Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.72.69

Forum Moderators: goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google+ Real Names Restriction Lifted, Nicknames Now Permitted

     
8:06 am on Jul 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:23241
votes: 357


Now, this is an interesting move, and will, no doubt, make Google+ far more attractive to users.

Perhaps the announcement of images being removed from authorship [webmasterworld.com] in the SERPs was strategic to preceded this fundamental change in policy.

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.

Over the years, as Google+ grew and its community became established, we steadily opened up this policy, from allowing +Page owners to use any name of their choosing to letting YouTube users bring their usernames into Google+. Today, we are taking the last step: there are no more restrictions on what name you can use. Google+ Real Names Restriction Lifted, Nicknames Now Permitted [plus.google.com]
8:36 am on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 13, 2004
posts:826
votes: 10


And if that doesn't work, we'll pull it altogether. It may be too late...
9:08 am on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

New User

joined:Aug 30, 2012
posts:12
votes: 0


that's a good news.
9:32 am on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 6, 2006
posts:1165
votes: 33


Sounds like desperation.
10:56 am on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 30, 2002
posts: 2510
votes: 44


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.

Regards...jmcc
11:45 am on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 29, 2005
posts:1937
votes: 62


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.
12:11 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 30, 2002
posts: 2510
votes: 44


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.

Regards...jmcc
12:31 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Jan 6, 2011
posts:473
votes: 1


lol this just keeps getting "better"
12:52 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 30, 2002
posts: 2510
votes: 44


If only Google could get their AI heads to create extra Google+ members it could overtake Facebook in the membership stakes. :)

Regards...jmcc
3:14 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 30, 2006
posts: 180
votes: 0


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.
3:34 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2013
posts:2642
votes: 387


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.
3:41 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month Best Post Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:23241
votes: 357


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?
4:39 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 11, 2003
posts:255
votes: 0


It might be good for some people. For me on FB I instinctively disregard posts from anyone hiding behind a fake name / handle.
7:47 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:2936
votes: 181


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.
9:08 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2013
posts:2642
votes: 387


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.
11:00 pm on July 16, 2014 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 25, 2005
posts:14650
votes: 94


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

YMMV
4:13 pm on July 17, 2014 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 11, 2006
posts:203
votes: 1


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.
7:05 pm on July 17, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 3, 2014
posts:823
votes: 135


Great! Now I can finally use Carlos Spicy-weener! [youtu.be...]
7:54 pm on July 17, 2014 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 26, 2013
posts:454
votes: 69


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?
9:43 am on July 18, 2014 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member from GB 

5+ Year Member

joined:Sept 29, 2009
posts:444
votes: 20


well, some of us already use our real names.

*haughty sniff*
9:46 am on July 18, 2014 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 30, 2002
posts: 2510
votes: 44


It is odd that Google quit passing keyword data to webmasters in the name of privacy
No. Google decided it was too valuable to the webmasters and SEO people and decided to keep its claws firmly grasped around that data.

Regards...jmcc
12:07 pm on July 18, 2014 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 8, 2005
posts:155
votes: 0


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.
1:24 am on July 19, 2014 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator incredibill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 25, 2005
posts:14650
votes: 94


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

Jonathan Doe
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.
2:46 pm on July 22, 2014 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 23, 2004
posts:490
votes: 37


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.
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members