Public
Jul 25, 2011
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.
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.
View 379 previous comments
Btw ... did the #nsa force #google and #facebook to gi fir real names? Makes their job so much easier doesnt it? +Robert ScobleJul 6, 2013
+Robert Scoble Yup, +Sai is correct. We actually changed the policy (rather quietly) in January of 2012, and recently updated the docs to make it clearer: you can see them at https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271?hl=en . Roughly, anything that basically looks like a name (not "your" name) is fine; anything which isn't shaped like a name, which nowadays is a very small slice of accounts, is only OK subject to certain restrictions. So you can be Joe Smith or Coyote Johnson or Rajeev Patel but not Joe's Bar and Grill.Jul 6, 2013
I'm glad that +Yonatan Zunger cleared this up. He's the man.Jul 6, 2013
So much for my nice foil hat theory. But good to know we won the #nymwars in the end :)Jul 6, 2013
+Christoph Puppe Mostly won. People with weird names, handles, or mononyms still get hassled about it (e.g. having to go through full review process), and Google still refuses to disclose what constitutes adequate fame.
I.e. you can have a nym, so long as it's a wasponym.Jul 6, 2013
I just think that they should let businesses have pages without personal pages.Jul 6, 2013