Shared publicly  - 
 
Welcome +will.i.am . to Google+!
**** originally shared:
 
this is pretty dope...
i cant wait for the hang out session+
323
43
Justin Lin's profile photoMark Louie's profile photoAmit Fulay's profile photoThibaut Dutartre's profile photo
389 comments
 
I'm drawing a big red and blue circle around him
 
Are you sure that's his real name Vic?
 
The irony of the "real name policy" and this announcement is not beyond me.
 
Policy has changed. Your identy may be the one you are best known by...
 
it's a "verified" real name
 
Hmm, I commented (as comment #2) about him not being called 'William Adams' on G+ - and now my comment is gone! Conspiracy!
 
I think that we'll probably see an update soon that allows you to use screen names for different circles.
 
Ehm... +Vic Gundotra is G+ already making exceptions for VIPs? Everyone's equal but someone is more equal than others?
Also, why are comments of people complaining disappearing so fast?
 
+Vic Gundotra -- please do NOT start saying stuff yourself, such as "this is pretty dope" ... But I guess more power to celebrity.
Jon Dye
+
3
4
3
 
I didn't remove it.
 
hello vic can u chat with me vic gundotra i want to check this is working or not
Jon Dye
+
1
3
4
3
 
And I don't really appreciate it being removed. It was not offensive in any way.
 
Aaaaannnddddd... here goes the whole entire real name issue all over again...

Would you know who he was if they called him by his "real name"... No!
 
Vic, is he really allowed to use the name will.i.am? Has Google+ name policy been changed to allow aliases now?

I hope the silly rules have been relaxed.
 
This is an interesting thing...Google+,
 
BAN HIM!!!! ITS NOT HIS REAL NAME.... or maybe it is! who knows!
Translate
 
I suppose yet another way to socialize and meet and greet....
 
+Luca Zenari The exception is when that person walks down the street, that's what people call him, when he gets on stage in front of 100,000 people, that's what people call him...

and NO +Nigel Hill You can't go by SomeDude3843...
Jon Dye
+
2
3
4
3
 
I'm not going to say it again.

If the name policy has changed, then why weren't WE notified? How come the first we hear of it is when you announce someone else not using their real name? And then delete our comments when we point out your inconsistency. Play fair Google.
 
Maybe this is just a subtle hint that we now can all use any aliases...
 
You guys really should sort out the pseudonyms policy. I don't have a problem with you requiring real names, but this is wrong. No one with a period for a surname, or all of them, should be allowed in G+.
 
says it's verified. Most likely it will be different for celebs who go by monikers
 
plz sir answer my question which i sent you.. i am waiting for that..
 
Really a good experience working with google plus!!!!
Jon Dye
 
my new name is going to be Jon 12345asdf
 
I believe Will.I.Am is his legal name now, so thats the name he has to use on google+. Get over it people
 
+James Pakele there's people who know me by the username I used for 10 years in every community I joined, and when they look for me on G+ they don't find me. You know, it's not just will.i.am. who is known by a nickname.
Jon Dye
+
9
10
9
 
Google doesn't have the right to decide what anybody else's legal name is, so why do they get to ban them for having a name they dont like?
 
+Ellen Molenaar Artist (( Ellen Molenaar Artist - Policy has changed. Your identy may be the one you are best known by... )) ... Hey Ellen, I believe you, but could you please tell me when the policy changed and if it is listed somewhere in writing?

I think most people would agree -- We love having artists, musicians, taking part in G+ ... but many people compromised their longe established identities in order to comply with a struct and unrelenting policy from google. It strike many as OPPORTUNISTIC when they change at least seemingly to accomodate celebrities, while F* it for the people who are not of a certain stratosphere.

I'd like to see you, +Vic Gundotra , address this, so that you can make sure everyone knows that while you welcome brand names, you treat them with no greater appreciation than you treat those who created an exponentially huge adoption base that made it even worth W.I.Am's time to even both to show up here after a threshold of acceptability had been set.
 
google + is awesome..............
 
My comment was deleted, too. Can't handle a little bit of criticism?
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
legally, you do not even have to go to court to legally change your name, provided that you aren't trying to conceal your identity.
 
I have nothing to say about Google+.......am waiting for more features and extra ordinary services as well because it's Google.
 
This will be great fun!

The incessant whining about the names policy is less fun.

Get over it!
Jon Dye
 
I'm known as a lot of other things beside Jon Dye since I'm a musician with a LOT of sideprojects, but I didn't make any of them my name on G+ because its disingenuous.
 
+Jon Dye The policy was not changed... will.i.am is a developed, vested identity... you wouldn't know him by any other name, and therefore it is valid... They have been very consistent about this... See Snoop Dogg, PitBull, 50 Cent and others...
 
((Benjamin WL - He is KNOWN as will.i.am. Get over it.
1:13 AM )) +Benjamin WL -- you're missing a huge point, know it all. People are not here picking a fight. They are discussing egalitariansim. And asking questions, that's all.

Many a person who's had a long identity line with a variation on a birth certificate name had been rejected here in using that name. ... And you tooo, +Joseph Moosman , STFU ... Celebrity intoxication is not what G+ was built on... And people here are not whining.
 
+Jon Dye You know why... because it's their sandbox.... when you create your own sandbox, you can make the rules...
 
hello james can u do voice chat with me in google +++
Jon Dye
+
1
2
3
2
 
All I'm asking for is a little consistency here. It's not unreasonable to ask that, is it? Am I wrong?
 
Say no to G+'s real name policy...!!!!
 
+James Pakele - see Skud. Oh, wait, you can't, because google decided that the name she's been known by for years isn't good enough. We're just asking for consistency.
Jon Dye
+
1
6
7
6
 
if +will.i.am . gets to call himself whatever he wants to, then I say everybody else should be allowed to as well.
 
I'm with Jon Dye on this - I've been known via a 'nickname' for over 20 years - I even own the .com domain for it, as it's how most of the people who know me find me. I even answer to said nickname in public when shouted across a room at me.
 
You can ask for consistency, but still it might be a waste of time complaining about it when it's not 100%.
Jon Dye
 
+James Pakele You don't seem to understand how internet advertising works.
 
Right people right place right share with Google+1 its a great feature.
I wish Google and his free opportunity around the world.
 
I've just reported the abuse: this is not the real name. Google+ should close this profile. Or the "real name policy" is out?
 
To all those complaining girls - you don't get to use your nicknames because YOU ARE NOT FAMOUS.
 
+Richard Hoefer +Vic Gundotra is not going to address this to you or anybody else here. Because if he does he'll have to do it to every single post all you "real name" posse people bombard... it's getting old... we all know you oppose... wanna make the rules... make your own sandbox...
Jon Dye
+
9
10
9
 
+Matt Owen There's no line that you can draw between obscure and famous, This is where the problem lies with profile verification, and now apparently with the real name policy.
Jon Dye
+
4
5
4
 
I am a public persona because I post publicly, and interact with strangers in a public forum. I deserve the same rights as any "celebrity"
 
+James Pakele that's a flawed argument and you know it. If you make something public, the first thing you have to do is keep rules and their application CONSISTENT. There's a lot of internet celebrities who have been denied the right to use their internet names (I'm thinking about Italian internet celebrities you may not know, but the same thing happens all over the world), while musicians and actors are allowed to use stage names. I am known everywhere else in opensource software communities by a nickname, and I can't use it.
Beside, +Benjamin WL , I don't get how "being famous" makes you eligible for being easier to find than someone else. Everyone has made "internet friends" by using a nickname, and not using that nickname on G+ means you are harder to find from your internet friends.
 
+James Pakele - Or, I can keep protesting until they address it. Yeah, I think I'll do that, thanks anyway.
Jon Dye
+
3
4
3
 
+Brian Mann Agreed! If it weren't for the masses, there would be nobody on G+ who even cared that +will.i.am . was on it.
 
I wonder if Barack Obama can use +yes.we.can username because he's the president.
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
I guarantee that I've made more money for Google than he ever did.
 
what do you think about new features on Facebook?
 
+Luca Zenari Is that what they call you when you walk down the street? Or when your addressed in the lobby of a hotel, by people you don't even know? Or instantly recognizable by 50,000 people when called to a stage?
 
Keep protesting and Google+ will lose.
 
I do not agree with people speaking about famous people authorized to disregard the policy of the real name. In particular, Will.i.am is certainly a famous person there for you. But not in Italy or Belgium, or at least in Europe. Here is a person like any other and must respect the rules. Like everyone else, so report it
Jon Dye
+
1
2
1
 
If he was so famous, he wouldn't even need to use a moniker on G+.
 
+Tyler Tilley has got the right idea - spend some time digging up G+ profiles of 'celebs' with non-real names, and report them!
 
Wow, who is this man? His "real name" is really cute! I want it to!
 
(( James Pakele - +Jon Dye You know why... because it's their sandbox.... when you create your own sandbox, you can make the rules...)) +James Pakele I'm kind of surprised to hear you say that. That's a very authoritarian approach to life, accepting things because people say so. I will just bet there have been at least 10-15 social justice causes in your life you have fought where "because they make the rules" didn't quite cut it for you.... Why are you somewhat overly defensive in this case? You seemed way more populist and egalitarian in so many posts. No matter, people can be who they like. But no, google would not have attained 10-15 million massive user adoption in 1-2 months time if they had adopted an authoritarian stance overall. QUite the contrary, they showed an entirely new corporate culture... and it was this name policy that seemed contradictory to the "new & improved" more open-Google.
 
+Barry Williams Is that what they are called in real life, that's all I want to know... when you walk up to them in the real world... is that what you call them? Not sometimes, by some people I mean most of the time by most people...
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
I say we just ask them real nice like: "Would you please use your real name? Because you are highlighting terrible inconsistencies in Google policy."
 
Why does anyone expect fairness or consistency? Look at it from Google's perspective, what good would it do them in a case such as this? They aren't acting discriminatory, just "unfair".
 
+Jon Dye : Too much of text? and now its necessary to see what the sloppy haired guy you were neglecting in college days written on the image of the another guy you were neglecting too, thanks to the new Ticker.
Jon Dye
+
1
2
1
 
+Rahul Vikram I think the ticker is what I dislike the most. I don't need an up to the minute list of what my friends are liking.
 
Which is the bigger issue here?
1. Famous people not using real name (as in his/her ID card)
2. Vic posted a message of this famous people not using real name
 
+Jon Dye They have been consistent... 50 Cent, that's what he's called in real life... Snoop Dogg, that's what he's called in real life... not by some of the people some of the time, by most of the people, most of the time... See consistent
 
+James Pakele sorry, I missed one of your replies (replies keep written too fast, I didn't read it. Sorry) Anyway to answer you yes, it's what most people call me in real life too. At comic conventions, at software conventions, and I mean real life interaction with real people. Truth to be told only my family uses my real name to address me.
Jon Dye
+
1
2
1
 
+James Pakele No, that is not what they are called in real life. That's what they're called on TV.
 
Wow, "repetitive sniveling". Classy. Someone must work in public relations?
 
This is my first day of accessing this google hangout.. Hope to get more friends..
 
What is Google going to do when instead of 25 Million people debating the real names policy, there are 750 Million, and 600 Million of them are obviously "fake" names? Just how many people can one employee ban in a day, and how much money will the shareholders let +Vic Gundotra burn trying to ram this idiotic policy down our throats? Start looking for a new job, Vic, cos you're not here for the long term.
 
+Toni Alfirević Verifiable... There is a crowd of 50,000 people, they say "introducing will.i.am" and 50,000 people instantly knows who they are talking about... verified!
 
+James Pakele Of course. And I know how the name policy works. Comment made in jest :-)

Sad though, that only celebs will be able to use nicknames. For example, my friends may know me by another name. And that's the name I'd want to be called by on a social network. But there's no way for me to prove it to Google.
 
So his mom and dad calls him +will.i.am . , his gf or wife would call him +will.i.am . , his kids would call him +will.i.am . , if so thats just weird, if not, then by Google's standards, its not his "real" name and he should change it.
Jon Dye
+
4
5
4
 
JUST CHANGE THE POLICY ALREADY AND MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT. It shouldn't be so hard for you to do, since you APPARENTLY are not enforcing it anymore.
 
Well that's pretty sad +James Pakele , I sure read you wrong. But such is the nature of living on the Discovery Network of G+ vs the Known Friend Network of fb. I love the discovery component here. Just because you are tired of an argument is not a sufficient groundswell or rationale for a shutdown of intellectual comment on something that is important to people OTHER than you, so, guess what, people are going to speak. And I have every right to petition +Vic Gundotra to address this... He may choose to ignore it. Fine.

But too many very significant cases have been made, by people maybe you are bored by, about the policy here -- and it only makes sense that there at minimum be a consistent policy -- and better than that be a policy that people embrace.

Just because you appear to be so jazzed about black eyed peas doesn't preempt everyone else's opinions. But go ahead, try to use intimidation see how well it works.
 
+James Pakele In Europe we do not know him. So who is? What is name? What he do? I mean: is famous in the U.S., or Canada? When you can say that a person is universally famous or famous enough to use a different name?
 
+James Pakele there are plenty of people with REAL names (the names on their Wallet ID) that have been thrown out of G+ for non-compliance with this insanity. yet at the same time, others are allowed, and now promoted, with fake names? Inconsistency, and we don't like it.
 
People are stupid. Particularly a lot of people in this thread. Nowhere does is say you need to use your 'legal' name (or even you 'real' name). You have to use the name you commonly go by in real life. Will.i.am is obviously perfectly acceptable, and Google are being consistent. people just love to complain...
 
Personally I don't give a stuff about the real names policy. I have even started using my real name on other places where I post. However I do have to say that having a senior Googler introduce someone who breaks the rules strikes me as somewhat insensitive to those who were pissed off at this issue.
Jon Dye
+
7
8
7
 
+Joe Lancaster You're wrong. People have been banned for their real names being flagged as unacceptable.
 
This could all be circumvented if there was a field in your profile where you can set a nickname/stage name or similar, and it would show up as 'John "Nickname" Doe' on your profile. Of course with an option to search for this nickname field specifically.

It wouldn't allow pure nicknames, but it would be a compromise.
Jon Dye
+
1
2
1
 
+Joe Lancaster Just because something is "obvious" to you doesn't make it right.
 
+Joe Lancaster - Unless, of course, google decides they don't like it. Like Violet Blue, who was suspended. For using her real name.
 
+Joe Lancaster that's what's written in the rules, yes, but that's not how it's been done so far. When someone reports your profile, you have to provide an ID card scanning, and you are forced to use your LEGAL name, that is the one on your ID card.
 
+Joe Lancaster that would be perfectly reasonable, except that Google has been banning people for using their real names, simply because they didn't fit their WASP template. Suggest you go and read up on the whole nymwars issue, because people's LIVES depend on this. Its the inconsistency which consigns the majority to the garbage heap while fawning all over a few celebrities which really gets up people's noses.
 
their working on it.. I cant wait to have this application on my mobile phone..
Jon Dye
+
5
6
5
 
+Joe Lancaster Read what the others mentioned in reply to you. You are way wrong.
Jon Dye
+
1
1
2
1
 
As long as regular people are getting banned for using their real names, I will NOT stand for celebrities using fake names.
 
any one interested on adding me??? i will add u tooo..............
 
+Jon Dye No, I am not wrong. You are wrong for making up a rule and then pretending Google said it.

+Fulvio Gerardi read up on it? Dude I've been on this whole thing since the beginning, and I have read practically everything there is to read on the subject. People's live do not depend on this, that's overhyped bullshit.
Translate
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
This is a very simple matter of changing the draconian names policy. A policy that I happen to agree with, if it were only enforced fairly.
 
+Joe Lancaster So you really think that Will.I.Am is a real name? Google policy want a NAME and SURNAME in the profile. Otherwise you're banned. Wich is the name and the surname?
Jon Dye
+
6
7
6
 
+Joe Lancaster Then how do you explain people getting banned for using their real names? They are forced to show a government issued ID in order to have their account restored. And you're trying to say there's no real name policy?
 
Not sure what the big deal is a name is a name
 
(( Joe Lancaster - +Jon Dye I'm not wrong. Read what I wrote again, it is correct. )) +Joe Lancaster <-- But you ARE wrong. You are using sophomoric logic, scratch that, no logic at all. You are simply citing your interpretation of a policy while IGNORING people's recitation to you of many many people who were kicked off of G+ for using a name they are known by in real life - yet which does not match their birth certificate. You choose to ignore that, or simply can't process the distinction. Either way, when you call people stupid, you better check to see if your own marble are in order. You can't seem to grasp the basic concept of just how many people have been thrown off of G+ -- what, do you think people are here LYING? DO you think in each case "oh, they couldn't have been using the name they use in real life"?
 
Amazing name policy where everyone has to have their real name... except if you are friends with Google employees?

Way to go Google!
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
+Tim Smart The big deal is that Google is playing favorites, and trying to call it "policy".
 
+Joe Lancaster "overhyped bullshit"??? Really? Go tell that to anyone who's been stalked and assaulted after being tracked down online. Or anyone living in a totalitarian state fighting for human rights. If you've read everything, and totally failed to get it, you're a lost cause.
 
i cant chat with other and also cant receive request
can anyone tell me how can i
 
+Vincenzo Pisani You're missing the point. Whether it is 'real' or not doesn't matter, because that isn't the rule (although it could easily be argued that Will.i.am is in fact his real name - 'real' is a vague term). It is the name he is known by, it is what is commonly goes by, and according to Google's guidelines, that is acceptable. Read +Toni Alfirević's comment a few up, that posts the relevant section of the guidelines.
 
+Richard Hoefer Because this guy just slammed this thread with about a thousand posts of ridiculousness... He doesn't want an actual answer or anything logical, he doesn't want to understand or try to see what is going on, he just wants to throw a tantrum... wah wah wah, I want it my way, and if I don't get it my way I'll keep screaming like a kid in the supermarket... scroll this post you'll see what I mean...

Now, real talk. A lot of people are only looking at what they want, not all the things Google has to consider when making policies and exceptions... This also goes for the other group hollering about Google Apps accounts... same thing. There are more things in play than most users can see, or comprehend. Do all these people think Google hasn't already heard the cries? Do they think Google is intentionally pissing people off, do they think this is the goal of Google? That would be crazy. If they are taking an unpopular stance, don't you think there is a darn good reason for that, whether they want to share it or not, whether we can envision it or comprehend it or not. Why would Google want to piss off it's users.

One major truth of it is, once any tom, dick and harry is allowed to use whatever name they want, this place turns into Engadget comment sections, or YouTube comment sections, and all the ignorant trolls that come with it. I'm sure when Google figures a way to curb thing like that along with other issues that they have to deal with that I can't even see or think up, they'll implement it.

Now, does that mean people like +Jon Dye will understand this... no it means that he doesn't care why or how, all he knows is he's in the supermarket and mommy won't let him have his candy. You've seen that kid before, throwing himself on the ground yelling and screaming for the candy his mom won't let him have, despite her having every logical reason for her decision... I know you want to walk over and just kick it.... Sorry for the harsh response... but man sometimes I just wanna kick it too...
 
Everyone here can go on protesting, and I hope they change. But other people, with more compelling reasons have come forth, and still Google hasn't changed their policy.

So what do users with the freedom to choose do? Quit.
 
Are you one of those who is suffering from this?
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
+James Pakele Why are you trying to belittle me? Everything I have said is rational, though you are more than welcome to disagree with me. You don't see me attacking you personally. You have no ground to stand on in this argument, and you are trying to draw attention away from the fact that you're plain wrong.
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
+James Pakele How about you participate in the conversation instead of immediately dismissing what I have to say?
 
something we have to live with? and pray hard that what we're saying here is heard by google+ team?
 
+Toni Alfirević It changed? I can't remember that as I still have some friends who were forced to change!
 
+Richard Hoefer, no, I am not wrong. Quote what I said that was wrong?

I never said there wasn't a problem with the enforcement of the guidelines. As I have always said, there definitely is a problem there. That does not change what the guidelines are. I'm telling you, that if you say that Google's guidelines say you need a 'real' or 'legal' name, then you are wrong. the problem has always been verification and enforcement when a problem arose. Google has always been clear that the policy is not to kick people off for not using a 'legal' name, nor for having an unusual name. And some people here are saying that is what Google are saying. Those people are wrong, and that is simply true.
 
+James Pakele this has been the hottest issue on G+ since the beginning, and there has been a lot of discussion and evidence of ways in which the policy hurts everyone. Rather than restate everything here, go do some research.

The point HERE, in this thread, is the way there is one rule for most, and an opposing rule for the annointed few. THAT's what's pissing people off here.
 
Expecting Google to be perfectly fair is unreasonable.
 
+Jon Dye I'm not trying to belittle nothing, you're doing it to yourself... just scroll up... It's incessant whining... and for what? At the end of the day, same thing...
 
+Fulvio Gerardi Oh I don't know, it's between this and Google Apps.... An anointed few that have invested millions into identities that are recognized the world over...
Jon Dye
 
+James Pakele Right, and I'm not making fun of your Billabong hat right now.
 
Does this mean I'm allowed to change my name to Glen.I. Am now?
 
I think it's reasonable for Google to consider it reasonable to give special consideration to celebrities. heh, sounds weird.
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
+Adam Hayek Until someone can draw the line between celebrity and non-celebrity the policy is at odds with reality.
 
+James Pakele which brings us down to money, which is what this has always been about. Google believe they can make more money with this policy, yet the truth is they are doing irreperable harm to their users, and to themselves.

Believe it or not, we are all Google supporters. If we weren't, we would have joined the millions who left in disgust. Its only by standing up and fighting that things may change.

Do you think the Berlin Wall would have collapsed if everyone saw things your way?
 
So, nobody wants to quit? Then do what Google+ says you should do.
 
Well, the obvious candidate people would be the Google execs.
Jon Dye
+
5
6
5
 
+Fulvio Gerardi cheers! :)

There is no bigger fan of Google than me. This is why the policy bothers me so much. It unnecessarily alienates average users.
Jon Dye
 
+James Pakele From here on, I'm going to just pretend that you don't exist.
 
Ordinary people like the most of us are often attracted with famous people. So, i understand why those are allowed to use some nicknames. I'm not saying this is normal. Just that it is.
 
+Fulvio Gerardi I have heard that accounts get reinstated after offering up some proof that it's your real name... Am I wrong?
 
"If nothing has changed... Then on what grounds did they ban or delete those other accounts. Interesting."

And there is the problem. Not the rules, the shady enforcement. And BTW they have always said basically the same thing.
 
+Matt Owen Open beta will bring millions of fake names and plenty of jobs for new Googlers to throw them out, but they may as well try to hold back the sea...
 
Hey they got a feature for that.
Jon Dye
+
5
6
5
 
I want G+ to succeed, and if Google is going to continue to manage the name policy in such an apparently haphazard way, I feel like an explanation is due. I will continue to peacefully ask for one, no matter what anybody else thinks.
 
Thank you, +Toni Alfirević for quoting the policy.

I think it was interesting that I was told in this thread - in a vulgar way - to shut up after expressing my opinion.

I'm fine with that. Anyone can tell me to shut up at any time.

But here's the interesting difference: On YouTube, with complete anonymity and in a similar "conversation", someone would have been likely to threaten to kill me, burn my house down, etc. I am not speaking hypothetically here.

The G+ names policy is basically correct and fair. It's a terribly hard problem that some very smart people are trying to solve as best they can.
Jon Dye
+
2
3
2
 
+Joseph Moosman You're probably right. But in the meantime regular folks are having their accounts suspended for little to no reason.

and policy breakers are being promoted openly.
 
Lets think about this for a sec.. say it takes one minute to scan a profile, decide its fake, and suspend it. We already know that takes a human, even if the rest of the process is automated.

60/hr, lets be generous and say 500/day. 2,000 man-days per million. That's a WHOLE lot of unproductive employee time that +Vic Gundotra is going to have to justify to the board and shareholders. Not to mention the fantastic PR coup that pissing off millions will bring to the company.

Start polishing your resumes guys, I reckon poor old Vic's on the skids over this.
 
+Jon Dye Ya but it's obvious what the explanation is. They want a celebrity event, so they brought in a celebrity. That he's got a stage name wasn't one of their considerations.
 
+James Pakele I hear you. And I agree Google, as a company, is trying to make policies that work with their far reaching goals, which we know include accurate search results by people's names in real life. They don't want to give that BUSINESS to "people123" and spokio.com, etc. It's clear they want to "own" that space of authenticated names.

I actually have a huge respect for google. And yeah, implementing policy is very hard in some cases like here. I don't have the "chapter and verse" in front of me, but i read several of the case studies from the past 3 weeks where people whose livelihoods have really been wrapped in an identity, an alias name not on their birth certificate, a name that for all intents and purposes IS their "god given name: so to speak. And yet for a certain class of people, THEY have not been able to gain the privilege given to +will.i.am . but rather they have been kicked off of G+ ... That's brutal and extreme.

I wouldn't wan to be the referee determining "what level of celebrity you must have in order to transcend the strict naming policy", but at least admit there is an inconcistency. All you keep saying is: GOOGLE HAS BEEN 100% CONSISTENT, Look at snoop dog or 50cent -- sorry, i will show ignorance and say i can't even get their names right, which in an of itself calls to question in its own way, "REALLY? SO I SHOULD KNOW THEM JUST BECAUSE X-million do?"

But forget them. I have no issue at all with +will.i.am having his name read like that here. To me, to NOT have it be that is DUMB. My argument, like MOST people's, is, STOP CREATING A STRATIFICATION HERE of "this class of people matters" and
"this other class of people don't matter -- they are too small time nobodies and don't rate true celebrityhood"... That's a dangerous place to be. A lot of people know other people based on specialty interest areas, and we can't just use YOUR STANDARD of "celebrity quotient" to be the defacto standard.

I'm a populist progressive who believes is fairness. Ironically, this is what +will.i.am symbolized during the Obama campaign. Now, at this moment, he's not personally causing anything. He's just being +will.i.am and probably wondering WTF ??? But -- joke -- maybe he ought to instantly organize "ALIAS AID" -- a new benefit concert where all proceeds go towards implementing a new more humane consistent policy at Google... We can convene it at Davos Switzerland, or in Obama's hometown in Kenya (just kidding), or in Brazil -- a big international ALL-STAR array with guest star WIllie Nelson...
because the next people to hit the scrutiny are:

+TheEdge, +Bono, and +Sting ---- :)
 
+Toni Alfirević if that was what +Jon Dye were saying, then that would be fine. But it's not. Not at all. Jon is saying that Google has a policy that requires everyone to use a legal, real name. Jon specifically said repeatedly that I was wrong, and I wasn't.
 
+Luca Zenari If you have a name that you are known by, in real life, in which you are called by most people, then yes, you should be able to use such name here on Google+... Unfortunately at the moment, it appears that it would be difficult to discern which is an actual name in which you are actually called and a troll that is signing up from a troll account. In other posts I have actually offered ways of verifying nick names and the such, like verifying with a verified PayPal account or a verified EBay account, or a Credit Card, however, we can't get everything all the time, they are obviously still working on things and rolling features out. This and the Google Apps thing are two of the hottest topics right now and we'd be absolutely nuts to think they aren't working on a solution for it...
Jon Dye
+
1
2
1
 
+Joe Lancaster But in order to have your account reinstated you MUST show a government issued photo ID. That's a real, legal name if there ever was one.
 
+James Pakele THAT is what most people is complaining about. It's not a matter of vanity or using a funny or stupid nick for the sake of it, or for impersonating other people, as you see. It's the chance of being found using the new Search or by pressing the + sign. And in one of my last replies I linked to a possible solution.
 
+Jon Dye, well for a start that's not true. I know people who have gotten re-instated with a non-legal name, without showing any 'government issued' ID. Googlers have commented in the past in a couple of these debate threads and said that if a 'reviewer' has told you you need government issued ID showing that it matches you G+ name, then they are out of line, and wrong. They have acknowledged that there was a fairly major problem in this area, at least a month ago. They also said they were addressing it. Not to mention, that's not part of the 'policy'. That seemed to be an easy way to resolve a conflict, and it was clear that since it wasn't in line with the policy, they had to address it.
 
Well, +Toni Alfirević , I'll tell you what I think.

I'm not sure there is a complete algorithmic solution to this problem. Matter of fact I'm pretty sure that at the moment there is no such solution. Algorithmic solutions are Google's stock in trade and they have been very successful at writing such solutions in the past.

Now they are confronted with a new and very hard problem. They have dealt with and are dealing with similar issues in AdSense advertisement, for example. They make mistakes. I see no evidence that the mistakes are systematic or biased. None. Just human beings screwing up.

Any linguist or social anthropologist will tell you that names and naming are phenomenally complex and tied to just about everything else in the language / social setting. This is not the kind of problem that is amenable to algorithmic solutions - and AI - don't get me started. It's a joke.

I'm confident that Google will solve this issue over time in the best and fairest way they can.
Jon Dye
+
1
2
1
 
I got so many new people to circle me somehow via this thread :P
 
Looking at the discourse in the comments on his wall... sigh i G+ didn't become open to the public this early.
 
So this was hint that the name policy has changed? I wish I'd known sooner. I would have shared the information and given my friends an update. They're probably still sour about it. :(
Jon Dye
 
No hard feelings y'all, even those that I disagree strongly with. Even those who think I'm "whining".
Jon Dye
 
+Toni Alfirević If there's one thing I can say about myself on G+, it's that I am willing to engage in most any debate.
 
+Toni Alfirević I think we are in agreement on this one.

I'll just end my part of this thread by saying that the problem is very difficult and - even under the best of plausible solutions - perfect consistency is not going to happen.

People who expect perfect consistency are going to be disappointed. And angry, apparently.
 
hope i can develope something for goole :P
Jon Dye
 
+Toni Alfirević That's how I feel about it. Google wins the more people use their products, so why not use them to the fullest? I'm certainly not going to claim Facebook as my favorite after the recent changes, and I just deleted my Twitter account. It looks like Google+Jon is here to stay.
 
+Richard Hoefer +Luca Zenari +Toni Alfirević And the others I lashed out at and missed in that... except maybe +Jon Dye cause he's the one that pissed me off in the first place....

You know +Richard Hoefer your comment about having me pegged wrong really hit... It got me thinking.... I stepped away from my keyboard for a bit and though, you know you're right... my reaction here is absolutely the opposite of the way I have conducted myself on Google+. It was uncharacteristic of me and I wondered why. What it really came down to is this...

Google has obviously been hard at work, combing through all our requests, making the changes we've asked for. Giving us more than we've asked for. +Vic Gundotra has gone out of his way, like no other employee at his level of any large company I have seen, to interact with the community, get their feedback, remain transparent, as much as possible, and generally mingle with the commoners.

Today they released a load of new features on us and most of us were over joyed and have been buzzing about it all day. Now they admittedly have a couple of soft spots, Real Names and Google Apps. They know about it... WE know they know about it. For us to think they aren't trying to come up with a solution is absolutely ignorant. For us to think they are trying to piss off their community is ridiculous, why would they do that. It would be so easy for them to just "say" they've changed the policy and let everyone make whatever stupid random name they want. So if they are taking the stance that they are, there has to be a reason right? They have more to consider and can't just "give them whatever they want, when they want it". Any parent knows this, it's the same thing, the kids don't understand why you make the rules we do, but, we, as parents understand and are privy to knowledge the kids aren't.

So given all this that we know... Does +Vic Gundotra deserve to be slammed and bashed every time he introduces somebody on Google+ that doesn't use their real name? Really, this is how we thank him for helping to create this service we've all grown to love? This is the thanks he gets? Unbelievable.... It's like you cleaning the whole house to try and impress your parents and miss two spots, they come home and yell and you for missing the two spots, not even taking into consideration all the positives. Just focus on the negatives...

Has anyone ever considered that maybe they aren't making "two classes" of people where one person is "above" the other or "more important" maybe it's just as simple as, because of their high profile, it is much easier to verify their accounts and identities. What if it's because it's what they can deal with at the moment. As such I present that they have been consistent, in that, when it is incredibly easy for them to deal with verifying the identity, they have done so. But me, but me, but me... give me a break... give them a break... give him a break.... c'mon really? All they've done, he's done, and this thread, this bashing thread is what he gets? "Yeah Vic, all that goodness today, f*ck all that, look at this dirt little spot on the carpet, let's concentrate on that!!!"

Yeah it kind of pissed me off... Should I have lashed out at everybody, no... Is that how I usually carry myself? no. It's still bullshit, and continued reactions may not refrain him from continuing to interact with the community, but it surely won't do much to further encourage it either.
Jon Dye
 
+James Pakele There's no reason for getting pissed off at me for having an opinion. It doesn't do you or me any good.
 
+James Pakele I'll say just this, your example of "cleaning the house" is flawed. When you clean the house you don't impose anything to anyone. This case is more like someone inviting everyone at his house for a party saying "only those wearing ties are allowed to enter", and when someone shows up at his house without a tie he kicks them out; then, his best friend comes at the party without a tie, and he lets him in, despite the rule he had said before.
THIS is a more accurate comparison.
Beside, I don't know the others but so far I don't think I have lashed out/insulted/attacked or what. Just stated the obvious.
 
It's unfortunate that a simple greeting of welcome has turned into a Google policy rant, riddled with some ugly, unnecessary, and unwelcome personal attacks. I just don't understand how a comment like, "So I need to become a bad rapper then?" managed to weasel its way into a message of welcoming. Although I appreciate benefits can come from heated discussion and debate, you'd think clarity on G+ policy issues, such as the one on real names , would be best served in direct dialogue with Google—not following a simple greeting to someone who just so happens to have used the name he and others identity him with. +will.i.am . doesn't set Google policy, Google does. Now, any of you kids who continue to bicker on the issue I'm sticking you in the corner—in a circle with a very naughty name.
 
+Jon Dye I thought you were going to pretend I didn't exist, I liked it better that way...
Jon Dye
+
1
2
1
 
+James Pakele Don't worry, after this thread dies down you'll probably never hear from or of me again.

You may think I was whining, but there are lots of people out there who agree with me. If you weren't so quick to judge, then maybe you could at least understand where I'm coming from.
 
+Luca Zenari The gist is... how quick everyone is to ignore how much good stuff they have done with this service and community, all to rant on about a couple things they haven't gotten around to yet... Such impatience... do we really expect to get everything, now, all the time? Can't we give him a break and give them some time to figure it out? Is that too much to ask? It's not exactly like they've been sitting around on their laurels doing nothing... Give an inch, they want a yard, give um a yard, they want a mile, and they want it all... NOW...

Also, I never said anyone else but me lashed out or insulted anyone, it was I, and I was wrong... Not what I usually do... I usually just try to educate and introduce perspective.
 
google plus is awesome :).........
 
Welcome! Is apl de app on google + too? 
 
+James Pakele asked: "Does +Vic Gundotra deserve to be slammed and bashed every time he introduces somebody on Google+ that doesn't use their real name?"

Absolutely! He's the face of Google here, and if Google is inadvertently doing evil, the right thing to do is tell it to its face. Until it sinks in, or until people give up to the idea that evil is Google's natural state and not something inadvertent, whichever happens first.
 
+James Pakele I'll speak only for myself since I do not know the story of others, and I'll write to you privately since this post has become long enough.
 
+Fulvio Gerardi that sounds a little bit paraniod.. how many people have really been tracked down and assaulted?? you can have any name you want on google+ just not the silly names.. i have several different identities and have never had any problem.
Translate
 
+Toni Alfirević: In real life legal systems, legislators tend to carefully outline both the principles and procedures of making exceptions, at least in democracies. Making exceptions based on a ruler's whim is unenlightened despots' playbook.
 
+Toni Alfirević I know, and this nub caught me a little off guard, and got me heated in a way I don't usually get. That's on me, I let it happen... it's not even his fault, it's mine.

Despite my heated remarks to the contrary, I do understand that there are instances where people would/should/must use pseudonyms... however, Google should not let just any tom dick and harry, come through with them... that will degrade this site into such depths that it will never be able to return... again, as I often use as an example, www.engadget.com look at the comments, preferably for anything with "Apple" or "Android" in the heading... That's what needs to be prevented.

Google hasn't gotten around to it yet, but hey, they've been busy. As I've said though, the big ones now are how they are going to intelligently handle pseudonyms and getting Google Apps users sorted out. They took care of the biggest one today... Search!
 
+James Pakele I agree with your thesis point. I already agreed with your prior, in previous post, that they have far more complex rationales to consider. Look, a lot of people don't cross paths. I have tremendous praise for Google and their devs, and express it all the time. I'm blow away by this product and even moreso by the reinvention of their internal culture.

I understand where you're coming from, and thank you for taking the time to pause and reflect, and, even if we disagree, that's a respectful thing to do, which I appreciate. I personally wasn't nagging at +Vic Gundotra in the manner you describe -- though if that's what you got, i can't help that. I didn't see anything else he posted today. I was working all day, popped online, and saw THIS thread. .... I know you won't agree, but i respect that you have replied to me -- but I think Vic was essentially doing a PR number by welcoming a celeb like that.

I saw a story on my (Android) phone today from BBC that apparently the reason for the quick move to go 100% open today was that the adoption rate had flattened, and that was concerning upper mgmt -- of which he is part. So, If you are going to cite business factors, it's only fair to go 360-degrees on it. I don't say this for negativity -- just ask +Huy Zing -- the most innovative dev around who is not part of G+ -- but is advancing all the next stage fucntionality via extensions -- I'm always praising Google Devs -- ask +Dave Besbris , a whole host of others... I love this product.... But, Part of Vic's job is to do a certain amount of PR --- and if the BBC story is accurate, then there is SALESMANSHIP behind this thread -- and so to think it is 100% pure is a bit naive I think.

And what happened from my point of view is, in picking this particular high-visibility celeb to welcome and put a spotlight on, there was a small miscalculation that he wishes he'd avoided if he'd only put the brakes on it. I am sure there were hundreds of other celebs be could have called out.... But there's a youthful demographic that matches +will.i.am . ... and to me it's no accident what +Vic Gundotra was doing... But inadvertently he reactivated a sore spot amongst a lot of people here... No one else did that to him. He;s human, and by all accounts a great guy, smart as a whip

But I would lay odds that if we could inject some fast acting truth serum into him, he prob wishes he hadn't made that post.

Ithink we just have to disagree here. I don't take ONE THING AWAY from Vic's awesomeness, nor anything that Google has achieved. It's actually quite tame and simple. They have a problem to fix, and here's a very simple suggestion:

Just as they so freely and easily invite +Trey Ratcliff and others to the Mountain View campus for an all expenses paid visit to the Holy Grail, them conduct Photo Walks, they ought to convene an IN PERSON convocation of about 100 googlers who have had strong opinions on this subject who have written with case studies and rationales, pay to put them up in hotels, then conduct a series of facilitated roundtables -- and world the policy out that way.

I know your view is "It's their frikkin sandbox", but history shows that when you involve people in conflict resolution process you create BETTER POLICY, and higher respect and admiration, these are all huge wins. +Larry Page , if Vic isn't able to address this, then perhaps you should. It would be a slam dunk success.
 
+James Pakele: Well, there's the issue of denying people their names, but you know that one already. In this particular thread, there's a more fundamental evil at play — hypocrisy. Google not following its own policies, instead choosing to play favourites to whom the rules don't apply.

If Google can blatantly ignore its policies in this matter, how do we know it's not doing the same thing in its search results? Perhaps pushing a friendly company ahead? Burying political criticism that Google's mgmt doesn't like? Here, it's easy to spot; in search, it would require serious research to discover. Principles matter.
 
(( Simon Paton - +Richard Hoefer, longest comment ever? ))

No :) I can assure you there have been fare longer ones, but actually far funnier ones in my defense. But seeing as you were being derogatory, not sure why I replied. I guess that's the way to smack down an argument. How apropos on DAY 1 of OPEN TO THE MASSES. The comments Begin: "TOO LONG" Soon there will be petitions by the likes of you to "Make GooglePlus 140 characters. Pretty pathetic when people cant comment substantively, but they sure learned passive-aggressive somewhere, and think it makes them look and sound so cool and above it all. Trust me, I would be absolutely delighted to be VOTED OFF THE ISLAND by the likes of you. It would simply confirm a core demographic difference.
 
+Richard Hoefer I have seen Vic introduce a number of celebrities here on +, as well as some other Googlers, it is definitely PR but that's his job. Can't fault him for that. I believe will.i.am is going to be in a Hangout session tomorrow and hence the purpose of calling him to attention.

As for the opening the gates today, I feel it may have something to do with the FaceBook F8 conference in two days. But that's just me speculating with absolutely no proof to back it up or any inside information.

I don't think we disagree as much as you think. I understand the reason some people want/need to use pseudonyms and I think in some cases it should be allowed, I wouldn't want it to be the norm, but there should be accommodation for edge cases, people just need to realize accommodating edge cases comes after accommodating the masses...

I'm positive it will come in time, people just need to sit tight...
 
Wow - literate post there +Britto Palan ! Posting from a phone perhaps?

You are right though - celebrities can usually prove the name that they work under be it a stage name or a nom-de-plume. But it is a valid question for lesser known actors and authors who would like to be known in g+ by their professional names - how would they go about it?

Authorship is supposed to be one of the things we do here.

Ho hum - no doubt it will become clear in the future.
 
+Richard Hoefer, fyi it was a joke :) Seems like things have gotten too serious and heated here. I'm sure +Vic Gundotra muted this post ages ago.

Freedom of speech is great- and we're all entitled to it - I think it would be best served in the correct channels, not littered all over an innocent welcoming post.
 
+Andres Soolo Just know that your post made my smile... even giggle a little... They are verifying identities they can easily do without a proper system in place. That's how it's going to be until they can get a proper system in place. Until then, we all just sit tight... though you are a funny one...
 
I think if it really bothers everyone so much...just go back to that other social network...please!
 
+Pradz.am.i Woohoo It's not about what his point is, it's about how he went about doing it... incessant and whiny... But you know what... I did it as me, under an account and persona, that I will stick to and care enough about that I apologized to everyone else who I lashed out at... not FlavorBee234 in which I could just type the most ridiculous stuff and be gone, disappear into the night... Instead, I owned my actions... and such is the difference between here and elsewhere.
 
So why is there not a FAQ button on this set up?
 
maybe no more questions to ask..



WebRep
Overall rating
 
what is this thing below my post say WebRep?



WebRep
Overall rating
 
Welcome to Google+ William James Adams, Jr. Please use your real name, like everybody else does.
 
What is the limit to be a celebrity? Do we need a certain amount of fans? Do we need to appear X times per day on TV to be celebrity and use nicknames?

What is the limit? Or is it just "Ok, you are more equal than others?"
 
There are thousands of forums, including Google Buzz, without "real looking names" policies that don't turn into Youtube comments.
 
the real dope is black eyed peas.. :)
 
You guys complain about real name policy.. but I do appreciate I'm not talking with some random munchkin798 and torpedo42 or such. I think its an important part of the experience.. to make it more real.. more life-like. Also.. Facebook might not have such a policy... but every single friend of mine over there use their real name.. so why is it such a big deal ?
 
because it stops spammers from gaining illicit revenue from using fake id's to spam links
 
hey every body. Google + makes me feel that the future is going to be far better than we all thought.
 
Do what I did. Yes I did it. I went to his profile and reported it as impersonation. This is just not right and totally unfair. By family members I am known as Russell, by school friends and college mates its Russ, which one do I use? Don't give me the derivative crap either.
 
Having read down this far.... A REALLY STUPID MOVE by +Vic Gundotra to repost and highlight the inconsistentcy of corporate policy
 
I think this whole +will.i.am . affair does defies consistency. For another case regarding a person using her real name (a pseudonym used as her consistent identity over the years, such as in the case of Mr. +will.i.am .), I will suggest this reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/28/google-open-letter-google

Kudos for the points raised by +Fulvio Gerardi and +Jon Dye. As for +James Pakele, although I may not agree with you in many respects, your argumentation and posts are indeed interesting. Kudos to you as well.
 
watcing vics pr tv interview this morning, so i join g+
 
Hey Vic, what time is the hangout tonight?
Jon Dye
+
1
2
1
 
Haters gon' hate. I have valid reasons to back up my opinions. I do use the feedback system, actually. However, until more people do it, my feedback will go largely unnoticed; hence the public debate here in this thread.

If you don't like it, mute this post, block me, whatever you have to do (I don't really care).
 
+will.i.am I created special Circle "Celebrities" ur the first, in it …!!

Welcome to Google+ :-)
 
Hi, I am new here and I must admit that I am somewhat perplexed by the Real Names policy.
I am the front man/MC to a project that has been started recently with the aim to becoming an actively touring music group. With this in mind I wish to have an internet presence as my stage name/pseudonym MC Somatik for reasons of personal security, audience interaction and also for the ability to step back from the limelight when I want privacy.
So like Will.I.am. I am a musician who wishes to make a positive, constructive and respectful contribution to this online community without having to broadcast my personal details. The difference is that he is an internationally known artist while I am a relatively unknown.
Exactly what is the problem with me using my stage name to interact over the internet if I do so in a positive manner?
Thank you +Johnny Graterol Guevara for posting that link, I found that I happened to aggree with her alot.
 
I notice that one of my favorite rappers of all time, +MC Frontalot has no issues using his stage name, but does my lack of status as an internet celebrity deny me the use of a pseudonym?
Google needs to be clear about its policies for everyone, not just people who are already established online.
 
+Alexandre Bourget I have real friends that have been very imaginative in some of their FB profile names. I was not being mean just found it amusing that none of your friends have ever used something different
 
Soulja Boy, one of the first celebs on Plus, used a moniker before the rule was in place. I think that especially in these early stages, Google should listen to its main users' ideas, as we can make or break this project.
 
Trolls can't be prevented with this real name policy... We already have trolls...
 
is the hang out already began?
Philip N.
+
9
10
9
 
So google+ is blatantly failing to be consistent with their own policies now. It's ok to have a fake name as long as you're a celebrity that google wants to show off? Way to go, Vic.
This is very disappointing.
 
Well done Vic! Can't wait for the rest!
 
So google+ is blatantly failing to be consistent with their own policies now. It's ok to have a fake name as long as you're a celebrity that google wants to show off? Way to go, Vic.
This is very disappointing. [2]
 
Guys, read the freakin' policy and stop your bitchin:

From

http://www.google.com/intl/en/+/policy/content.html



13. Display Name

To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your full legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, either of those would be acceptable.
 
Thanks, Dan! Can't believe people are willing to nit-pick over "will-i-am"s name....sheeesh!
 
What happened to the real name policy... 
 
Identity policy aside, it will be interesting to know what +will.i.am . 's experience with Google+ is = spammed, flamed, slandered? Or will he discover it's a vibrant new distribution platform (like journalists have)... with new creative potential we never imagined? I look forward to seeing what happens...
 
Haha +Jenson Taylor It was only a matter of time before the Hitler comments began. I agree, Vic is rubbing it in all our faces with this one, but unfortunately the best we can do is give up on this service and inform others of Vic, and google's, attitude.
 
this is vic's personal stream, he can delete whatever he wants to for whatever reason he wants to. +will.i.am . is a provable name that this guy is known as across the world. Would you expect Cher or Madonna to go by their birth name considering that's not really them? +Jenson Taylor (and all the other people complaining), there's a massive difference between a public persona and a name you use while frolicking through Azeroth.

And no, +Vic Gundotra is not Adolph Hitler.
 
Avoid unusual characters in your name.
When you create your profile, our system will check the name you submitted for unusual characters. For example, numbers, symbols, and obscure punctuation are not supported.

Violation Example: John246 , ★★Shelley★★, J@SON W@T$ON,‘Rachel Smith/

will.i.am wouldn't be a violation example?
 
+Jenson Taylor I have said a few times in Vic's threads when I think either he or google are acting like dicks and I've never had a post deleted that I've noticed.
I can reasonably say that they're treating regular users like us with disregard and ignoring our requests, but I'm going to draw the line there. You're a little off the deep end. Quit google+, tell your friends to quit this service, and forget about it if it makes you that upset. It's really not worth it.
Personally I've changed my tone, I don't support google+ as I used to and my hopes are quickly fading that this social service will be what I wanted. But don't go too far. You sound like a crazy.
 
+Benny Raymond You're on the opposite side of ignorance on this issue. You're completely missing the point of their double standards. You're just spouting the same mantra as other fanboys have. All users should be held to the same standards, not just the special ones google wants to add to their portfolio to brag about their service.
 
Just for reference, the Violet Blue issue. Real user flagged: https://plus.google.com/105822688186016123722/posts/LWySptwhW7g

And I think real names are good. But you should be able to have another name, which you are commonly known as. And just an interesting though, is Vic his first name? Not Victor? Yes, I know policy has changed, but his name was Vic from day one ;)
 
+Philip Nicolcev, if that's the case then are you also upset that you can't be verified yet? there's no reason to call me ignorant - the fact of the matter is, will.i.am. is the guy's name whether it says so on his birth certificate or not, it's his name and he can prove it and happens to fall into the small group of people who google will verify at this moment in time therefore allowing him to have a google+ name that looks different than other people's.

if you want to call me ignorant, base it on that horrendous last sentence, not because i understand what the difference between a public persona and a name you use to frolic around Azeroth
 
ohh.. hi +will.i.am . nice to be friends here in new site of google.. your one of my idol..=)
 
True.. Vic can be verified as Vivek Gundotra.. :-)
 
+Pradz.am.i Woohoo I would realize that the policy is wrong and change it, rather than playing a double standard while being a stubborn mule.
 
+Andrew MacKillop and i don't think anyone would disagree with how google handled the +Violet Blue "issue"... they verified that she is actually named violet blue - problem solved.
 
+Benny Raymond So it's up to you to decide how wide an audience a "public persona" must have before it's considered valid? Nice opinion.
 
it's not up to me at all, +Philip Nicolcev... it's up to google - this is their service, they make the decisions (although this is really no different than proving your name during a name change hearing). if we want to use the service and disagree, we're welcome to raise our concerns - just how i'm welcome to question people's outrage over someone joining google+ with an odd name which actually isn't that odd considering they're known by that name the world over.

if you want to change your name to p.nicky because that's what everyone calls you, do it - someone will eventually flag you and you can then go through the process of verifying that you are p.nicky - you'll then end up with a fancy little checkmark next to your name - good luck sir.

Here's a real world example of "Real Names" and what that means: If William Adams wished to change his legal name here in usa, he could very easily change it to will.i.am - if he wanted to change it to FarmerJoe998, he would have a difficult time. Why? because he can prove that he has gone by will.i.am. for a long time and the courts can easily see this. on the other hand he cannot prove that he's gone by some random name because he actually hasn't. you can probably prove you go by p.nicky, but it's not going to be as easy as someone who has public record of their name being something like will.i.am.
 
+Anuja Ninan wait, wait, wait. His name is Vivek?
Godsdamn that's awesome if you have ever played Morrowind...
 
+Vic Gundotra the silence on the obvious double standards regarding real names and pseudonyms is shameful. This is not googly at all.
 
+Benny Raymond I shouldn't have to prove shit to Google just so they can mark me as special if I suddenly decide to go by my nickname. The real name policy is a joke and I think enough of the Google community agree to at the very least make them rethink their peculiar logic. If not, well, it's things like this that will make G+ end up exactly the way all of their unfinished, unrefined products end up. Forgotten and useless, like Google wave.
 
+Benny Raymond Your inability to infer what I meant from what I said, when i said that "you get to decide" illustrates the validity and thoughtfulness of your position quite well. Thanks.
These users should set up a suggestions box attached to a paper shredder at their desk. Please refer all issues and concerns to the "it's our company, not yours" department.
 
philip, your need to get your girlfriend involved is silly. you never said "you get to decide".

and yes, exactly what i said. google wants to make sure people use their real names. some people disagree with whether or not will.i.am. is will.i.am's name but he can prove it's his name so it doesn't matter. i could care less what the policy is, people seem to be upset at how they've handled will.i.am - all i'm saying is that there's no reason to be upset - that's his name.
 
+Benny Raymond Very mature of you to bring that up as well. Women aren't allowed to have opinions in your world, are they? Yes, she's on my leash Benny. Rosina! Sick him!
 
of course they are, i just don't see the need to get all angry about this
 
+Benny Raymond Oh i'm not angry about google's behavior. I'm disappointed. Your ignorance and fanboyism is a tad annoying but I'll live. Sorry if females having opinions bothers you. I'll make sure she doesn't respond to things except through me for you.
 
when was the point where you decided to start attacking me? and where did i say anything about females and their opinions?
 
Oh well clearly she posted here because I got her to, right? Don't worry man, i hate it when women have opinions too.
 
+Hotepsekhemwy ​ You have a ridiculous name. Please prove to Google that it's a verifiable name because you're not important enough.
 
How does being famous make finding you under a stage name less of a problem? A million people finding will.i.am is no easier than a thousand people finding bob.i.am, if those are the names they are commonly known by. The process is the same.
 
I'm glad that someone here can share their experience with a name verification, thanks +Hotepsekhemwy ​ - have you inquired into why your profile doesn't have the verified stamp?
 
+Benny Raymond Aren't you confusing verified stamps with regular name verification. AFAIK stamps are for celebrities who people want to be sure is the actual person.
 
Yes it's perfectly reasonable I don't see the problem.
 
+Das Frugen, i had thought that it was only rolled out to easy to verify people (celebrities for instance) or those with large followings but was intended to be rolled out to everyone eventually - i could be totally wrong. if i'm not though, it seems like +Hotepsekhemwy ​ went through the trouble already, why not...
 
+Benny Raymond Don't worry, this system is well thought out and very clear. Nothing could possibly go wr-
 
Note to all those ultracool people like +Dan Makovec (( Guys, read the freakin' policy and stop your bitchin: )) belittling all those who have commented in this thread about usernames and policy inconsistencies:

I would wager a bet that 90% or even 98% of the "Get a life, sheesh" and "what crybabies" commentors are clueless about the scores of threads, some by, i hate to have to use this term but it's the only one you people care about, "name value" people who have written criticism about the policies here -- and their inconsistencies -- and how they hurt people in many situations such as in totalitarian regimes, or people who have been stalked (guess what, it actually happens, but you people are the type that would laugh at that and say "suck it up, it's only stalking, it's not like your life is in danger or anything", and in other cases people of (another horrible word) "minor celebrity" -- whether they be disc jockeys in their small home towns or wherever, and are known by a "handle" vs a real name ------ All of these are cases where very smart arguments have been put forth from many quarters, not just "get a life loser idiots" (the kind you knowitalls presume anyone who has written in this thread must be) but in respected journals as well requesting Google pull together community members into their circle to help formulate this policy ... in the same way a large University like STANFORD would seek community feedback on matters that impacted surrounding communities.

When DRIVE-BY KNOW IT ALLS come with their TV-IQs and drop their half-knowledge about a situation into a mix, they think they're so clever dissing people and presuming they are simply of small minds and "have nothing better to do". It never even occurs to them that maybe there are reasons beyond their own sphere of reading that are behind the comments and the issue in question. Don't be so frikkin glib and dismissive.... OR --- BE glib and dismissive but expect people to respond to your small mindedness. Vic's a big boy, he can handle himself. Google's a big company, they can handle dissent. will.i.am is not the issue. Nobody has n issue with the man.
 
oh, are we allowed to use fake names now?
 
+Samuel Brown.. nope had to google it :-) but his name means ..
"The Word Vivek/Bibek/Bivek in Sanskrit literally consist of 3 words i.e. sad-asad-vivek which means he who can separate good or truth (sad) from bad or false (asad)."
Irony :-)
 
thanks David Eason but i dont use avast add-ons i use malwarebytes
 
i wish i knew what i was doing....it seems like the party circles will be fun
 
+Vic Gundotra Maybe if Google+ could show real name and alias when you hover their picture this real name problem wouldn't arise. You could see their real name and their alias(which probably more famous than their real name :D)
 
+Richard Hoefer - Let me put it more plainly (while fully expecting another response from you): The service is offered gratis. I don't know why it is you feel you have some sort of sense of entitlement to demand Google enforce this policy or that policy. The usage policy for G+ is there for all to read, at the bottom of every page. Google state categorically it may change at any point. They listen to feedback - as given via the "Send Feedback" link, again at the bottom of the page.

They may agree with the feedback and implement change based on it, or they may not and leave things alone. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Simple. If enough people stop using it, it will be to the detriment of Google and they will react accordingly. Name calling won't change that. So I repeat the call that I and others have made: read the policy, accept that you're not the boss and that this is not the forum to request Google to make changes, like it or leave, and chill out.

FYI the thread isn't about usernames and inconsistencies, despite your sincere belief that it is. It's about a celebrity joining the service.
 
+Dan Makovec Thanks Dan, thanks to people like you, we all can understand Google Plus and how it works. Thanks for sharing.
 
P.S. You're a nutjob. A restaurant who serves you a meal ? You're entitled to a good meal. In case you are unaware of how technology works, Google does not simple make things for free because they love people like you to come play with them. This is a business in the making. They fully expect you to be their customer. As ads appear, you WILL be their customer. In a business relationship, as opposed to a charity, actually, Dan, there is absolutely an expectation of services performed consistently and in good faith with no discrimination towards anyone, in modern civilized countries. You, Dan, have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is a business and what is a privilege.
 
+Richard Hoefer Now you're just getting personal. A nut job? Grow up. Your restaurant analogy would work if I were a paying customer of Google's, which I am not. If I later become a paying customer, then I may expect the degree of service that you are proposing and expect an avenue of redress if I do not receive it. Until then - their house, their rules, I'm just a guest. It's not a democracy. Advertisers pay Google, they are the customers and can make demands, not you or I.
 
Amazing that you have time to engage in Google+; Oh, yeah, I forgot. You're the guy that created it. How quickly 15 min. passes by.
 
+Hotepsekhemwy ​: I think G+'s designers originally assumed that everybody is going to have two names. The auto-completion mechanism seems to rely on this assumption; there may be other subsystems for which it matters. Using a period as the other name for mononymous people is probably just a quick and dirty workaround.
 
+Dan Makovec: Suppose there's a charitable person who hands out free condoms on a San Francisco sidewalk. Suppose it turns out all his condoms have holes in them. Do you think that he shouldn't be hauled to court for recklessly endangering public safety merely because he didn't charge people and just handed garbage out in disguise of useful stuff?
Greg S.
+
3
4
3
 
Reported. Because whatever I think of his creations, that is in no way his "wallet name."
 
How come our friends get kicked off for using names Google doesn't like, but this is ok?
 
Edit: I had nothing really to offer here before this edit, if now, just confusion about the Google+ naming policy. I hope it is still being worked on to be fair to all users regardless of the popularity of the pseudonym, whether it one the artist uses or one their label uses for them. Hopefully the "two names" system is implemented soon. My preference is for it to follow what seems to be Wiki convention of "real name first".
 
I agree with +Alistair Findlay , naming policy has to be fair regardless the popularity of the person who use it. If Internet is as unfair as everywhere else, it is sad.
 
He is special, we had people like this at school.
 
I don't know how people are still going on about this name thing..

1. The Google Name Policy clearly states that both your legal name or common name are acceptable for your profile.
As for will.i.am, I'm guessing his mother knows him as William, but half the planet knows him as will.i.am, so if that doesn't count as a common name, I don't know what does.


There have already been a ton of people who linked to the name policy page in the comments thread.
Also, I find it very disrespectful to +mention someone every time their name happens to appear in your post. Sure, it makes it easier to type the name because of the autocomplete feature, but it spams their notification.

2. Google+ already had a nickname thing in the about section in the profile, so people that rely on a certain name will still show up in search results.

3. People getting banned for using their real name..
I'm sure Google doesn't have employees manually flagging each profile they deem unfit. They probably had algorithms set up to flag profiles for them. And don't forget that Google+ is also very community driven. There are probably tons of users that voluntarily flag accounts without further research. Google also has a Names Appeal submission to get their profiles back.



+EveryoneThat'sInvolved
Add a comment...