It is just stupid. 1. My name is "Firstname Lastname". 2. I've checked and for plus.google.com/+<URL>, both "FirstName" and "LastName" aren't used by anyone. Hell, even "FirstnameLastname" is not taken, or even the part of my first name which is my nickname let's call it "First" is free. 3. But Google wants me to have a stupid URL like plus.google.com/+FirstnameLastname<some stupid characters or numbers here>, just because some algorithm thinks "a lot of people might want that name". Well, then fuck you Google! IMHO they just want to shut-down G+ with little grace or sth.
bane 12y ago
I pretty much grew up on-line. I got into BBSs when 1200 baud was considered fast. The basics of having on-line identities really have changed all that much in all that time. To newer generations it's even more natural. When I see companies completely screw up basic stuff like this, I wonder if these decisions are being made by people who were never really part of the on-line world and fundamentally don't "get" it? The people at Google making these decisions aren't some 75 year old fuddy duddy luddites, they're about my age and they're running one of the most important properties in that world. Screwing up something as basic as this has just seemed so...weird. I can only imagine that the final say-so came from somebody/people who fundamentally didn't grow up with the same kind of comfort and experience I did on-line and really doesn't understand it. But then again, my parents, who never even used a computer until the 2000s, and never even got on-line until 2003 or 2004 get it. It seems to obvious as soon as you jump on-line that you are both empowered and need to have on-line identities that you can control. I really wonder if the people at the top are really part of the on-line world, or just completely removed from it and spend their time wondering about all these digital ants in the digital ant farm and wondering what we're all about?
- rando289 12y ago
  > spend their time wondering about all these digital ants in the digital ant farm and wondering what we're all about? This announcement certainly reinforces that notion. Google+ announces as an anonymous "we", that their name policy "helped create a community made up of real people." As opposed to fake people? Anonymous people are real, so is this a reference to bots? The name policy prevented bots? No. It didn't. This is ridiculous corporate code language. So ya, pushing around their digital ants is exactly how this announcement reads.
  - contingencies 12y ago
    Anonymous "we" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28novel%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28novel%29
- GhotiFish 12y ago
  That is my sense as well, people who are decidedly not nerds grabbed hold of the reigns. It's been a long time since I've heard the phrase "Don't be evil".
hereonbusiness 12y ago
Next step, remove G+ from Youtube. More specifically, use G+ for authentication but bring back Youtube accounts. Alternatively maybe add a site/application specific alias option to G+. I don't want to have 2 G+ accounts (like I have now) for no real reason.
shmerl 12y ago
Really? Diaspora* did that from the start.
zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
> We know that our names policy has been unclear No, Google, your names policy was never unclear, it was crystal clear and also completely moronic. Glad to see you finally see the light, even if you won't acknowledge that you're simply correcting a mistake that everybody else but you saw.
jayseattle 12y ago
Finally! Thank you google, this is so awesome! Finally, thank you google! Oh my gosh, LOL fell off my chair when I read, so HAPPY!!!!! thank you GOOGLE, so happy. When So HAPPY! I can't belive it, this is best day ever!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you hoogle!!!!!!!
smegel 12y ago
Why bother, it will be shut down by years end anyway.
smegel 12y ago
so YouTube comments are back?
phazmatis 12y ago
Ah, they finally realized that there are non-trollish cases where people want to express a thought online without having it indexed and searchable by everyone they ever meet in life. Or they just want to compete with facebook...
agumonkey 12y ago
This wouldn't have been that bad if they didn't accept obviously fake names such as 'agu monkey'.
taksintik 12y ago
I'm actually really starting to like g+ .. Took me a while but it far superior to any other social network.. The problem for me is still trusting google with that much Data.
znowi 12y ago
"We shoved this product up your ass real hard, but we still failed to compete with Facebook. Today, we are taking the last step: allowing you to choose any name you want. We hope to gain a little bit of Internet karma with this before we become irrelevant."
praeivis 12y ago
Awesome changes, just 3 years too late.
ulfw 12y ago
Backpedaling is the name of the game...
frik 12y ago
So Google+ wants to pivot to become MySpace? The only problem their G+ brand is weak and uncool.
leke 12y ago
Just changed my name to Northern Lights. They still pissed and whined when I tried.
CaRDiaK 12y ago
Twitter = Perceptions, Facebook = People, Google+ = Passions. Each have their respective place. I like G+ and I actually get quite a lot out of it. It took some real time investment to fully appreciate it. I hope it doesn't go the way of the dodo or reader though.

407 points by srathi 12y ago

I still like G+ but this comes a little too late

eco 12y ago

I kind of wish Google would have let you pick which display name to use on a per-circle basis. Then I could use a pseudonym with strangers, a nickname with friends, and my real name with family.

rhizome 12y ago
They would have to hire the best of the best in order to implement something like that.
dm2 12y ago
It's generally best to leave features out, then only add them when it's determined to be necessary. If they had that from the start and later decided to remove it, people would go insane.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
I always feel like these services are designed wrong. You want to be able to have multiple identities for different people, but having one organization that can associate them all with one another defeats a lot of the purpose of that. Especially if you're using it for anything that could get you into real trouble if e.g. someone were to break into that service and obtain or publicly disclose all the associations, like democracy activists in oppressive countries. You can always create completely separate accounts and then use them over Tor one at a time blah blah blah, but that's a huge usability failure. What you really want is a UI that allows you to sign in to multiple accounts without the server knowing they're all the same person (which means native software, probably with something like Tor automatically using separate circuits for each account), and then allows you to seamlessly receive messages for any of them and clearly delineates which account you're sending from when you post something.
- aiiane 12y ago
  Chrome Profiles is almost that, except without the built-in Tor.
- rm445 12y ago
  For most of us, most of the time, having the central site aware of all our pseudonyms wouldn't be a problem. Even if they divulged your identity upon lawful (court order) request. Even if they consistently targeted advertising at you, through some kind of layer that let advertisers aim at demographics without revealing ID. Most of the time, it would be enough to have some sort of unified Google login (in a Google iframe or whatever), offered as a service to different sites on the Web, and different pseudonyms available that __don't reveal your 'true' ID or other pseudonyms to the site owner__. I'm a little surprised that Google haven't offered some kind of 'Google Identity' service to the web at large based on this sort of idea. It wouldn't be good enough for activists in oppressive regimes, but it would offer a convenience to general people who like to keep separate identities on different sites.
  - JadeNB 12y ago
    > I'm a little surprised that Google haven't offered some kind of 'Google Identity' service to the web at large based on this sort of idea. The problem, I think, is that, given the current "don't be evil, just creepily self-serving!" attitude that seems to guide Google, no one would trust them. Even if one could trust them to keep one's identity private at launch, I am sure that anything like this would come loaded with the kind of "T&C may change without notice at any time" codicil that would allow them to permit themselves to disclose your identity later.
    - aiiane 12y ago
      The popularity of "Sign In with Facebook" seems to belie that.
      - JadeNB 12y ago
        I think that I disagree (that this is a counterexample); it shows that people want a 'one-stop' identity solution, but not that they trust Facebook to keep their identity private.
aiiane 12y ago
This becomes exceedingly complex (and unintuitive enough that it's likely to cause more problems than it solves) which you consider overlapping circle membership.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Agreed, and heaven forbid you screw up making a change. Now everyone on your Fetish circles list sees your real name accidentally or your family and coworkers see you as BondageBoy69.
- ejain 12y ago
  It would be easy to have your "cover" blown, e.g. by a friend (who sees your real name) innocently mentioning your real name in the reply to one of your posts that's visible to a larger circle...
modeless 12y ago
Much better would be if I could pick names to display for other people. That way when my friend chooses a silly nonsense pseudonym I can replace it with the name I want to see.
- hobs 12y ago
  This is a feature steam added that I really liked. 1. You have a canonical URL that identifies the user. 2. The user can have any name they want, and the name will only change if you are in a chat room, adding a (2) if they are a duplicate name. 3. Finally, you can add tags and a nickname (separately) so you can always see whatever name YOU assign to the person and the person in question can represent themselves anyway they want. Steam is one of the few social networks I participate in because I truly believe it adds some value to the basic digital distribution model. Say what you will about the ability to resell games or DRM or what have you, it is a compelling product.
notatoad 12y ago
that is almost exactly how Google+ has worked for some time now. Your actual identity (real name required) was your main profile, and you can set up as many pages as you like with whatever pseudonyms you want. A page functions as a Google+ identity that can follow other people or pages and can be added to other peoples' or pages' circles, so each pseudonym has a totally distinct set of circles. It's actually a pretty clever system, but the UI and language makes it somewhat unclear what do do with it all.
- pawelk 12y ago
  Yeah, it's a UX problem. The feature is right there, but had they renamed "Pages" to "Identities" it would possibly get some traction.
- e12e 12y ago
  > the UI and language makes it somewhat unclear what do do with it all. That's quite an understatement. The other aspect, is the lack of transparency Google has when making policy and product changes. Like suddenly trying to change app reviews and youtube comments from a pseudonymous to a real-name activity. Without any confidence in their service and policy stewardship, it's hard to trust them not to change this stuff randomly too.

moomin 12y ago

Great, now I can use my secret identity there. Admittedly, pretty much anything is effectively secret when I use G+.

dcc1 12y ago

Wow the whole post reads as if they planned it all along. When it reality it seems like this is a last ditch attempt to save the wreck that google+ has become.

pkorzeniewski 12y ago

Funny how they make it sound like it was all planned, rather than "This was stupid idea that made many, who wanted to stay anonymous, avoid using G+". I remember when G+ launched and almost everyone was criticizing this idea - maybe they should listen to the majority of potential users and G+ wouldn't be such ghost-town?

bduerst 12y ago
If I were to speculate, it has probably been in the works for months now. G+ changed leadership back in April, and the winds probably changed direction with it. [1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/googles-top-social-networking-executive-departs http://bigstory.ap.org/article/googles-top-social-networking...
- aiiane 12y ago
  Longer. Edited to add: Yonatan also mentions in a comment on the official post that "Vic was 100% involved in the process and approved the whole thing months ago." I can vouch that this is the truth.
- psbp 12y ago
  Yonatan Zunger claims that Vic Gundotra approved the change.
  - aestetix 12y ago
    I won't believe that unless Vic can prove it. edit: I'm being downvoted, but remember that Vic is the one who pushed the names policy in the first place.
    - aiiane 12y ago
      It's still possible to change your mind. Also, some things to consider: (a) Yonatan is the tech lead for G+. This is something he would be an authority on. (b) I also work for Google, have no particular reason to be loyal to Vic [I've opposed the names policy from the start], and I'm also willing to vouch that Vic approved it. So if you still don't think that's enough to believe it, well, that's your prerogative, but I doubt anything is going to convince you in that case.

badloginagain 12y ago

Thank you, no. My account is going to remain deactivated.

mladenkovacevic 12y ago

I wonder if this was done to appease the existing YouTube users that refused connect the account to a Google+ account with their real name. Anybody who was already on Google+ didn't mind the real-name policy, but they certainly weren't going to tell millions of YouTube people "Sorry we don't have a place for you anymore." I am still skeptical that many YouTube members will create Google+ profiles as a result of this.

danielweber 12y ago
They finally forced my G+ identity to be primary on my YouTube account a few weeks ago, despite me trying for years for it not to happen.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  You can undo that.
  - bagels 12y ago
    How?
    - bronson 12y ago
      And why? Why should he (she?) undo something done by G+?
    - InclinedPlane 12y ago
      https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657858?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2657858?hl=en
      - c23gooey 12y ago
        That link says it will only work for accounts connected within the last fourteen days. I find this whole thing really off putting. First they force my youtube account over to Google+. The a few months down the track say - 'whoops, sorry about that - but you cant have your old account back'

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Aldo_MX 12y ago

My favorite part, is when they tried to sell us the idea that the real name enforcement was the best improvement that could happen to youtube. I would had preferred a sincere apology for screwing things up, was it really hard to admit failure??? Even Microsoft has apologized for previous failues like Windows 8 and Internet Explorer!!! But anyway... with this announcement Google+, and in general, any Google-owned public website like Youtube has lost any credibility to me.

MartinCron 12y ago
I once even got a product manager apologize for the woefully substandard test automation tools built into Visual Studio. Perhaps my finest hour.
- bignaj 12y ago
  The people who work at Microsoft are just regular humans, too, you know. Why does it make you so gleeful to hear this?
  - Aldo_MX 12y ago
    Because, unlike the other 99.99% of tech companies, they acknowledge publicly the frustration they have caused with the issues of their product. The least I want is a company that claims everything they do is perfect, and pretends nothing is wrong.
danielweber 12y ago
I need to apologize to people who said that G+ was shoved at us. I successfully avoided any forced association of my G+ account with my YT account for a long time, and I said it wasn't being forced on us. Until somehow somewhere something happened and they became linked, and I'm afraid to mess with it any more lest I find them even more merged into leviathan.

thristian 12y ago

Great, now my online friends can find me by the name they know me by, rather than my real-world name. Or they could, if I hadn't deleted my G+ profile a year or two ago, in favour of just hanging out with them in the original venues I met them in.

x1798DE 12y ago

Finally. I know it's a bit childish, but for my pseudonymous Google account, I kept getting these notices that they were going to disable my Google+ account unless I gave them my real name, unless I could show them documentation proving that the pseudonym was my legal name, so I just found some pictures of middle fingers and that sort of thing and photoshopped them onto a photo of a license and submitted that. They give you a few chances to submit something, so I had a little fun picking out new insulting pictures for a while, until I got bored of it (which was almost instantly). Obviously it wasn't going to have any effect other than to virtually flip off some random person being paid to check IDs, but it was at least cathartic in the face of such a stupid, stupid policy.

dogecoinbase 12y ago
I've always liked just making an image with some leaked-but-still-technically-classified information, on the (admittedly very unlikely) off chance that someone with clearance might see it and have to get themselves debriefed.
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  You should know that's a federal crime, if you're talking about leaked U.S. classified material. Simply because you see the Washington Post printing Snowden's leaks doesn't mean handling and distributing classified information isn't a crime. It is still classified and carries full force even though it has been printed; no "cat out of the bag" defense applies. Very importantly, I'm not stating an opinion on this legal situation, just pointing it out.
  - mox1 12y ago
    100% Incorrect. If the OP has a security clearance, then maybe... At most he is probably in violation of the NDA he signed, not any criminal laws. To actually violate the criminal statues around Leaking classified material you have to CAUSE ACTUAL HARM to the US government. The original leaker obviously causes harm, but the guy submitting a public document to Google for fun....that's going to be hard for a judge to believe. It's remotely feasible that a person without a security clearance could be convicted of a crime for re publishing classified documents, but it would have to be some very odd situation.

kyro 12y ago

Thanks for leading the way here, Google.

tdicola 12y ago
If leading the way is making a bad decision that has a huge public backlash, sticking with it for 3 years while the service languishes, and then reversing it in a last ditch effort to save face... I really hope no one else follows.
- Sarkie 12y ago
  Woosh, that's the sound of sarcasm flying past you.

zyxley 12y ago

And yet it still expects you to put in a first name and a last name. How very Anglocentric.

aiiane 12y ago
That's a whole other can of worms. :) At least mononyms are supported (by entering a '.' in the last name field).
vacri 12y ago
It's not just the Angles that do that. Eurocentric, maybe.
snogglethorpe 12y ago
Presumably the terms used are locale-dependent (G+ is pretty well localized)... [and as noted in other comments, it allows mononyms as well, for everybody]

f055 12y ago

So they got to a meeting and said: "Listen guys, if allowing nick names won't jumpstart Google+ then I don't know what will. It's either this or we'll close the damn thing." 18 months from now, we'll read about the all-along-planned integration of G+ into Gmail, Drive or YouTube :P

frandroid 12y ago
You mean un-integration?
- fleitz 12y ago
  Were you looking for disintegration?
  - f055 12y ago
    Disintegration! into pieces spread around gmail, drive and YT. That's probably what'll happen :)
  - aiiane 12y ago
    EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE.
Throwaway823 12y ago
Definitely a mistake, they took a service that wasn't working (G+), integrated, and forced it on users for services that did work. I'm curious to see what happens, because it can't just be rolled back, and I think it's removing more value than it's creating.
Shooti 12y ago
I think it's the reverse: the main purpose of G+ was to integrate all the services together, being a Facebook competitor was just the icing. The integration wasn't a means, it was the end itself. They haven't really lost since they still got what they needed out of it in the end: the majority of accounts have a unified profile across services, even though G+ the site is unused.

debt 12y ago

Ha, what a disaster G+ has to be for Google. They must kind of be looking at it like "ew what do we do with this thing now?" They should've taken a more holistic and serious approach to bringing your offline identity online. Instead they tried to copy FB. They should've just called it Google Identity(with the same level of seriousness as Youtube's copyright protection product: Content ID) and provided real-life perks with associating say your Driver's license number with it which maybe would allow me to renew my driver's license much more quickly. I don't know. G+ is just weak. I mean at the end of the day, they DO have your identity. I'm sure their algorithms could within a certainly small margin of error determine who I am to a reasonably high degree of probability based on nothing other than lines in a bunch of log files(DoubleClick Ad requests on various sites, YouTube video watch times, Google Searches based on time of day/location, mobile usage, etc); again, regardless of where or when or how I use Google(i.e. using igonito browsers, using a friend's phone, using a computer an internet cafe, etc.). So why not throw all that information under one umbrella, Google Identity, and provide it to me once I claim it. They're likely able to treat online "behavior" as essentially unique online fingerprints and can just associate that with individual users; that is, they don't really need uniquely identifying data(unique IDs, usernames, etc.), they just need to watch your online activity(regardless of if you're logged in or have identifying cookies, etc.) for a while in order to identify you. I assume it's because consumers probably aren't ready to know just how much data Google actually has on them AND how much information can be extracted from said data. It's likely pretty accurate and pretty scary.

Aldo_MX 12y ago
To be honest, one differentiator that would me use Google+ over Facebook is a -1 button. I love to dislike things, especially if disliking them would affect their Google ranking (I'm looking at you Quora and your dark patterns!). Not only I would love the -1 button, but also negative endorsement, and pretty much any Google+ feature, but with a negative twist. That would really encourage me to use Google+, or should I say Google-.
- mmanfrin 12y ago
  A -1 button affecting search rank would be used almost entirely by dark-hat SEO firms.

aestetix 12y ago

Happy #nymwars anniversary, Google! Finally.

darklajid 12y ago

Bwahaha.. Okay, now which number do I call to get my account (moved _from_ my full name to 'Ben .' in protest during the nymwars) unblocked? I mean.. I'm not even sure I'd care at this point but are they even thinking of all the blocked users? Or do I need to send in my government issued ID to get my profile unblocked so that I can .. move away from my real name..?? Actually I just visited plus.google.com and surprisingly enough I wasn't greeted by the loop of death (previously I had a page that said that I'm blocked, with a link saying "You can check here why", which redirected to the very same page). Now I can "upgrade" and enroll. It seems. I .. need to provide a first name and a last name though.. How does that compute? Why can't I be "Ben" or "Randomthingyhere"? Real names aren't required, but first and last names are? Can't. Stop. Laughing.

aiiane 12y ago
You can be "Ben". https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271 https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271 Enter a '.' as the last name to use a mononym.
- darklajid 12y ago
  Please. I laughed so hard it hurt just now. First of all, thanks a lot. So that'd be the way to sign up as "Ben". Now please revisit my original post. Did you notice what my name was, before the profile got blocked? I'll post it again. It was "Ben .". Now this hotel bar has to help me forget this link of yours as soon as possible or I'll shake my head until it falls off..
- Leynos 12y ago
  If you enter a '.' as your surname, will G+ omit this when displaying your name?
  - aiiane 12y ago
    Yes. It will be rendered in G+ as a mononym.
    - 12y ago

bane 12y ago

Whatever.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

Google is in an ugly place right now. Not only are they beholden to the advertising agency they are now the poster boy for all the NSA spying and other controversies because of their massive information footprint, real name policies, constant nagging for phone numbers in gmail, etc. Apple and others have positioned itself as privacy friendly as well, which is a double whammy. I'd love to see G+ be the seedy version of Facebook. Fake names, nudity, etc. You can't beat facebook by being facebook. Hopefully, "real names everywhere" is a fad that is dying. The search engines and employers of the world don't need to know my every political thought or see my every vacation photo. Zuckerberg's idea of the internet exists only because its profitable for him. In every other respect its insane.

frandroid 12y ago
tumblr's got you covered for the seedy part...
- xavierxf 12y ago
  You know what? Why don't you check your privilege? http://mcdlr.com/check-your-privilege/ http://mcdlr.com/check-your-privilege/
  - frandroid 12y ago
    You'll have to be more clear than that. There's tons of porn on Tumblr. What are you disputing?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    I've never found anybody who both likes laughing at this kind of stuff and is actually worth listening to.
    - eropple 12y ago

barking 12y ago

I have an anonymous identity on YouTube as well as a readily identifiable one on gmail and it's been ticking me off no end the way, it seems that, google is always trying to trick me into replacing the former with the latter on youtube. Will this end now too?

Shooti 12y ago
The design tweak they did 2-3 weeks ago to the Account switcher on Youtube makes it readily apparent which Google account/gmail address the channel belongs to.
hereonbusiness 12y ago
I haven't seen the "change your name" nag-dialog for some time. What bugs me the most is that I still can't comment on videos with the Youtube account event though google converted it to a Google+ account a long time ago, it's still useless.

zmmmmm 12y ago

So this seems like a first concrete sign of a change in direction since Vic's moving on. After arguing passionately against their real name policy for so long it feels strange now that they have actually done it. On the one hand it's a hopeful sign, but on the other hand it reminds me of companies that open source their products only after they decided it failed. Is this a sign Google is positively steering G+ in a new direction or have they just given up and decided now they don't care any more they should just off load the bad PR of the real name policy? At least now I might start reviewing and rating Android apps again now that my real name isn't going to be publicly displayed to the developer.

aiiane 12y ago
FWIW, this policy change was in the works long before Vic left (and Vic was the one who initially approved it). G+ hasn't been given up on.
- zmmmmm 12y ago
  Interesting info, thanks! And good to know. I like G+ and I don't want Google to give up on it.

kevinalexbrown 12y ago

I suspect the outrage had more to do with signalling than the specific issue of pseudonyms. I also suspect that signalling will become more important for web companies than most hardware companies, because I am more directly affected by what happens behind the scenes with web companies than say, a skateboard manufacturer. It's difficult to infer behind the scenes - what are they doing w/ my data, etc - without using some signals, like not allowing pseudonyms. I imagine that startups face this most dramatically, because their product is so fragile and indefinite that signalling is used to forecast where things are headed before I invest significant time and money. This goes for all kinds of signalling - how likely are they to end the product, to lose funding and shut down, to dramatically increase prices, etc. Is this true, or did most outraged (or just indifferent, but not excited) users really dislike the pseudonym policy itself?

aiiane 12y ago
A significant portion of disgruntled users disliked the pseudonym policy itself, either due to its direct effect on them, or its indirect effect on them due to its effect on one or more of their friends.
potatolicious 12y ago
I disliked the pseudonym policy itself, I found it to be a puzzling policy considering how immigrant-filled the tech industry is, and Google too. I was born in a different country, with a different name. I operate with an anglicized name, which took years to become my legal name. There was a long period where the name everyone knew me as wasn't my legal one. Nowadays my legal name isn't the same name used by family members on a different continent. Names are fluid, they're significant but ultimately just identifiers to tell us apart. I find the notion that there is a One True Name to be laughably geocentric and completely out of place in a social network (as opposed to say, the IRS). For me the pseudonym policy was a minor annoyance, making me wonder just how culturally homogenous a team of product people have to be to cook it up. For others it has been much more damaging - trans people outed being probably the most memorable one, though not the only case where an idiotic policy has had unexpectedly severe consequences.
- 12y ago

jack-r-abbit 12y ago

I had no problem with the "G+ uses real names" thing since I just viewed it as another option for Facebook that never really took off. I did have an issue with them forcing everything to use a G+ profile. I quit leaving reviews in the Play Store because of that. And not that I ever really commented on YouTube videos but once that change was forced, it never even crossed my mind to comment. I think they should have kept G+ as "real names" and split all the other stuff back away so they didn't require real names. But I do understand why people want to use other names. I just never used G+ like that.

bane 12y ago
I stopped engaging with Google properties when they changes the youtube comment system and broke it in Chrome. There's some setting about external sites or something that I could go in and change to make it work, but why should I? If they can't create a comment system that works with their own browser, and double posts everything to my g+ account I don't use, why should I bother? It was like shoving peanuts down the throat of a person with a peanut allergy. No means no.

pessimizer 12y ago

>We know that our names policy has been unclear, and this has led to some unnecessarily difficult experiences for some of our users. Was their names policy ever unclear, or are they pretending that this was all just a misunderstanding?

saraid216 12y ago
Yes, it was unclear. The appeals process was always pretty opaque, and it was never clear what qualified as an approvable name.
- bronson 12y ago
  What is unclear about "REAL NAME"? Google wanted whatever is printed on your driver's license or birth certificate. Anything else was not OK. (which was such an obviously idiotic policy that I hope to hear a candid explanation one day.)
  - saraid216 12y ago
    Ignoring the ethical question of whether or not Google deserved to receive your legal name, and the ethical question of whether or not it should have forced said legal name onto you as a real name, The policy was more than just "put in your real name lol". It was also about banning accounts that didn't have a real name, even where those names were legal. It was about an appeals process when you wanted to show that your name was legitimate even when the algorithm disagreed. And these things were not clear. Don't get me wrong; I've regularly defended G+ and I've used the service since being an early adopter and I find the claims that it's a "wreck" or a "ghost town" to be completely bunk. But the names policy was not clear. This isn't an ethical or philosophical question. This is just flat-out clarity. And it wasn't.
    - bronson 12y ago
      I don't quite understand. > It was about an appeals process when you wanted to show that your name was legitimate even when the algorithm disagreed. If you show your driver's license to Google, and they still don't accept it, then they are behaving irrationally. But their policy is clear as day. > It was about an appeals process when you wanted to show that your name was legitimate even when the algorithm disagreed. Again, it sounds like their algorithm was buggy and wrong. But it doesn't affect their presentation of their own policy.

trhway 12y ago

what is the fuss about? My version of "Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" (translation: "John J Johnson") was ok on Facebook, Google+, etc... yesterday, ok today and will be ok tomorrow :) I have never used my real name on Internet except for the LinkedIn (where obviously i have nothing that can be construed as an opinion of any sort :) and cases where i had to enter my CC/bank info. Ability to maintain several identities is the gift of the Internet, an additional virtual dimension added to our lives. Why wouldn't we explore it? Why voluntarily confine ourselves to the plain boring and sterile world of "real name policy" places like FB?

SixSigma 12y ago
Facebook is asking for official ID for new accounts in some places. I have had to change my Facebook name also. "We see you're not using your real name". I just changed it to a real sounding name that is also not my real name.

saraid216 12y ago

Wow. That's a lot of comments being unhappy about the change.

eitland 12y ago
That surprised me as well. Of course we are HN but I really didn't think anybody except Google wanted this.
fl0wenol 12y ago
Yeah, and I find it funny how many people equated to the policy change being a harbinger of an onslaught of trolling. Meanwhile I have at least three Google profiles, all with obvious (to me) fake names that I've used for a long time, since G+ ever asked me to merge my Google Mail with them. I think they're latching onto the wrong aspect of social networks, identity, and such in their complaints. The real issues are that there's no signifier for "verified" individuals (like on Amazon, maybe by way of Google Wallet?) and no way to limit +1s or comments to such users. I think that's the only way to really impose the feeling of non-anonymity on a user's comment or whatnot. Also, some of the complainers are just idiots who don't understand how to use circles to restrict interactions or comments on their content... which sucks because I actually dig Google's model there.

yuhong 12y ago

I wrote this submission, notice I emphasized the irony: http://slashdot.org/submission/1778830/google-is-gagging-user-advocates http://slashdot.org/submission/1778830/google-is-gagging-use... And for the record, I don't like real name policies but I also don't like it when people have to use throwaways or pseudonyms either. For example, I still remember this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809766

higherpurpose 12y ago

What does this really change? I mean seriously. Google is the company that lets you "turn off web history", and then goes ahead and tracks it anyway. Do you have Do Not Track enabled in Chrome? Tough luck. It's just for show there, because Google doesn't respect it. So how am I to believe that using a different name and e-mail address on Google+, Google won't know I'm the same person, because of all of their tracking from Chrome, Youtube, search, and so on? And if they do that, then how is this any different than using an "alias" right now on Google+? This seems more like a PR move from Google.

josteink 12y ago
If you're worried Google is tracking you through chrome, you might consider switching to a more privacy centric browser you can trust, like Firefox.

iandanforth 12y ago

I almost never read posts on G+. Looking at this one reminds me why. Only 16 (16!) percent of the available area is devoted to the post content. On larger screens it would be worse. What a nightmare.

aiiane 12y ago
Heh, I use a custom Stylish rule for it to widen posts. https://userstyles.org/styles/87624/wider-posts-on-google-plus https://userstyles.org/styles/87624/wider-posts-on-google-pl...
vlad003 12y ago
I find it much easier to read when the text is in columns of that width (like newspaper) than when it's full width. According to Wikipedia, it's actually recommended to put your content in columns of about 60 characters[1]. And it's not that narrow; facebook's newsfeed is about the same width as that post on my 23" monitor. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_%28typography%29#Typographic_style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_%28typography%29#Typogra...

theophrastus 12y ago

ah the final act before G+ is shut down in favor of G++

incision 12y ago

Now the handful of people who've been waiting on such a change to start using G+ can see be immediately disappointed with how half-assed it is. I say this as someone with what seems to be an above average engagement with and opinion of G+. Circles and communities are solid concepts that could work well, but the busted functionality for posting and commenting severely limits content and conversation. Nobody, not even Google puts effort into G+ profiles. It's just another target for dumping links and hopefully driving some clicks back to your actual site/community.

kevinwang 12y ago

Man, this is way too late. Definitely feel bad for Google about Google+.

c23gooey 12y ago
yes - it must be a harrowing time for sergey and brin

weitzj 12y ago

Maye they finally reached a critical mass in their social graph of real people that it might be possible to match the anonymous, active people.

edoloughlin 12y ago

"For this we apologize" There's a lot of sniping at Google here, but I think they deserve some kudos for using the A word in corporate communications.

aiiane 12y ago
I'm happy at least someone noticed that. It's not an easy sell to any communications person anywhere in the industry. :)
chetanahuja 12y ago
I was at google while the nymwars were going on. The debate was just as heated and polarizing inside google as it was externally. I'm also surprised (pleasantly) to see someone use the A word here. I think this is an attempt to start over after exit and/or political defeat of certain high level execs. But I also think it may be too late. G+ has missed the bus to be anything more than the butt of jokes and hilarious memes (A google employee ate a donut, here's a picture etc..). Certainly a lesson in there somewhere about hubris and corrupting influence of power etc.
- aiiane 12y ago
  Vic did, in fact, approve this change well before he left. (It wasn't just an overnight switch flip, hence why it took a while to actually go live - policy documents have to be rewritten and approved, ux flows have to be modified, etc.)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - chetanahuja 12y ago
    Maybe. You seem to have heard it directly from Vic. I think the more plausible scenario is the CEO finally having had enough and pulling the plug on both the name policy as well as Vic's tenure at google. How this sequence of events is then presented to the rest of the public (including rest of Google) would then be a matter of following a corporate playbook written by experts in that domain.

mindcrime 12y ago

I wanted to like Google+. Hell, I still want to like Google+. And it's still better than Facebook in some ways, IMO. But there are just a couple of nagging issues that are such big turn-offs that I can't stand visiting G+. For one, the two-column stream layout is a steaming pile of shit with no rhyme or reason to the layout and selection of items you see. And the single-column layout wastes so much space with those huge empty spaces on either side of the stream, that it just about drives me batshit crazy. Add in the fact that they have shown zero interest in giving the world a usable API, and no support for open standards (no RSS/Atom, no OpenSocial, no ActivityStrea.ms, no FOAF, etc.) and G+ - for me - falls so far short of its potential. It makes me sad, as I was really hoping Google would come along and give us a truly awesome alternative to Facebook and they fumbled the ball.

aiiane 12y ago
For the single-column layout, https://userstyles.org/styles/87624 https://userstyles.org/styles/87624 can help. (Though I get it - it's not a built-in thing, which reduces the value.)

bhartzer 12y ago

I don't know about you, but I have no problem using my real name. Anywhere.

teddyh 12y ago
Good for you. This isn’t about you, then. The people who it is about are listed here: 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...
- Kiro 12y ago
  Not only those. I don't want to use my real name ever and I'm definitely not on that list. I just want to be anonymous and be able to write whatever I want without it harming my real persona.
  - Shish2k 12y ago
    On the flip side, I don't want to be anonymous, I want my achievements tied to my real persona --- but my real persona is "Shish" (with no surname), and G+ didn't allow that... (And apparently it still doesn't -- despite the policy change, "surname" is still a required field)

bhartzer 12y ago

Just as the NSTIC was defunded, Google changes it's real name policy.

egypturnash 12y ago

Too little, too late.

stonogo 12y ago

I'm not interested in using a web service that "lets" me do things I can already do without it.

hysan 12y ago

While a step in the right direction, Google's move to force real names AND the integration of G+ into their various services over the past few years has killed all of my goodwill towards anything Google. So, what I'm wondering is how does Google plan on rebuilding that lost goodwill? An apology is a nice gesture, but it doesn't make me trust the company. Nor does it fix any of the various screwed up UX issues due to the forced integration of G+ everywhere.

hashberry 12y ago

I refuse to become emotionally invested in G+ because Google is infamous for shutting down products that aren't used by the majority of its users. Reading all the negative comments from this post reaffirms my decision.

viraptor 12y ago

> but it also excluded a number of people who wanted to be part of it without using their real names. And people who didn't mind using their real names but were worried that Google won't think they're real enough and block their access to all services they used for years. They failed hard on that one, but now it's not even mentioned anymore. I'm slightly disappointed they just want to sweep that under the rug...

tn13 12y ago

Is there an opposite of "Streisand effect" ? If not then we might as well call it G+ effect. Google took some unreasonable steps to make G+ popular that is precisely why I stopped using G+. After G+ I have not commented on any of the YoutTube videos. When Google started uploading every photo on my android device to Google+ and downloaded all PicasaWeb albums on my phone I switched to a fake Google id to be used on my phone. I now use Flikr instead of Picasaweb (now G+). I now have around 6 fake Google Ids just to make sure Google+ does not put all my info in 1 place. I am waiting for the day Google will make G+ Compulsory for using Chrome.

vidarh 12y ago
You can turn off the image upload. In fact, I believe you're asked if you want to enable it in the first place.
- tn13 12y ago
  I was very early adopter. It was by default enabled. Yeah, we can turn off features but it is hard to explain how to do it to my father.

lugg 12y ago

And once again they miss the point that so many of us never touched google plus over. The name thing was a big deal for many, but for far more was the banning itself. Getting banned on google plus for whatever google decides on a whim is against its terms of use that day (e.g. stupid name policy) will also nuke your gmail. Far too many people were dependent on a free service with zero guarantees back then, many still are - there is just no reason to risk losing your gmail over cat updates when facebook is completely separate.

timothya 12y ago
False. In the past, if your profile was suspended (for example, because of your name), it only affected your Google+ profile. Your Gmail still worked exactly the same. Some people spread rumours in the early days of Google+ that your Gmail would be shut down if your Google+ was suspended, but that was never the case.
- lugg 12y ago
  I recall the suspension thing being the whole reason the name thing came to light, perhaps I am mistaken? Edit: Seems you are correct: > Horowitz also took time to dispel the rumor that a suspension of a Google+ account means that a user loses his or her access to Gmail, Google Docs or other Google services. "When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that don’t require a Google+ profile are not removed," he said. http://mashable.com/2011/07/25/google-plus-common-names/ http://mashable.com/2011/07/25/google-plus-common-names/
  - davidgerard 12y ago
    Except there were a shitload of reports of it happening anyway.
    - timothya 12y ago
      I believe that in the early days, one or two people had their whole account shut down and went around complaining that it was because of Google+'s name policy when really it was because of something completely unrelated (distributing illegal content from their account, I think). The rumours spread from their, making it seem like it was happening to a lot of people, when it really never happened at all.

a3n 12y ago

"When we launched Google+ over three years ago, we had a lot of restrictions on what name you could use on your profile. This helped create a community made up of real people, but it also excluded a number of people who wanted to be part of it without using their real names." I wanted to use my real name. My legal, backed by a name change order, mononymic name. After watching them fumble it, trying to use a space or a dot, and being told to gtfo or change it to a "real" name (and once again, fuck you very hard Google, even the TSA is able to deal with this), I left. And now I'm looking around for the giant hole in my life that can finally be filled by G+. ... looking ... looking ...

mrcharles 12y ago

This will be a great feature for 2011!

hendersoon 12y ago

I want to be able to change my Google+ name to a nickname, not showing my real name at all. And I want my gmail email to still come from my real name. As far as I can tell, there is no way to do that.

ianstallings 12y ago

I won't say that having my name keeps me from saying stupid things, but I do tone it down and work towards more positive posts because of it. Just like I try to do here (and often fail due to a huge, yet stupid, ego). I think everyone should have a choice but I encourage everyone to use their real name.

guest666 12y ago

Google still won't allow their users to use the url name as my nickname for example, my email is guest666@gmail.com, i want to use url plus.google.com/+guest666, but google won't allow me to do that, even when guest666 is available to be claim. They force me to use +(my name)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Vik1ng 12y ago
What's even worse when you have business. We have a pretty long and unique name, yet they only offered companynamede or something like that.
balladeer 12y ago
That was the final blow to me. That day I removed G+ account from Google Apps mail. It is just stupid. 1. My name is "Firstname Lastname". 2. I've checked and for plus.google.com/+<URL>, both "FirstName" and "LastName" aren't used by anyone. Hell, even "FirstnameLastname" is not taken, or even the part of my first name which is my nickname let's call it "First" is free. 3. But Google wants me to have a stupid URL like plus.google.com/+FirstnameLastname<some stupid characters or numbers here>, just because some algorithm thinks "a lot of people might want that name". Well, then fuck you Google! IMHO they just want to shut-down G+ with little grace or sth.

bane 12y ago

I pretty much grew up on-line. I got into BBSs when 1200 baud was considered fast. The basics of having on-line identities really have changed all that much in all that time. To newer generations it's even more natural. When I see companies completely screw up basic stuff like this, I wonder if these decisions are being made by people who were never really part of the on-line world and fundamentally don't "get" it? The people at Google making these decisions aren't some 75 year old fuddy duddy luddites, they're about my age and they're running one of the most important properties in that world. Screwing up something as basic as this has just seemed so...weird. I can only imagine that the final say-so came from somebody/people who fundamentally didn't grow up with the same kind of comfort and experience I did on-line and really doesn't understand it. But then again, my parents, who never even used a computer until the 2000s, and never even got on-line until 2003 or 2004 get it. It seems to obvious as soon as you jump on-line that you are both empowered and need to have on-line identities that you can control. I really wonder if the people at the top are really part of the on-line world, or just completely removed from it and spend their time wondering about all these digital ants in the digital ant farm and wondering what we're all about?

rando289 12y ago
> spend their time wondering about all these digital ants in the digital ant farm and wondering what we're all about? This announcement certainly reinforces that notion. Google+ announces as an anonymous "we", that their name policy "helped create a community made up of real people." As opposed to fake people? Anonymous people are real, so is this a reference to bots? The name policy prevented bots? No. It didn't. This is ridiculous corporate code language. So ya, pushing around their digital ants is exactly how this announcement reads.
- contingencies 12y ago
  Anonymous "we" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28novel%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28novel%29
GhotiFish 12y ago
That is my sense as well, people who are decidedly not nerds grabbed hold of the reigns. It's been a long time since I've heard the phrase "Don't be evil".

hereonbusiness 12y ago

Next step, remove G+ from Youtube. More specifically, use G+ for authentication but bring back Youtube accounts. Alternatively maybe add a site/application specific alias option to G+. I don't want to have 2 G+ accounts (like I have now) for no real reason.

shmerl 12y ago

Really? Diaspora* did that from the start.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago

> We know that our names policy has been unclear No, Google, your names policy was never unclear, it was crystal clear and also completely moronic. Glad to see you finally see the light, even if you won't acknowledge that you're simply correcting a mistake that everybody else but you saw.

jayseattle 12y ago

Finally! Thank you google, this is so awesome! Finally, thank you google! Oh my gosh, LOL fell off my chair when I read, so HAPPY!!!!! thank you GOOGLE, so happy. When So HAPPY! I can't belive it, this is best day ever!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you hoogle!!!!!!!

smegel 12y ago

Why bother, it will be shut down by years end anyway.

smegel 12y ago

so YouTube comments are back?

phazmatis 12y ago

Ah, they finally realized that there are non-trollish cases where people want to express a thought online without having it indexed and searchable by everyone they ever meet in life. Or they just want to compete with facebook...

agumonkey 12y ago

This wouldn't have been that bad if they didn't accept obviously fake names such as 'agu monkey'.

taksintik 12y ago

I'm actually really starting to like g+ .. Took me a while but it far superior to any other social network.. The problem for me is still trusting google with that much Data.

znowi 12y ago

"We shoved this product up your ass real hard, but we still failed to compete with Facebook. Today, we are taking the last step: allowing you to choose any name you want. We hope to gain a little bit of Internet karma with this before we become irrelevant."

praeivis 12y ago

Awesome changes, just 3 years too late.

ulfw 12y ago

Backpedaling is the name of the game...

frik 12y ago

So Google+ wants to pivot to become MySpace? The only problem their G+ brand is weak and uncool.

leke 12y ago

Just changed my name to Northern Lights. They still pissed and whined when I tried.

CaRDiaK 12y ago

Twitter = Perceptions, Facebook = People, Google+ = Passions. Each have their respective place. I like G+ and I actually get quite a lot out of it. It took some real time investment to fully appreciate it. I hope it doesn't go the way of the dodo or reader though.