Shared publicly  - 
I try not to share too much stuff about Google+ itself, but if you've been following the debate over pseudonyms, this is a must read. Robert talked to Vic Gundotra and got his take on common names.
Robert Scoble originally shared:
I talked with Google VP +Vic Gundotra tonight (disclaimer, he used to be my boss at Microsoft). He is reading everything we have written about names, and such. Both pro and con.

He says he is making some tough choices and that he will be judged over time how those choices turn out.

He says that he is trying to make sure a positive tone gets set here. Like when a restaurant doesn't allow people who aren't wearing shirts to enter.

He says it isn't about real names. He says he isn't using his legal name here. He says, instead, it is about having common names and removing people who spell their names in weird ways, like using upside-down characters, or who are using obviously fake names, like "god" or worse.

He says they have made some mistakes while doing the first pass at this and they are learning. He also says the team will change how they communicate with people. IE, let them know what they are doing wrong, etc.

I pushed him to make more of the changes, like give us a good appeals process, etc.

He also says they are working on ways to handle pseudonyms, but that will be a while before the team can turn on those features (everyone is working hard on a raft of different things and can't just react overnight to community needs).

After running through his reasoning, mostly to have a nicer, more personal, community, I feel even stronger that Google is on the right track here even though I feel they weren't fair or smart in how they spun up these new rules, but Vic convinced me to hang in there and watch their decisions over the next few weeks.

I am on board and it will be interesting to watch Vic and his team. Me? I am having a ton of fun here and that is most of what counts.
victor andres valencia samper's profile photoPriscila Queiroz's profile photoLuis Angel Espinoza's profile photoRussell Tripp's profile photo
Quite a debatable issue. +Ben Eubank Free? So you think this service is for free? Wait for adsense... soon it will roll out.
See I would subscribe to g+ stuff from you. And I am sure others who are not that much into g+ would like to deselect that. How about G+ actually allowed for that kind of stuff? ;)
Maybe having a field or fields for nicknames would suffice.
I don't see how there's much room for debate over the issue on a free service -- or paid for that matter. If the real names policy doesn't work for you, don't use the service.
+1 for being open about it...
This makes me cautiously optimistic. It's still such a new service, and I know the team is getting loads of feedback on a variety of topics. I'm glad they seem to be taking the feedback seriously and working hard to get it right.
The process still needs more transparency, but this is helpful information....
I agree that stupid names should not be allowed, but fake names should. For example, people like James from have built their entire online presence under pseudonyms and I think they should definitely be allowed!
Google+ needs to match what Facebook does: keep out spam, fake accounts and massive "MySpace-type" stupidity. General consumers will not make the switch from FB if they do not fight this good fight! Sadly, valid accounts & people got in the way. But I applaud the effort to keep this a HUMAN space. Be good, Google!
This is a great example of how communicating more about an issue is almost always a good thing.
What ever it takes to keep anonymity off Google+. What ever the cost. Rampant anonymous postings are the quickest way to kill a community. If you want to be anonymous there are other social network options for you. Please go to one of those.
+Enmanuel Rivera that's funny. You know, for a minute I was actually confused that he really was God. thank God that google is doing their best to prevent us from making such mistakes....I can rest easy now.

Really...people are that bothered by pseudonyms? It affects their life that much? If it affects their world to such a degree, here's a hint....your life is being affected way too much by the internet, get outside and cut the grass or walk your dog.

And if it's too hard to tell whether someone is a real person or not, or common sense doesn't tell you by looking at someones posts or lack thereof, or by looking at their profile...quit now ;)
+Shane Hudson Couldn't be a much dumber name than Mark Twain. But what about all the poor folks in Egypt and China that are held accountable (with their lives) for their speech.
you are under severe threat +Nico S Twirus
I am still unaware what algorithms they use in identifying real names. Many Single Letter names AXED. I think they will soon ask for Name Certificate. Be ready with scanned copy of that.
I'm glad they are doing it this way. Partly because it seems that people seem less likely to behave like Trolls when they post under their real name. At least that's the sense I get.
+Burnley Wilkins C'mon now....that makes too much sense and clicking a mouse button once or twice is too much work for an awful lot of people these days.
Free service? Ok. But don't we pay with our data? With the ability for Google to mine our content and our social chitchat to better know how to target us with ads? No? Ok. Then it's free. But I somehow doubt it when checking Adplanner...
I think this is ok and doesn't hurt anonymity in any way, because they don't really check passport and prove that your name is real. At the same time it prevents spamming and usage of keywords as names and makes the communication more personal I think. If you don't want to use your real name, just choose something that sounds like one and all ok
I'm glad Google is forcing people to use real names. Maybe people will actually learn to police themselves and be aware of what they post on the Internet. I don't care how much "privacy" is built into a social network. Once your information is on the Internet it is in a very public domain where there is no such thing as privacy.

If you don't want perspective employers to see pictures of you doing stupid crap like hitting a beer bong then DON'T POST THE PICTURES!
what exactly is your procedure to check if the string a user provides as her name is not how she is called by her friends (aka common name)?
because that is your guideline in your content policy.

imho: you cannot tell and must believe the user.
thus: your rule is no real rule.
if you dont like the policys, you dont have to use the service? Google owns the service so it can choose the policy not you.
Just make it easy to distinguish if a name is a real name or not so we don't get confused. More is not necessary. We can decide for ourselves if pseudonymity in our circles is accepted or not.
Really, +Jacob Chappell ? Whatever it takes? What if keeping anonymity off the service requires a retinal scan to verify ID? Would you be comfortable with that?
I wonder if +Jason Tschohl has forgotten that you can be tagged in the photographs other people take.

You are largely trusting your friends.

How do I avoid my employer seeing me hitting a beer bong? By not doing it. I lock down my profiles to a reasonable level, but have limited expectations, of, or worries about privacy.

I've never really used pseudonyms, as it's an awful lot easier if people know what the real me is like :-)
But what is a "real name" in the age of digital? For me my handle Deeped are my real name. So real that I have made it a legal part of my name and then merged my digital identity with my analog. Problem is that Googles algorithms aren't that perfect and since many of us more and more depend (for better or for worse) on the cloud we will see this be a huge problem if the regulations aren't set in a more dynamic manner. This could be the "Buzz-event" for Google+: hope they manage it better than they did with Buzz.
G+ is more than just a social network and I believe people are missing this, this is not Facebook. G+ is part of an ecosystem that is being designed to work with many of Google's other resources such as Picasa's tag feature, Gmail, and etc. I believe it's important that this information is correct so that everything is working seamlessly together. It's not just a playground for telling someone that you're going to bathroom (like Facebook), but it's also a place for businesses. +Michael Dell is looking at possibly using the Hangout feature as a means for support tool for Dell customers. This is just one example of the possibilities of G+. Besides if you're on the web (much less Google)... face it, there is NO anonymity and if you are trying to hide your identity, just maybe you shouldn't be on here to begin with.
Wow. I'd like to share this right now. But I can't because I'm on the mobile app :-/
You neither can check whether people are real people or names are real names (at least I hope so). So why don't you let people decide for themselves?

As I can select any name it's not even about anonymity.

An identity is not about a name it's about what you do. And I remove people from my stream who behave uncool regardless of their name. And a common name does not prevent that either.

So please make this an open platform and let people and not you decide how they would like to name themselves and whom they like to follow.
I've been looking at the photo and name of every comment I've read that supports the Real Name policy, and so far, without fail, the supportive comments I've read have come from white males. For what it's worth.
+John O'Bryan if you wanna do business on here you are right, then information should be correct. But a correct looking name does not say that it's also correct. So why not let people verify themselves voluntarily for this business case? Of course it should be somewhat waterproof then as well.

Still I don't see why people should be forced to different names for this community than they might be known under in an older community.
I don't think Google will use any kind of varification, it will make many people quit and at the same time is very complicated technical task, so it's just spamm protection
I am not advocating for this, but will bring it up for consideration. The issue concerns the beliefs, religious or otherwise, of some people, that God is in each one of us, and that experiencing that is a form of enlightenment. I believe we have an inherent right to name ourselves and see ourselves as unique. What we think of ourselves is at the most basic level of humanity, and cannot be taken away. Nevertheless, our fellow travelers in the journey we call life sometimes succeed in doing just that. I know that sounds like a contradiction. We should attempt to keep a broad outlook on the issue of names. Years ago, it was thought that some languages like Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Korean and others could not be effectively integrated into the world of computers. We have made quite a bit of progress in that area. And please, consider the way the artist formerly known as Prince had chosen to represent his name. In some Native American cultures, the individual may have several names, most notably a secret name, which represents the person's "center".

To me the primary question should be: how do you allow the optimal amount of freedom without offending too many people. The culture that develops out of that concept will eventually determine the rules. The internet is by its very nature a multicultural, inclusive and dynamic matrix of humanity. This is a first. Many cultures have found accommodations for their members only to find that when they rub up against another culture or religion, some of their accommodations are deemed to be unacceptable. When you create a metaculture, as is happening here, I believe it is particularly important to lay the right foundation. As in the building of a multistory structure, flaws in the foundation will translate all the way to the roof. Having built homes on foundations prepared by others, I have learned also that the work of building the home is much more difficult for the carpenters and other trades if a flaw has to be compensated for throughout the construction process.

Sometimes, when I am feeling physically and emotionally great, and the world around me is not only beautiful but noticeably, insistently so, I experience a sense of peace that makes me think that God must feel like this. Would it be so wrong for me to consider myself, in a small way, as only I can, to be God for a moment?
Spammers and internet jackasses ruin everything, always. Want anonymity, it wasn't here anyway. If the Chinese Government told Google to pony up IP addresses etc, they would in a heartbeat.
+Burnley Wilkins Anonymity allows people to post inflammatory, extraneous, off-topic or down right hurtful messages without fear of reprisal. It brings out the worst in people, or if you rather, allows people to be the worst of them selves. If trying to devise a way to avoid this kind of stuff will not, "make the community any better," I would love to hear your thoughts on a solution. As for me being a 12 year old girl. You have my real name, with links to other profiles, my company, photos of my beautiful family, etc. If you wanted to look that up you could, and that is because I am not anonymous. Clicking on my profile does not lead to a black hole.

+Ward Mundy I agree with you that there are real, and some times life threatening, reasons to be anonymous. I simply hope that Google+ never becomes a platform for the actions that require it. I do not feel Google+ would be a better place if Google supported such causes. If you want to push a cause there are many, many other social networking options that would far better suit such action.
It seems to me that Twitter's identity verification program is a good happy medium. 
Communication requires a sender and a receiver. Without either you have a lost message. Anonymity does not resolve conflict.
+Jacob Chappell So you think Google+ should just be a utopia of the privileged where marginalized people have no voice, then?
Looks like we're just about where the Republicans and Democrats are on the budget mess.
I think anonymity is absolutely neccessary, but it doesn't means names like brand names, keywords or just nfhdh, names should just sound like real, Vic emphasized it is not about legal names, so you can choose any name you like
Some people put symbols in their names like "$" and "@" instead of using "S" and "A" which is so damn annoying!
Tamura, I clicked that link and it says "When the Google+ team's team hits the suspend button, users find themselves shut out of all Google services." But that's just not true.

When you're suspended for not using a real/common name, you can't use Google+/Buzz/+1 (stuff that uses your profile). But you can continue to use Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, etc.
+Gabe Small I use similar security in my office already, so sure. If I can have the same system auto log me into Google+ as well, I think that would be rather slick. (Google+ API please) On the bright side it is not at all realistic for Google to go to such an extreme measure so there is little need to worry about it.

My fundamental point on all this is simple. If you want to be anonymous or need to be anonymous there are other social platforms that are far better suited for such activity. I think Google should willingly let those people move on and not cater to their needs what so ever. The community as a whole will be better off for it.
thank god everyone who agrees with this is not named something fake like +limor fried .
this all seems to me to be yet another manifestation born of the type of mindset that has produced political correctness; an attempt to produce an environment of faux civility in which one only expresses thoughts and ideas and opinions which will not disturb the facade with discomfiting thoughts, idiocy, rudeness etc.

if one was unable to segregate oneself from creeps and morons on social sites that would be a different matter, but when blocking and etc is so simple there is no need for google, or any other host, to protect us,

it is particularly ironic that google, having created g+ with unprecedented options that enable fine-tuning the sharing of posts, would at the same time resort to such absurdly paternalistic control.
+Jacob Chappell " The community as a whole will be better off for it." I fundamentally disagree. I believe communities as a whole suffer when marginalized people are cast out.

There is a tool to block users if you are inclined to erect a protective bubble around your corner of the community.
Matt, follow the links... these are users who say different, and they are not alone.
There are many more than the few I linked too.
Many more than the few who wrote about it.

My source: multiple users who are upset that they have been plussed.
Your source: Robert Scoble doing a one-two with his former boss.
Personally I don't see the need for anonymity on the internet (annnd start the flaming.. now). Really I can think of two arguments that can be used for why someone would want to be anonymous (guess which one is valid)

1) You want to be able to do/post things online without them being directly attributed to you.
2) You are afraid someone will track you down IRL.

To the first point, I just don't understand why you would both doing / posting something on the internet without being 100% OK with it being tracked back to your real name. There are private "member only" websites out there for the more embarassing hobbies that people may partake in and, hey, to each their own.. but maybe social network (or public community) websites aren't the best place to try and do / post things related to those hobbies. Also make sure that the things you do / post online actually add value to whatever website you're posting them to.. is that really too much to ask?

To the second point, I'm not going to pretend like there aren't sick-o's out there using the internet as a gateway - but for adults.. use common sense with what personal information you post online. One example I recommend to people is when registering a domain name, use your work address, not your personal one. As this is a public chat (see what I did there, I identified this as public and am adjusting what I post) I'm not going to get into the subject of kids on the internet other than to say to the parents out there that it really isn't all that hard to set up your home internet so that it is only accessible when you explicitly allow it, and also have a router set up that will provide you with reports of which websites were visited.
I'm sure we all know plenty of abusive and annoying folks that use their real names... and appear to be proud of it.
+Burnley Wilkins All of your points are of course absolutely correct and well said. In fact, the only issue I take with that post is that you seem to be giving up. You seem to be saying that doing nothing and/or not bothering to try and make a situation better is the best option, because there is nothing we can do anyway. Well, I do not subscribe to any such notion. Are you correct here? Sadly, you probably are. But that does not mean we should stop trying to improve the social experience for the many.

Anyway, you have some great views and opinions, so welcome to my "Following" list.
+Steve Ellwood Two things about photos: 1. You can remove the tag if somebody tags you and you can get notification via E-mail or SMS as soon as somebody tags you. 2. Yes, I trust my friends to not post pictures like that because they're all very aware of the potential consequences as well.

+Gabe Small If somebody needs information on how to get out of something like an abusive relationship they shouldn't go to a social network to do it. With the real names issue we're talking about a social network, not some special forum where anonymity is preferred.
With debate ongoing, it probably would have made more sense to hold off suspending accounts until decisions made / alias features enabled don't you think?
+Burnley Wilkins I would love to see improvements to the mute/block/report system. As it is not they almost seem to be missing entirely. Something that strikes me as odd is that the "Blocked" Circle is not in the drop down list when you mouse over a persons name.

Regarding the anonymous topic, in fear of repeating my self I will close with this. What ever we can do to help online conversations progress with same common courtesy you would show a stranger in a face to face conversation is okay with me.
It's surprising to see people claiming that anonymity is a right, that Google should respect that etc... Yes, anonymity on Internet is a right, but Google is not the internet...

It's normal for people to give some feedback about what they think should be improved, but some people seem to expect Google to address their concerns as if Google was the Government or something.

Google is a company. They need you to improve their service, and giving feedback is ok. But sending ironic answers to feel witty or just spamming angry comments won't help anyone, let alone the community you're pretending to help.

And I personally agree with the fact that there are countless other places for the other people who must stay anonymous to be heard.

Maybe some people want Google+ to be the next Facebook, helping people to fight their tyrannical presidents / leaders ? Maybe Google people don't want that. And they have the right to choose what they do of their product don't they ?
Tamura, I'd have to respectfully disagree. I've been talking to the Google+ folks about this directly. If there's someone who was suspended for the real/common name policy who doesn't have access to their Gmail, I'm happy to escalate that with folks here at Google.

Just to repeat: if your profile is suspended for not having a real/common name, you won't have access to products that use the Google profile (Google+/Buzz/+1), but you will still have access to Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, etc.
Matt, repeating it does not make it true.

One explanation that accounts for both the statements from upset users and those made by Vic Gundotra is that Google did plus a few users, but has changed that in reply to criticism, and is now no longer plussing users. Is that what happened?
Tamura, to the best of my knowledge, Google's policy all along has been that suspension for not having a real/common name would affect Google+ and other products using profiles (e.g. Buzz and +1), but not Gmail and other services.

For example, if you read Google's official documentation on this page: The highlighted section says "Other Google products also reference your Google profile. So if your profile is suspended or deleted, these other products will not work anymore. For example, Buzz and +1’s currently require an active and functioning profile while Gmail and Blogger do not."

So according to the documentation Google itself provides, Gmail, Blogger, etc. should continue to work, even if a profile is suspended for not having a real/common name. If anyone knows of counter-examples, I'm happy to escalate those cases with the folks at Google.
Sigh. Matt, a link to that page is already at the end of my article.

The fact remains that users say they were plussed, and Vic is denying anyone got plussed. I link to both user statements and Vic's statements.
Fee free to email me if you have any remaining concerns.
+Tamura Jones I had two friends have there accounts blocked for using there gaming tags as there names. Both sent me emails from there Gmail accounts to tell me about it. One of them made our lunch date thanks to a reminder from his still functioning Google Calendar service, and both are at this moment editing a work related Google Doc with me.

My advice to you would be to think about how technically inclined your "sources" are and think about whether irate people exaggerated. My fear is that a small group of people are feeding you misinformation in an effort to get there plight heard. Think hard about this because it if is indeed the case, these few people are making you look like a jackass.
Tamura, I read your article at . The only person I saw referenced by name was Kirrily "Skud" Robert. If you go to her blog, the most recent post at says this:

"As far as I know, people are not losing access to all their Google services simply for using a name that Google doesn’t like. I have not yet heard of a single documentable case of this."

So I guess what I'm saying is that if anyone can point to an actual case of this, please let me know so we can check it out.

What I would hate to see is a sort of digital urban myth spring up that says "Google will suspend your Gmail just because they don't like your profile name," because I believe that's just not true.
Matt, your comment suggests to readers here that there is just one link. There are many links.
Email or Skype me if you have remaining concerns.
+1 for real names.
Let there be at least one place where you should be able to acknowledge what you state. I've had enough of anonymous people spewing their hatred...
Thanks for all the comments Matt. In the unlikely event this every actually happens I will be sure to direct those people to you for quick rectification.
Anybody who thinks that Facebook proactively "keeps out spam, fake accounts and massive "MySpace-type" stupidity" clearly doesn't get around on Facebook much. I get a fair number of spam PMs, both as WGM and under my real name from Nigerian scammers and people trying to propagate malware links. And what about all those stupid clickjacking videos? Facebook is hardly an oasis of common decency: I think they're much more focused on reaching their next benchmark of active users than maintaining some sort of placid and "real" user experience.
Tamura, I followed you on Twitter if you want to DM me the best way to contact you.
+Matt Cutts don't feed the trolls! It's amazing how many individuals are getting exposure for being wrong about the account suspensions on G+.
Each individual has control over their own profile and who (or what) they choose to follow. I agree with the view that Google should provide the tools and allow the community to police itself (for the most part).

I don't see Google feeding the trolls, anymore than Facebook does. It's the mob that follows that feed the trolls.
I could not agree more, if i know read posts i wrote 15 years ago under the security blanket of a pseudonym, i'm amazed at how far you drift away from your own morale. So to get myself in-line on-line stopped using a Pseudonime.

So posting under your own name, is the only way to cleanse Internet of radicalism...
It's just entertaining to me that my first interactions with a Google employee was someone hiding behind the pseudonym GoogleGuy, who usually had his stickymail turned off, all to avoid abuse. I can actually see both sides of the issue, and my take on it is that it is Google's house, and Google's rules, and I'll play by their rules or go somewhere else. My biggest problem is the implementation of policy, and how my friends with hippie parents can't use their real name, but people that come up with realistic sounding pseudonyms can abuse the system.

BigDave (my WMW pseudonym)
+Ernst Anepool you are choosing to ignore the issue that some people can be put in danger by using their real name online.
+Fritz Stelluto If somebodies name is going to put them in danger maybe they shouldn't be part of a social network to begin with? Just a thought.
+Jason Tschohl so you are suggesting, for example, Syrians shouldn't join G+ - their fault for living under a dictatorship.

And what about people who get involved with some dodgy situation after they join. Their fault - they should have been careful about who they meet and what they say. Don't they know they are on G+?

And what about those who don't even know they may be a target, and only discover when it's too late.

It's very selfish to demand full name disclosure just because YOU like it that way. You are free to ignore people who use pseudonyms, but don't force your view on everyone else. Thank you,
summary: for software, human names are problematic
Danny, I would love if people could still download their data in the mean time in situations like that. I don't know whether +Brian "Fitz" Fitzpatrick is around and listening, but adding him.
I like that +Tamura Jones keeps telling +Matt Cutts to follow the links, but isn't actually able to substantiate claims when it's pointed out that what is being claimed is not the case even according to the sources linked. Maybe this small interaction is informative in our thoughts on anonymity and the internet.

Privacy is a right--anonymity is not.
For the record: I'm back!
Anecdotally, if flaws and faults didn't really aggravate me as they do I'd never maintain the focus / concentration my work requires.
(Imagine copy editing a technical manual by giving it a close / hard read, from back to front, word by word, number by number. It works wonderfully. You see, we inevitably get swept up by narrative and for moments speed-read ... very hard to stop that ... or we get bored and skim ... likewise for long moments, likewise very hard to stop. None of that happens reading backwards. It's just mind-numbing drudgery! /*G*/)
My point is this: my hopes and aspirations take a hit when Google screws up. I'm offended that Favorites and Playlists aren't front and center when I launch YouTube in HG. I'm offended that getting to my earliest posts, a simple task, is apparently so difficult if not down-right impossible.

I was offended to have my account suspended for "Bernard (ben) Tremblay", a communicative gesture that is both meaningful and appropriate.
I appreciated how my account was restored when I removed the parens ... having been instructed to remove the middle name.
But I was doubly offended when my account was yet again suspended this weekend.

So really it comes to this: should I instead have a "Oh whatevuh" attitude? I think not.

In short: I get ticked off when my favorite athlete stumbles, or suffers a brain-cramp. Likewise with Google.
I truly hope you can justify our faith and our hopes.

for reference:


p.s. seeing +Brian "Fitz" Fitzpatrick ... Mr. Cutts, (+Matt Cutts) can you understand how that looks like favoritism? on the face of it?
the problem with a discussion about the real names policy, of course, is that those against it won't speak out because they are afraid Google will discover they are not using a real name... (btw - this IS my real name)
+Gabe Small Interesting, the only trouble I can find with using that link as an argument is that the first line points out where most people are getting lost in this particular discussion, I haven't seen anything to point out that Google will be banning psuedonyms, just trying to get rid of people who are opening up accounts with obviously fake names (I'm assuming because the majority of spammers / trolls will open accounts with an obviously fake name because of their .. creativity).

Anyway, if people skipped your comment because it was buried I'll re-paste your link

Now, I originally said that I felt people that wanted fake names feel into one of two groups, and implied that only the second was a valid reason:

1) You want to be able to do/post things online without them being directly attributed to you.
2) You are afraid someone will track you down IRL.

Now from that article, and just focusing on the first list of bullet points, a bunch of those I would place in the second category (harassment, physical danger, etc). However the bullet point on "social costs of not being able to interact with friends and colleagues", really made me want to stop reading. I use the internet as a convenience for interaction for friends I have in other geographic places.. but I still have their phone numbers.. and my friends do not stop being my friends if I do not talk to them for a couple of weeks (or months.. or years for that matter).

I also do not agree with the point about loss of data being being a valid argument, although maybe I am just not the type of person who places secure data in places that I might locked out of because I chose not to use my real name.

Anyway, I look forward to reading through the article in its entirety, good post.
"I can't believe that Google+ just deleted my account." --Mark Twain
Hai Le
I don't think G+ should force us to use real name, why i can't use my nickname instead? And seem i can't switch to mobile version when i used ipad safari, i saw desktop and mobile version but when i switched to desktop version, i can't back to mobile version anymore until i closed and reopen my browser? Another request, can i stop stream for a while? Because stream always push down many new posting when i reading something in stream ?
+Matt Cutts I certainly believe that--where legally possible--even suspended users should be able to get their data. I'm looking into what we can do.
What I posted ... with reference to some folk who can use punctuation in their names. /me looks at comment immediately above.
"Google's "Name Policy" ... Why the smoke and mirrors?"

+Vic Gundotra
Sir - In the name of civil society, let's be clear.

Google name policy recognizes 1 and 1 only validation for Profile name: government ID. Is that not true?
If it isn't true, please correct your Profile Support Team's KB.
It it is true, why is there so much verbiage and so little clarity?
First I was told to removed the middle name. Then I was told punctuation was not allowed. Now it's "The only punctuation that is valid in your Profile Name is any punctuation that actually shows up in your real name, like you would see on your Government Issued ID." But Public Policy Blog read "what friends and family call you".

I see an effort to be based in theoretical granite, rather than relying on tradition and reasonable practice.
In short: procrustean simplicity (for the sake of whom? what?) achieved by lopping off the fuzz that attends human individuals. So then the question becomes, "Is this social network truly social*"

I could understand this from a small shop limping along with limited staff and resources.
But ...
... isn't this just 80/20? Good solution's too tough, so we'll invest 20% effort and please 80% (or more) of the people.
it sucks having a weird name, that happens to be the actual name.
The comments in that article read like hogwash.
As per normal for G Corp ... it's slap on some whitewash and hope that it slides without to much noticeable damage.

The whole fiasco shows that G either didn't bother to analyse and predict the issues this would cause,
or decided that those who slipped through the net aren't worth the bother.

They are intending to Delete Pricate profiles.
All suspended profiles are made private.
That means regardless of the legitimacy of your name - you will be removed after 5 days time.
No recourse.
No salvation.
And in some cases - due to a stupid error in code or in reporting.

Nice job Google.
I am an ordained Buddhist. All my friends know me by my Buddhist name & don't know who the person with my legal name is. I have not changed my legal name because of problems it would give when travelling to countries where the idea of changing your name doesn't exist. I have literally hundreds of friends and acquaintances in the same boat that I am in.

What is my "real" name on a social network? The name everyone knows me by, or a name I use for bureaucratic purposes?

Am I in danger of having all my data stored in google deleted? (Gmail, calendar, reader, picasa etc etc) If so, I wonder if it is a good idea to use G+. Maybe I should just stick to Facebook. At least they CAN'T delete my email account.

I am genuinely concerned about this.
I had same issue before, but I had to go with my real name and added the other in a bracket (Roy)
Add a comment...