And if that doesn't work, we'll pull it altogether. It may be too late...
that's a good news.
Sounds like desperation.
Bit of a WGAF moment for the Social Media using public. They are too busy using Facebook and Twitter to bother with G+. It was a rather stupid policy to begin with. People create personas on the web that might well be different to their real life personalities. Look at the usernames people use on web fora and newsgroups.
|This helped create a community made up of real people |
So, what do we have now if the people are now allowed to not be real? I think G have lost their way with G+ and it has no identity to make it stand out from Facebook.
The time for that was in 2004-2006. Unfortunately Google seems to be quite derivative and me-tooish about everything now to such an extent that Johnson's quip about originality springs to mind.
|I think G have lost their way with G+ and it has no identity to make it stand out from Facebook. |
lol this just keeps getting "better"
If only Google could get their AI heads to create extra Google+ members it could overtake Facebook in the membership stakes. :)
I can solve Google +'s problems in one swoop. Develop a "Facebook" without parents.
Develop an algorithm to "panda-ize" anyone who would not enjoy sexy selfies, vodka, and party.
I prefer a "clean, well-lighted place" myself, but as long as Google knows the names behind the nicknames, this change shouldn't have any effect on Google+'s role as an identity platform.
EditorialGuy raises a valid point; Google still knows who you are, assuming you've not been economical with the truth on the application form. From Google's marketing machine point of view, it's just another layer, which Google knows and can sort.
I suspect it'll enable more comments on YouTube and alike.
The real question is, will it make G+ more popular as a destination?
It might be good for some people. For me on FB I instinctively disregard posts from anyone hiding behind a fake name / handle.
If real names are hidden from public view, then people will be a lot less inhibited about what they say.
It's laughable how Google keeps having to retreat from its original goals.
|It's laughable how Google keeps having to retreat from its original goals. |
Or maybe not. I don't think any of us is in a position to know what Google's "original goals" were.
I'm contemplating legally changing my name to IncrediBILL so I'm going to be good either way :)
|If real names are hidden from public view, then people will be a lot less inhibited about what they say. |
If you believe something strongly enough to say it, then you should be able to say it regardless of whether using your real name or pseudonym. Most people would never publicly say most of the garbage posted so hiding behind a pseudonym is just a cowards way of trolling.
I think if people can't say what's on their mind for fear of public perception then go back into the shadows and hide.
I've always been outspoken, and if people don't agree with me I frankly don't care.
My name has always been Bill (aka William) and it's part of my pseudonym. My wife's name is Fran and her online name when we met was Frantastic, so she wasn't really hiding either.
Just my $0.02 worth
Anyone else find it funny that people in this thread are bashing the use of synonyms while using a synonym? lol
I work in the entertainment industry where people commonly go by names other than their own. The names become brands and have a reputation - they're quite "real", even if not legal. It's ridiculous to call someone like a DJ or an actor by their real name when no one knows them by that name. Yes, you could get around that by creating a page (sorta), but my point is people are often known by names other than their legal name. Google's "use your real name" policy just didn't work in some real-world situations. It was time for it to change.
Great! Now I can finally use Carlos Spicy-weener! [youtu.be...]
It is odd that Google quit passing keyword data to webmasters in the name of privacy yet required a real name for G+. Which provides more personally identifiable information in your view?
well, some of us already use our real names.
No. Google decided it was too valuable to the webmasters and SEO people and decided to keep its claws firmly grasped around that data.
|It is odd that Google quit passing keyword data to webmasters in the name of privacy |
|will it make G+ more popular as a destination? |
I have recently taken over managing a website. In the process I am trying to "clean things up". The people that previously managed the site created 3 different youtube accounts and 2 different google plus accounts. I have been trying to consolidate everything into 1 youtube account & 1 google plus account. However, Almost everything I try to do in an effort to accomplish this task results in googles "system" wanting me to create another google plus page. For example, I want to connect my youtube account / channel to a pre-existing google plus page. It won't let me and every way I try it, it attempts to get me to create another plus page. Want to be listed on google maps.... create a google plus page.
What I'd be more worried about in the future will be when you pull your credit report or one of those new "people finder" reports and it has a list of your real names and typos the idiots at the BM stores made which never go away, plus all online pseudonyms and avatars.
How embarrassing to have a future employer to see that like of names when they do a background check:
|KNOWN NAMES AND ALIASES |
aka John Doe
aka Johnathan Doe (salesclerk typo)
aka Johuthan Doe (salesclerk typo)
aka John Dough (Match.example.com)
aka Huan Hung Lo (Match.example.com)
aka Ben Dover (Match.example.com)
aka TYRANTosaurus (politics.example.com)
aka BlackhatNegativeSEO (webmasterworld.com)
aka etc., so on and so forth
Sorry for the racy names, but you need to get the full impact of what an employer, landlord, bank or even a car salesman might learn about you with very little effort.
Makes covering your tracks with private sessions and anonymous proxies seem a bit more important now doesn't it?
Problem is, they also have device fingerprinting so if your browser sends the same device fingerprint, and mine is VERY unique, even using aliases might not stop them from linking all your online aliases together as "possible aliases" which they already do on one site I tracking visited.
FWIW, I've already seen some people finder reports tying it all together to it's not a matter of when it happens, but when it happens to YOU.
hmmm .. Sounds a bit MySpace-ish .. Oh well, Google will one day come to realise that Social Media just isn't in the cards for them.