Shared publicly  - 
 
Good to know.
Andrew Bunner originally shared:
 
If you see a person with an obviously fake name, go to their profile and find the "Report Profile" link in the bottom of the left column. Report it as a "Fake Profile". We want Google+ to be place for real people to connect with other real people.

+Egypt Lab Tours ... you're doing it wrong :-/ We're going to make room for businesses, but for now we're focusing on people.

We have an early-access sign-up form for businesses open until 6pm today. See https://plus.google.com/105923173045049725307/posts/PwBva7kqUBg for details!
166
99
Bogdan Zurac's profile photoAmit Verma's profile photoCody Dracars's profile photoAllan Palmer's profile photo
112 comments
 
I reported a few profiles, including my uncle Bill Gates!
 
Tried to report a profile a week ago and it wanted proof of my identity etc, maybe I was doing it wrong. 
 
Matt, are there plans for validating people ala twitter verified?
 
Ah, I agree, one thing that's annoying is every time I say "+1" someone with the name "// //" comes up.
 
You mean it won't be like Facebook?
 
Well, it does list that business/organizations cannot be a profile yet. So, there is one way to find out what Google doesn't like: read their guidelines.
 
My prediction: business/organizations will have to pay for names!
 
You mean Santa Claus and Casey Anthony didn't really want to follow me?
 
haha Kim, what!? I thought for sure this was the proof i had been waiting for lol
 
Im sure like every other system their will be auto adders and spammers. All Google can do it watch learn and hopefully tighten up security 
 
I've been reporting businesses as 'fake names'. Sounds like I got that one right. Admittedly, I didn't report +Microsoft Corporation - I'll leave that to someone who doesn't work here. :)
 
For sure. Keep out Bots and spam, but I can't see anything wrong with someone using an alias.

meh.
Vee El
+
3
4
3
 
Sooner or later Google+ should offer the feature like Twitter 'Verified account' to authenticate the celebrity
 
Lets not take the fun out of being Social...where is the sense of humour? Stay cool guys, get too serious & you may ruin a good thing...
 
Still dumb to give yourself an Alias...About as cool as giving yourself your own nickname.
 
Why? If people are not spamming or engaging in bad behavior why the hell does it matter? Is it not in fact every persons right to go by whatever name or names they want? Samuel Clemmens should not have been allowed to use the pseudonym Mark Twain? What about the many women writers who have chosen to use male pseudonyms like James Tiptree, Jr.? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_authors_who_wrote_under_male_or_gender-neutral_pseudonyms ) I & others I know write under more than one name -- because the character of the writing is different. & Heck, just because it's fun. Are not to be allowed to have fun? Is even this to be under the control & up to the whims of gigantic corporations like Google & Facebook?
& What of those who wish to speak out about repressive regimes such as in Iran, Burma, & China? What of those want to talk about criminal organizations, those that will kill people? What of those would lose their jobs or otherwise suffer attacks for discussing the behavior of the companies they work for? What of those who have suffered abuse in their own families & are seeking help & community? Isn't community precisely what social media is all about?
Or is this specifically for the purpose of the exploitation of people's personal information?
Sorry, but I, for one, reject this utterly.
 
I saw a profile for an "Ozzie Cutts" whose entire profile was centered around promoting tuna fish. Should I report it?
 
I'm real. This is the nickname I use, in person, face-to-face. My legal name is firmly visible in my profile. Am I at risk?
 
A guy signs into a google+ account with an Alias, meanwhile the monkey at the other end of the bar shouts ...., anyone wish to continue with the joke? Perhaps we can go viral :O)
 
If you're serious about it, ban all corporate accounts like Ford Motor Company - it's unfair that some big fish get to swim while you pick on all the little minnows.

As far as the real vs. fake things go, some of the favorite accounts I follow on Twitter are fake, and it's one of my favorite things about the service. I hope this isn't a permanent policy.
 
Many of you are missing the point. It's not necessarily about "fake name" as regarding to pseudonyms, but rather the Fake Personalities. Case in point was a Fake or CON Richard Brandson account that did an excellent job of Faking the real person.

1000's followed, commented and interacted. They were being duped. Google investigated and found out it wasn't the real Richard B but an imposter -- the acccount was closed and the actual "con mans" images appeared for a bit. Job well done GOOGLE PLUS.

I actually posted about this, earlier today. Not saying it was me that was able to bring it into the Google Spotlight. But it was an issue that needed to be addressed.

I am please it is addressed
 
The fake political celebrity profiles are flourishing..and so is my reporting of them.
 
...Im real said the monkey to the alias drinking his bourbon. "Real"? a Monkey talking about Google+ , do you know about circles? (to the Newbies...need to follow the joke from earlier comments, hoping we go viral)
 
I enjoyed reporting the fake Steve Jobs and Bill Gates profiles I found. They were easy to tell apart from the real ones.
 
what if your real name is steve jobs?
 
Casey, some people just only work with Linux I see :O)
 
+Andrew Bunner Since businesses are being allowed for testing, how can we differentiate legitimate business accounts from unauthorized business accounts setup as user accounts? Can you give us an example of a valid business account to view?
 
Thanks to Andrew for that & Matt for the re-post. I know a lot of people that are waiting for the business side of things to open up so the more communication the better. I was already spammed on here on by a client (sadly) and I believe their account was shut down (which I'm perfectly OK with).

On a side note, I've been very pleased with Google+ so far and, without trying to sound like a fan-boy, am excited to see how the business side of things is handled.
 
In my case:
I was using an account with Google a long time. And moved here. Please check the description of other names in "About".
吴威
+
1
2
1
 
强烈同意,在Google+ 大家就应该用自己的真实姓名,让网络不再虚拟
 
im sorry but after years of google app accounts being disjointed from google standard profiles its clear that google has some serious cleaning up to do to if they are going to base the future on peoples profiles
 
Darn.. Open season on my kind..
Well, here's why I deeply resent this idea. Enforcing "real names", apart from being silly, is impossible. It would cause people to give up "obviously fake" names and take "less obviously fake" names.

I can understand a policy of banning accounts that belong to for-profit corporations but if someone chooses a non-corporate identity for making a statement or just for fun that should be allowed.

I chose my name for many reasons. Here's a few:
1. I believe that reputations are overrated (see ipse dixit )
2. In a market of ideas, one's ideas should be able to stand up to scrutiny on their own and not because there's a particular name behind them.
3. My name represents my choice of believing that Evolution is more believable than competing theories. Furthermore, some of our atavistic instincts and darker side are probably impossible to erase; at best, they can only be muted.
4. I sign articles and comments on blogs with my nickname, I use it on Facebook, Twitter and nearly all other manifestations of my online presence. It has truly become my online identity and want to keep it this way.
5. The fact that I have no credit card or mortgage associated with my online name is a security bonus.
6. I might feel that some entities may be hogging uncomfortably large amounts of info about me. By using a nom de plume I still give out the valuable data of social connectivity, I just make it a bit more difficult to tie it in with a particular identity.
7. I might be working in a profession or go through certain life circumstances where anything I say or do, even the most innocent words or actions, might be held against me. Without the protection of anonymity (or the weaker protection of an obviously fake, but permanent pseudonym) my voice would be silenced.

And if my voice would be silenced, so would a thousand other voices, at once. Wouldn't that be a great disturbance in the Force?!?

Privacy is a right, not a privilege or "feature".
 
G+ misses account verification.fb at the beginning verified account with domain, that was key for the success (i think)
 
"Go be anonymous somewhere else," said Google.
 
The profile pointed out by Andrew Bunner was obviously somebody creating the profile to promote a business and not based on a personal nickname or profile name crafted to protect ones anonymity. There is a big difference.

People with common sense will know the difference. It just a matter of deciding if they want a social network that is less 'noisy' than others we could name.
 
The largest number of fake profiles I see is of Mark Z.
 
How do we know you are the real Andrew Bunner?
 
I am real, but people know me by a funny name. So that's my google+ name. Don't report me!
 
Acme, I think you may know my friend, Wile E. Coyote.
 
Bunch of engineers playing social, They still don't get It.
 
I've kept the same nickname consistently for years online. It's not so much anonymity that I want (my friends know who I am) as privacy. I work with teenagers who do not mature for a very long time often and sometimes adults can be viscous too. I'd like to be free enough to avoid having to explain everything I do online or have something taken out of context and held against me or used to create a disturbance irl. I don't do anything out of line IMO, but normalcy depends on the political climate of the times. And you know kids, they can take anything and make it nutty.

We will be alerted if we are flagged? I like this place. It is the first time I have felt I can be social and not paranoid. I'd like to know if I must leave because of my name so that I can adopt one that is more normal by G+ standards. Will maiden names work? I could do that. I just wanted continuity, but I can give that up to stay.
 
Well looks like Google+ is going to lose a LOT of creative people with this...there's a lot of other reasons beside subterfuge that people have nick names or "Fake" names...
 
Forgot to tell You, I am God and that´s my nom de guerre
 
Just wait until my friend Free Viagra shows up on Google+ -- then it will be a real party!
 
Thanks for sharing the link on the early-access signup form for businesses.
 
There are 5 Mark Zuckerbergs - which one is the real deal?
 
Get a life! People should be able to use whichever fing names they want! Don't turn this into facebook for gods sake!
 
Jesse, I think he means "fake name" as in a spammer, not a nickname or other identity that ultimately links to a real person.
 
That is a good option!! Finally not like Facebook fake profiles..
 
I like that, no fake profiles
 
good action from Google...
 
This enforcement may bring down the popularity tide of the plus. why? Because users enjoy making fun with fake profiles. Entertainment is the prime reason for which people join social networks, if they are prevented to do so, they will not come to plus. Every body wants to play safe on social networks, so it's natural that they would use fake profiles as long as they are in doubt regarding the details of the one at the other end. Even some do it out of fun and curiosity as to know what respond their profile receives. It will be a big challenge for Google for identifying such profiles. Google won't personally verify account users or neither we are going to give our security number for verification.

Google should leave it at the disposal of the users, if somebody does not like to interact with a particular profile, that person can block the profile or if somebody finds something worth reporting a profile, then one may be allowed to do so. That is enough. G+ should not be too adamant on the issue.

Yes,what is required to be done is that they should create awareness regarding blocking or reporting a profile. Blocking a profile should not ask for a reason to do so( it is the personal wish of the user) but reporting of a profile should be backed by solid reasons.

Coming to the business pages, strict verification from the very beginning is required because that won't affect one person but an industry to which the business belongs and eventually to the nation.
 
On a very serious note, anonymous profiles are required for people in many less civilized nations to use the Internet safely. We don't want to see Google responsible for the deaths of Chinese or Iranian activists.
 
+Shivaram Krishnan You must first go to the profile. On the lefthand side of it, you will find "report profile", when you click on that you will find possible reasons for reporting the profile. Check the one that suits you. If you do not find anything appropriate then check the "other" box option. I think this will help you.
 
It's disheartening to see how quickly people will enjoy pointing fingers at complete strangers.
 
We have the same discussion now in German parts of G+.

Personally I know the discussion now since >20 years (usenet then).
A pseudonym is not a "fake profile".
 
+Hermann Loose Will you point your finger to someone who has done no harm to you? Then why should you doubt that anybody would do so for no reason.

When you design a product for users, then users are your first priority, they should be offered with options to use the product the way they like. Every product is designed with lot many advantages but advantages are always followed by disadvantages. It is at the disposal of the user to use a product in the best way but when they misuse a product, an option should be available at hand to help.

I don't mind reporting and blocking anyone if the person at the other end deserves it. I don't mind any body reporting me or blocking me if I really disturb/hurt/harm the person doing so.

There is nothing to be disheartened at this.
 
The option to use the product the way you like would be the option to go with a name of your own choosing.

Also, I get to decide what I find disheartening.
 
+Hermann Loose Yes, but own choosing till the extend it is granted. A person using President's Obama's or any other celebrity's, national or international personality's name, should not be allowed. Why? Because that will mislead other users. So careful verification should be done while creation of such profiles.

A solution to a problem can't be a problem itself. If it is a problem, then ,undoubtedly, it's not a solution. You should find some other solution for that.
 
I don't see a problem in the solution of allowing pseudonyms and the possibility of reporting fake profiles nevertheless, but that road was clearly not taken.
 
Again the question is how would you (users) know a fake profile?
 
There would be a good idea reading the german "Telemediengesetz" (tele-media law). In §13 (6) you can read 'Der Diensteanbieter hat die Nutzung von Telemedien und ihre Bezahlung anonym oder unter Pseudonym zu ermöglichen,... ' (The provider has to allow the possibility using it's services anonym or with pseudonym...) Google+ breaks german laws with it's policy! Please stopp access from Germany to Google+ immediately!
 
I commented on the original thread:
---
There are two, deep, issues here:

(1) It is useful to know that someone's name is a True Name / Real Name.

(2) It is useful to know when someone is being faked/impersonated/lampooned/reputation-destroyed.

Note that (1) does not imply you can only be yourself, Google+ should allow you to have many identities that simply do not claim to be the real you!

Note that (2) is impossible in general, but is still worth "tagging" when found as suspect, just like Spam, so the reader can beware.

The real issue is labeling, tagging, the system should have crowd-sourced ways of making it clear what it thinks the name represents, and then we all can decide for ourselves.
 
“No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true” ~ Hawthorne
 
You lot just don't learn do you.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/106792630639449031994/posts/4v29vbteeG5

Not only does it show Major holes in your efforts,
it shows plenty of people who dislike the concept, your enforcement of it, and gives many logical, reasonable, sensible and sound reasons against it.
There are also several valid points made in comments to this post as well

How about you lot stop Ignoring the points people make,
and try to discuss things instead?
How about at least acknowledging those that are making points - instead of rudely ignoring them?

And - before - you try a 'squirm response' (we only meant fake famous people etc.), ensure that it simply doesn't make you sound (1) weak
(2) lame
(3) like your backpedalling
(4) like you didn't bother putting enough thought/effort into your phrasing in the first place.

You've got Years of experience on publishing stuff online.
You should have learned these lessons by now G.
 
"Shame On You" G+ ... don't you have the manpower to do the job? Real names... Real Profile Pic's... what's next, want to post my SSN public ?
 
For the record: I suport fake names - not just as aliases to real names, but as freestanding profiles. This IS the internet - people like to play with identities - people like to post as their pets, people like to post as celebs and politicians for satirical purposes... the anser is simple: provide a flag or logo indicating the legit status of profiles... IOW - put the burden on proof on the positive case and leave the negative cases alone...
 
All those fake Justin Bieber's are going down! 
 
Google+ should provide profile authentication. For example, I have an adsense account and GOOg has my SS number and have already verified me via snail mail. Users could optionally use that to indicate that we really are who we claim.
In addition, people will probably also need other methods of account verification.
 
Heres my BIGGEST problems... if you follow anyone like +Matt Cutts of any of the BIG BRAND companies like +Mashable News, +Ford Motor Company that shouldn't even have those pages yet your page ends up being 3 miles long as all the comments show by default... would be really nice if they were collapsed by default AND yes, the whole google apps vs regular profiles thing is jacked up.. transition my account, get my things under one roof and sort that mess thats been sitting there festering for years and then i will take this seriously.. You can't just start something, get it 40% done and repeat that process over and over and over and expect people to take you seriously.
 
So does Darth Vader work for Google or what? Multiple people including myself reported that profile back on July 5th. Darth Vader's profile is still up while I see many others being taken down, including others that weren't even created until well after July 5th.
 
But some of the fake names are so cute.
 
This is a great call out, but I hope people will be extremely judicious in reporting "fake" names. I frequently find myself having to whip out my ID and say "YES it's my real name."
 
Hi everyone: "fake" was the wrong choice of words in my original post as it left a lot of room for misunderstanding. What the policy actually says is: "Google Profiles requires you to use the name that you commonly go by in daily life."
 
What would happen if we reported all the Google employees' and related people's profiles as fake? +Andrew Bunner, are you a real person? Or is it just a name of a friend of your's or one that doesn't even exist? And if so, who should be able to verify that?
Don't forget, the right for pseudonyms is important. We're on the Internet and being forced to show your real name (even if it's not quite the name on your passport) is like being forced to pin your identity card onto your forehead before leaving the house. Would you do that? And would you also do that in a country like Libya or Egypt if you were one of the people fighting for democracy? Would you do that in your home country if you were someone searching for help in support groups for victims of violence (e.g. rape)? Would you do that if your company is abusing people and you want to reveal these objectionable and criminal acts?

Just think about it. Would you call it commensurate to forbid pseudonyms just for the very little advantage of probably being able to catch one or two spammers? Can't people behind pseudonyms also provide genuine content? I tell you: they can and under certain circumstances they can't do it without.
 
I've been a real, decent internet citizen for over a decade, and I've hardly ever used my real name online. This feature of G+ is one of my biggest -1's.
 
The ability to remain anonymous on a social media platform is of great importance. How would Chinese dissidents be able to create a following for regime-critical opinions if they had to use their real names? There are powerful entities that silence the voices of those that dare to speak up. Enforcing true identities prevents citizens from dissent and whistle-blowing.
 
I always thought Facebook's big breakthrough over the likes of MySpace was the acceptability of using real names, and this probably still is at the root of success.

Sure there are times when pseudonyms are important, but impersonation is also something that impacts on trust, and to see that Google is at least aware of this is no bad thing.
 
The ones I reported had large followings, pictures of the individuals they were impersonating, there was another profile which was obviously the valid one, and most importantly NO indication of being fake. I don't mind "Fake Steve Jobs" but saying you're him, using his picture, putting your location as Apple HQ, etc pisses me off, and I HATE Apple.
 
So because i am privacy aware i am not a real person? Strange attitude to have. Cant see many people reporting others. Nobody would be that low down and scummy. As they say `snitches get stitches`!
 
Hey again +Andrew Bunner - just out of curiosity, to which daily life does the policy refer? Many people have a number of different lives throughout the course of a day, each of which is often associated with a particular and unique identity. The identity they choose to represent on Google + should be left to their discretion. There is no "social" justification for insisting on "in the flesh" names here. None. So why not just admit that this is about Google's perceived monetary value of a real-world identified person?

You are a software developer, and you know there is a technical solution available that will satisfy both interests. Solve it that way, and allow the community to solve the social aspects of the identity problem, if there is one to begin with. If you want real names, add a row to the database for it, require users to populate it accurately, and provide a privacy setting to control who, if anybody other than Google, can see it. Leave it to us to determine how to represent ourselves outwardly to the user community here.

Or just keep repeating the same vague policy line, which is what I suspect will happen.
 
Really think the SNS should be the place with REAL name and real profile. Otherwise I fall to see the point of SNS
 
Be careful - it might not be fake, just one of David Beckham's kids...! ;)
 
My friend wasn't allowed to join my hangout because of her last name.  This policy is a failure...
Add a comment...