Shared publicly  - 
 
GAHHHHHHHHHH!!! For the last time!!!! People report accounts as fake NOT THE GOOGLE+ TEAM!

It's the userbase that assumes a fake profile and suspends it!

EVERYONE who got a suspended account can thank their followers! The Google+ team has nothing to do with it! After a certain amount of reports, an Account gets automatically suspended!!
And some jackasses also report the valid profiles of celebs like William Shatner!

Until account verification is up, this will be an issue.
BUT USE YOUR F**KING HEAD BEFORE MINDLESSLY REPORTING A PROFILE!

edit: If you don't think this happens automatically: Yeah it'd make total sense that a platoon of Google employees checks 10+ million profiles one by one and reports random profiles. Come on!


Common sense people!
42
53
Alexis Dujardin's profile photoClemens Steinkogler's profile photoFlorian Rohrweck's profile photoSatish Raj Pathak's profile photo
69 comments
 
This is clearly something that could scare people away from G+
 
+Karsten Rettinghausen Ich hasse es wenn die leute desinformation verbreiten, darum... Jeder schiebt die schuld aufs Google+ team und die wahren Schuldigen sind fein raus, ich hass sowas.
Da gehts mir so wie dir mit den GIFs
 
But still Google should have a serious look at the accounts before suspending, no matter how many people reported it...
 
I bed the percentage of German netcops is overproportional to the percentage of Germans on G+.
 
+Gerwin Sturm True... But still, people should not carelessly report everyone. The more reported profiles, the harder it is to check every profile, the more likely it is that a valid profile gets suspended
 
+Florian Rohrweck I feel you dude. it was really frustrating. The good thing was Smarr assured me that it won't happen again. I hope that was true.
 
Yeah, I know that checking each and every profile is tough work, but it is necessary, and even more important would be to have verified accounts (for everyone) available as soon as possible.
I don't want to give anyone ideas but theoretically if I don't like someone I could just rally a group of like-minded people and report a profile to hell... and knowing the stupidity and hate between some people it is only a matter of time for this to happen, or more likely happening already... Google needs to be prepared for this...
 
That's a serious issue. Google Team do not show who is reporting.
 
+Satish Raj Yeah, that would be good if they'd do that!
 
So g. tries to crowdsource the policing of g+. Bad luck as the consequence of a very bad decision. OK, this is Beta. So g. can learn. We help it, discussion and understanding things.

Please +Florian Rohrweck do not try to leave the impression you did know the closed profiles did happen only because of user reporting them. You thought it was the google team as we all did ;) stand to your words, they are on the net anyway.

And apart from that. Is there any proof the closure of profiles were only a user-ratting-on-users thing? To me it smells like a pr stunt to save some face. "oh, we got two bad features, like try to combine them, blame users for our mistakes and hope people will forget...."

There are already users leavin g+, returning to fb and twitter. Too much navel-gazing, beta-discussions, missing features and beta-policy-mistakes and g+ will go the way of buzz and orkut.
 
However, there are some profiles that need to be reported. I had a guy spam several of my posts this morning.
 
+Christoph Puppe WTF are you talking about?! There is an automatic filter, yes, but this does not apply to a name like William Shatner

You are mixing stuff together that has nothing to do with each other! Real names and "HGJKh3q30 3902ugskldnl93" are NOT the same!

I stand to my word!
 
+Thomas Morffew reporting is good, needs to be availabel in a community. automatic actions, based on this clicks are dangerous. Ther has to be some human intervention.

If the profile spammed you, block it and done?

The spam-task-force should find ways to note spam-comments ...
 
+Thomas Morffew yeah.. That is what I mean with "using your head". If there is a spammer, report him, but if it is a normal person, you should have twice a look before suspending a celeb account... That's what I mean with common sense
 
my opinion
As far as reporting is concerned it's a welcome thing. But account should not be banned automatically. They should be mailed first to prove their credential. If they fail then they can block the profile. Whether its beta or alpha.. automatic things always annoying.
 
Google is 100 percent responsible. What a moronic system design. How long did it take them to utterly squander their opportunity and actually make Facebook look sane?
 
Hmmm, This operation calls for the cunning of a Romulan. With the guile of a Klingon.
 
How many times you are reported before suspension? I say 50 considering the no of self appointed Internet police here 
 
It happened on Youtube. Scrapers banding together and reporting the original content owner.

Edit: It also happens on blogger.
 
Damage control tip for Google: Saying "our robots did it" makes it even worse.
 
+Adriel Hampton Especially if the robots are to be robocops of g+ forever. But then, training season ...
 
I continue to use Facebook and Google+ as long as they don't boot me for calling them out all the time ;) Happy to leverage the platform.
 
+Florian Rohrweck Interested in your opinion. Do you think it is wrong to report a business using a personal profile. Google has said it is bringing out business profiles in the furure and what we have now is not for businesses.

Leading on, how would +Mashable News fit in to this? I have no problem with their existence but are they within the rules? I'm confused.
 
+Mike Hatch No, a company, that is not an individual... That's a matter of taste...
I personally ignore them... I think Mashable exclusively made a deal with Google.. It'd be great to know it for sure though, because it is unfair to leave people in the dark about the reasons why they are still on and others gone
 
As long as someone isn't posting obvious spam I don't care who or what they are or what they use as their name. Spam is for me the only reason to report a profile, if they post other stuff I don't like I just remove them from my circles.

Btw, thx +Florian Rohrweck, the sky is blue now ;)
 
+Gerwin Sturm That is the approach I am now taking. At first when I had Bullying UK and OnSiteBuilders etc circle me I reported them. Now i've decide i'm not god, +Jason Bayton is lol
 
+Laura Creed - MaybeNotMyRealName thanks, that's what I mean. Google has to do the final verification, but people should be aware that they shouldn't hunt for profiles they just want to have gone... they should use the report function wisely

The process is still flawed, but you can't take away all responsibility from the people who report everything and everyone...

Until Google has found a way to deal with this issue, it is up to the people to end this suspension craze
 
In his introduction to the "Discourt de la Méthode", Descartes says that common sense is the most well spread thing of all...
Yup, Descartes also said stupid stuff :)
 
The real ace here is that being suspended this way apparently lodges a "suspicious activity" against your entire Google login, blocking your access to, say, GMail and Docs.
 
I'm for the possibility of "Artistic names" pseudonyms that make a sense.. What I don't like are special chars / "decoration" and offensive names... I don't care if someone uses a fake name, as long as he doesn't call himself "Blitzkrieg MilfKiller" or something...

Fake names are fine for me, even if they are "creative". As long as it isn't just a disposable name, one of 15 Accounts someone has... (I've 3 and one with a pseudonym) One public, one private and one for testing/other purposes
 
Been to Wikipedia lately? Like trying to edit something? The Kill-Admins rule the place ... it's a ghost town now. Witch-Hunting as a pasttime on g+ could have a similar effect.

I'd think, people feel helpless and without power when confronted with the net and the zaibatsu thaat own the biggest shares of it. So, the moment they find something where he (it'S only boys, afaik) actually can change something, he is all about it and goes for it with something close to religous fever.

So to give these people the means to do harm, by automatic reactions to their actions, means hell for the rest of us ...

Maybe +rich cannings or +Brian Rose could clarify the situation. Everybody is guessing as to the why and what around reporting and removed/disabled profiles.

Edit/PS: I meant +Toby Stein not Brian :)
 
+Alexis Dujardin I think to remember he said, that is because everbody thinks he has enough :)
 
+Tali Rosca Yeah that sucks but it is the Google Account (not a separate account)... It is a flawed suspension process
But it is still beta, I hope they fix that, as some people really were innocently suspended because they really have Special Chars in their name (and were automatically reported) or got "trollported" (trolled&reported)
+Christoph Puppe That is in fact 100% true. And Google HAS to find a better solution... until then, we can just ask people to reconsider reporting everyone they just don't like...
 
It may be in beta, but it's very similar to how blogs get suspended on Blogger and Youtube content producers on Youtube.

Which means to say it's an old process that badly needs upgrading, or one that they have no plans of upgrading.
 
+Theofrenz Cayambas I'd like to see it the way Google Apps is managed.. with deactivation of single products... That'd be better :)
I personally can't confirm if there is really a 100%lockout if an account gets suspended
but I can assume that it's possible
 
Would like to know how many profiles you can report in an hour ... is there a limit? Can I create like 200 fake accounts and have them report every Profile including you and me and +Sascha Lobo and +Sergey Brin and +Larry Page? will all of them be suspended, blocked, deactivated? That would be realy fun :) should start right now ...
 
But G+ is the account, not a module like GMail or Picasa or Blogger or Youtube. So once you suspend the G+ account, the modules would be inaccessible, too.

Not that I experienced getting a Google account or G+ account suspended. It just sounds logical to me.
 
Mashable and Ford are among a - very small - handful of companies that Google has allowed to stay on G+. They are considered beta-testers of business profiles. There's an article about it somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up later today
 
+Christoph Puppe : Actually, you're kinda right :) Let me copy-paste... and translate:
It starts with: "La puissance de bien juger, de distinguer le vrai d'avec le faux, qui est proprement ce qu'on nomme le bon sens, ou la raison, est naturellement égale en tous les hommes." -> "Power is to be able to judge, to distinguish true from false, which is what one properly calls common sense or reason, and it is naturally equal among all men."
So here's he states equality of common sense... which is what i was saying, BUT... then he writes this:
"Le bon sens est la chose au monde la mieux partagée : car chacun pense en être bien pourvu." -> "Common sense is the most well spread thing in the world: everyone thinks he has enough."
which is precisely what you said :)
So in the end, common sense turns out to be a super relative thing. And any dumbass still is sure to hold enough to make sound decisions.

Which brings us back to Florian's issue: yes, there must be enough morons on G+ already to report accounts instead of just blocking them.
 
+Florian Rohrweck Agreed, he said stop after they went wild, but what I am getting at is ultimately, it was and is Google+'s fault. Their engineer was irresponsible in his actions, and the way they have the auto suspend for so many reports is perfect for griefing.
 
Could I ask who?

Anyway, that's how things go when we are water in a stream: Once you create a canal and direct us there, that's where we go. Unless we evaporate first.
 
Laura, that's mean. I have been proactively blocking profiles with "spammer" signals on what they do and write here.

If we all end up dividing ourselves into groups and blocking each other, then this is no longer a people centered social network.

Remember the Stanford prison experiment?
 
+Theofrenz Cayambas, if by "who" you mean the Google engineer referenced here, it was +Andrew Bunner's post here: https://plus.google.com/103429767916333774260/posts/GiYKZop6Wtu He's backpedaling in his update, even after explicitly stating in the thread, "my personal advice [..] is for those individuals to pick new identities that "look" real. We're not checking your driver's license", making it perfectly clear that he did mean all "weird looking names", not "accounts used for spamming or other illegitimate use". (And in the process advocating the weird belief that it's better to lie about having a RL name in your profile than obviously having a nom-de-plume).
Norv N.
 
I don't know how account suspensions are done, internally to Google. However, if this is automatic, it only makes worse currently the consequences due to G+ integration to other services: some accounts users have reported being unable to access their Gmail anymore, unless they pass another level of validation. Unfortunately, the reasons one may get suspended on G+ are NOT the same with the reasons why one may have their email services suspended.
Google needs, IMHO, to address these ASAP.
I've been trying to document a few of the issues here:
https://plus.google.com/114851034944797948264/posts/DPyNc67uwPD
(a bit outdated now, Google Docs seems to have the same behavior)
 
+Theofrenz Cayambas That would then be called "diaspora" the alternative for ppl wishing to social network, but to shy to acually do it :)

+Laura Creed - MaybeNotMyRealName if you think in these terms ... read "daemon" from suarez :)
 
Doesn't really matter any way... its just showing the whole "Lord of the flies" mentality in some respects isnt it?

New deserted island, fresh children, what the wild things they become is?
 
Good intentions can end up bad.

On the other hand, G+ is an environment with nudges all around. The send feedback button and the Report this profile link make it easy for us to do things that can be good or bad.

I dunno how if there's a quick fix though.
 
Interesting that the exposition on Bunner's post does not seem to be the policy in practice. Jump, because Google says so.
 
+Florian Rohrweck what do you think is going on with the people, like myself, that currently have "verified" accounts? I am noticing that there is no indication of this anywhere but on the "google reader shared page". This indicates to me that my account is still considered "verified", but it is not showing up anyplace in the G+ world. Would be nice to have it do so.

Cheers!
 
+Rich Griese ,
Orkut has a badge that can say a user is email verified.

Google Places uses mobile phone, land line or postal verification to make someone claim a business. (I guess that also validates that the claimant is a real person).

Knol has verified user check icon.

So these could/should be used eventually to have your G+ Profile verified.
 
+Theofrenz Cayambas I sort of understand. About a year ago when Google was promoting Verified profiles, I got directed to that Orkut system to create one. Once done, my google profile showed a "verified" badge on it. Later which a change the the profile page, that badge changed, it just had a green check, with the newest version of profiles, it is gone altogether. I am just wondering why Google was promoting the verified badge on profiles before, and now has removed that badge.

Cheers!
 
The mark signifying a verified profile is included in the code. I'm not sure they are showing it while in beta. Maybe so we could try it out more before they get stricter?
Add a comment...