Not sure about Google
 

I've been a fan of Google for quite a while now. Their products, and the products they have acquired, have been excellent.

Email is email, but Google does a good job with theirs. Google Earth, which I think they bought from somebody else, is outstanding. The traffic feature for Google Maps is revolutionary. Sketch-up is excellent, but again I think they bought that one. I don't use Google docs, but I know people who love 'em. I'm not going to list all the stuff they do, but even though some of it is *meh*, most of them are outstanding.

But last week, Google had me pissed off and my daughter in tears. It's because of Google+. I signed up for Google+ and have been trying it out. It's fine. Basically, it's a non-Facebook Facebook. I thought it would be neat to invite my kids to Google+. I didn't want them getting active with friends and stuff, but I thought it would be a safe way for them to do stuff online with just the extended family, and I would keep a close eye on them.

Google doesn't have the age restrictions listed anywhere obvious. But I figured if my 12 y.o. daughter wasn't old enough, they would just say "Nope. Sorry. You're too young." So she got to the page where it asks for your d.o.b., and she asked me what to put down. I told her to tell the truth, because I figured this was going to be her real account and one day it would look weird if she's all grown up and her age is off. So she told the truth, and Google said she was too young to have a Google account. Not a Google+ account, a Google account. They shut down her Gmail account! This is an account I signed her up for when she was a baby. She uses it to email everyone. It's her real name. Not unicornfan2000 or any crap like that. This was going to be her account through adulthood, and she was going to be one of the few in her generation who were early enough to snag their real name in Gmail.

So she was devastated and just started sobbing. She had lots email addresses for friends who had moved away, and no easy way to get them back. She saw her social connections being cut. She's already at an emotional age, and this just completely pushed her over the edge. I was frantically looking at the options, and they said that *if* it was a mistake and we entered the wrong birth date, all we had to do was fax a copy of her birth certificate to Google to prove she is an adult. Also, she could enter her credit card number to prove she was an adult, and they would charge like 50 cents to her card. I figured my credit card wouldn't work, because the name wouldn't match, and I wasn't about to go forging her birth certificate to get her email back. I was furious at Google. The FUCKERS! So my wife came up to see what all the ruckus was about. She figured, it couldn't hurt to enter her own credit card info, so she did. Google charged her like 50 cents, and my daughter's Gmail account was turned back on. Even though the names didn't match. All they cared about was that a kid could get their hands on a credit card.

So that's what turned me against Google. Even though it turned out OK in the end, why did they have to put us though that?

An then yesterday, my wife updated Firefox, and the Google bar, which was already crippled in the last version of FF, was removed entirely. Google won't support it any more. This multibillion dollar company apparently can't find the resources to support their toolbar any more. I assume they are trying to push Firefox users to Chrome. That's something right out of Apple's or Sony's playbook.

Don't be evil. Bullshit. You make my daughter cry, and I'm going to harden my heart against you.

To be the devils advocate, if you lied about her age to begin with to set up her gmail, why would you be surprised for them to suspend her account when they find out the truth? By using their services, you agree to play by their rules. If you refuse to follow their rules, is it not within their rights to then refuse service?

I don't recall there being a question about age to sign up for e-mail, but that was about a decade ago.

How do I get rid of my google+ account. I think it sucks ass.
Big fat smelly ass.

I'll do it now in honor of your daughter. Eff 'em.

And that Chrome crap sux too. If the mess with my firefox I might make a deal with the debbil and go back to IE. Ugghhhhh

Fuck'em.

I once skimmed a long interview where a "live in the boonies on your own land & generate your own power" anarchist sat down and talked with a "rent an apartment in LA and slip through the cracks" anarchist. At some point, the boonies anarchist was talking about how much crap he jumps through to be left on his own -- having to pull permits in order to build a shed, etc, even though he owns the land -- and how much more free one can be, in a sense, by just paying rent instead.


I'm not sure which side of the fence this falls on, but fuck google, go for the dot-com. daughter@family.com, or daughter@firstnamelastname.com $5-10 a year to sit on the domain, probably not much more than that for a POP3 account somewhere.

Being of the generation to have firstlastname@gmail.com is, definitely, a fleeting moment. But, if your email address is a strangely consumerist way to benchmark your generational pigeonhole, it's at least slightly less so to do it outside of a corporate framework.

My kids have opened the Fazebook Pandora's box. The phrase that came to mind when the wife and I were discussing it was "the commoditization of our children." It will be allowed, but the teenage males who talked them into it are now suspect or possibly shitlisted.

sorry your daughter was upset glatt. sorry there was no one for you to punch in the mouth for making her cry, too.

We should be able to think of someone to punch in the mouth.

Google can shove their toolbar.

An anarchist, that gets permits...

Fail.

I have a new Gmail account as of yesterday, and I wasn't required to tell them my age.

I do too (for a Fb sockpuppet).

I have loads of gmail accounts becuae I'm a wicked terrorist. You never need to give your DOB for gmail.

They asked me for my cell phone number, you know, "in case I forget my info". If I didn't want to use my cell phone number, they said that was no problem, I could just give them a friend's cell number!?

Morans.

I wasn't asked any of that either. All I had to do is give my home phone # in order to get an automated call with my account activation #.

I am not pleased with google+. It requires participation and linkage to lots of stuff that you did not previously have to share if you didn't want to share it. I am thinking of bailing.

I have been very happy with everything Google, until G+ came along.

Tell me how to bail ... I hate it.

http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons...jpg?1258144221

OH,, LOOOOK! there's a tshirt!

http://rlv.zcache.com/get_a_brain_mo...64y7xb_400.jpg

I use google whenever its an option, the search engine is great, google code has been a major boon to open source development, and they've turned youtube from almost shut down due to copyright violations to 1 billion a year in revenue.
for me, the turning point was back in 2005 when google refused to produce search results the doj subpoenaed. it is not so much that they fought for my right to privacy online, its the fact that yahoo, msn and aol all bent over for the doj.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/te.../20google.html

That was 6 years ago. I thought they were great then too. Where is their compass pointing now? They are deleting email accounts all willy nilly without making their policies clear.

I failed to read all of the replies, but just so you know, Here is why!

This privacy act is in place to protect your child. You should calmly contact Google and give them your WRITTEN CONSENT to allow her to use Google+. I believe, according the all the legal jargon in that link, children are not allowed to have any sort of memberships (accounts, whether it be email, forums, gaming etc) UNLESS a parent gives consent. If you are calm about the way you proceed getting this account back, you really shouldn't have any issues with Google reinstating her email address.

Google is only following law, they are not trying to make your life hell. What other company gives their workers payed NAP time?

This is amusing. I clicked on Google's home page just a moment ago, and they have this huge arrow pointing to the Google+ link in the corner. It's like they are saying, "HEY! Don't forget about Google+! We're still here!!!"

It's a complete failure at this point. Nobody is using it.

hahaha... Yeh, I deleted my account already. It was more like a linked in account than FB.

not so.

I heard a voice on the radio today say that the recent quake in the land of f@ceb00k caused them to move to google plus.

meh

Yeah someone at the FB headquarters got bored and pushed the big "Screw with things" button. Again.

FB is very annoying right now.

Maybe it's time to unplug.

Totally agree Nirvana. It's a real PITA.

It boggles my mind how inventive Google has been over the years.
This morning, I tried the new (to me) feature in the Google search engine.

It all started in the "pic association" thread with this image.
I copied/pasted that image to Google's Images Search Box,
and came up with this image of the same girl

Isn't that amazing technology ?

There are so many things about Google that impress me,
including their mission statement, Do not do evil.

But there does seem to be some changes happening with the new CEO
that make me wonder if Google's creativity has peaked,
and they will be joining the advertising and patent war rat races
with F@cebook et al.

Can someone please translate this article for me...
I don't understand what Google did in the first place... or what difference it makes to users.


CNET
1/3/12
Google has demoted its Chrome home page in results for a search
using the keyword "browser" following an effort to have bloggers
promote the Google browser that backfired

google returns search results for search terms.

in normal operation, the uppermost "hits" are often paid for advertisements. They usually have a pastel colored background. It's very subtle, and the text looks like the text of the other hits out in the regular internet. for uncareful users, they might be clicked on. this is good for the advertiser because now they have the potential customer at their site. yay capitalism. the location in search results is a HUGE big deal. Higher is better. You, or any other person can "buy" what google calls "adwords".

You could "bid" for having your ad appear when a given search term(s) is submitted to the all-knowing google. So could I. If I bid more than you then my results would appear higher on the page than yours. we could both have active bids, both have active hits, both have our ads appear for the same search term. this is google's genius business model. people pay to have their links/ads appear in the search results from google.

Of course, google returns non commercial hits too. they have a formula more secret than coca cola and kentucky fried chicken combined as to what constitutes a good hit. many people make beaucoup bux by reading the entrails and producing web pages that will rank highly. And, it's a moving target. But it is possible to do, let's face it, SOME hit will be the top hit (non commercial). There's a concept/act called a googlebomb, for example. Back in the day, if you searched for "miserable failure" you'd get George W Bush as the number one result. ha ha. Poor Rick Santorum. folks have figured out ways, sometimes by brute force, to get a search term to land on top.

Now, consider these ingredients: google sells ads/search results for profit. google produces some products, including a browser called "chrome". google has a lot of fanboys with really big brains. the next part is ... speculation.

if the fans all got together and made one of these guerrilla campaigns to cause google's product, browser chrome, to have especially high search rankings, it could be viewed as unfair. Like back in the day when Microsoft bundled internet explorer on computers with windows. they were found to be cheating, using their advantageous position to promote their own product. Google wants to avoid even the appearance of misconduct (there are real, actual, published rules) and so they've *manually demoted* (moved lower, I know you know what demoted means, but in search terms/hits, this is literally true, lower on the results list, and it's the kiss of death) the hits that "lead" to a link for chrome. They don't want to be accused of using their own tool, which is absolutely ubiquitous to promote their other product.

Does this help?

Thanks V, that does make more sense to me now.

So then, I have a follow up question...
I got the feeling from reading about this episode that maybe
Google actually paid some "fan boys" to do the manipulation.
I don't know if they were paid $ or something else, or it was just my interpretation

Do you get that reading too ?

Nah, This looks like an honest mistake and G00gle is just being precautious.

Today's news makes it apparent payments were made to bloggers.
Maybe this restores a bit of confidence in the directions of new management at Google.

Computer World
By Gregg Keizer
January 4, 2012

Google downgrades Chrome ranking after paid-link monkey business
Slaps own browser with 60-day penalty, buries download page in search results

No, I don't agree that that story make it clear that google was paying for search results.

I followed the links in your story, the fellow that is making the complaint is in the business of making money by claiming to improve search results for his clients. And in fact he bemoans the "hoops google makes small businesses jump through" to rise in the ranks. He's clearly got an interest in the story, in fact, an interest somewhat adversarial to google's since he shows his frustration at their policies that make it hard for him to make money.

I don't see any other claims, any other evidence that google was the payer for the marketing campaign. Have you heard anyone else saying this or offering any evidence?

https://plus.google.com/109412257237...ts/NAWunDzJSHC
Read the comments as much as you like, there's a vast amount of context there, more than I can regurgitate here. The upshot is that the thing they tried to do, buy video ads for chrome, is legal, and legitimate and within the guidelines. Of the video ads they bought, one was made in a way that had an aspect that caused the pagerank to be affected, a violation of google's policies. this video ad produced by someone else and paid for by google, was what was being complained about by the two SEO entrepreneurs/authors. It has been corrected, and a penalty applied for the violation.

in the comments, there's a lot of back and forth about whether or not the rule is being applied fairly, some say yes, some say no. about whether or not the penalty is too harsh as it stands on the books, yes and no again. about whether or not google's punishing google the same wayfor the same violation as it would punish other companies, large and small. no surprise, some say yes, some say no.

TO ME. It seems that google's following their own rules. not only that, they're being extra diligent about following them since they're being punished for the actions of a third party. whatever. I also find it above and beyond that the manager in charge of this crap is answering the issue while on vacation in central america, and doing so in this very public way.

I believe this is acting in accordance with their words. Words are cheap. These actions though are not made out of hot air. This is what "doing no evil" looks like. Transparent, accountable, honest. That's my take on it.

How can you stay mad at a company that has an interesting response when you ask for walking directions from The Shire to Mordor?

(has to be walking directions, not automobile, transit or bicycle)

Well V, thanks for taking the time to follow up all this.

So as I'm now understanding the iterations and translations,
Computer World has added to the confusion that was originally
reported by CNET that was surfaced by others in the plural,
(probably those who were still circling the squirrel on the tree)
but should have been in the singular, about one blogger
who has a vested interest in pounding on Google,
but whose management has now gone well beyond
the norm of what was necessary to remedy a problem
they did not create in the first place.
,,, all this at the house that Jack built.

Right ? :rolleyes:

Close.

I'm not sure who the first reporter was, so I won't speak to that.

One story, repeated several times, right.

There was one blogger, but he had no interest in pounding on google, he was apparently paid by a group at google to produce video advertisments. the ad he produced had the offending element in it (something about the absence of a nofollow parameter, I think).

The parties I implied that had a grudge are involved in SEO businesses/authors (Search Engine Optimization, from the perspective of a customer who would like to see their results move higher in the results list). There appears to be just the two of them that broke/are the source of the story. They are not the ones that were hired by google, not the ones that produced the ads, neither the valid non offending ones nor the one that did offend.

Yes on the rest about google's response, etc.

I'll toss this into the fray ...
I can't paste a lot of what is there as so much of it is screenshots.
Definitely worth a look though.

*SIGH*

It's the same story, by the same two fellows, Danny Sullivan, editor in chief of SearchEngineLand.com and Andrew Wall, author of some damn search engine book. I find it interesting that the exclamatory headline is only found on his site. I can't find anything like the same kind of apoplectic language anywhere else. Same story. Same two guys. Same, not additional, evidence. Still cites one post that does not include the nofollow attribute.

that story was from 02 Jan. the story on 03 Jan is that Google did what they said they'd do, they demoted the results for chrome.

sorry. Looked like there was more info there to me than I read in the others from yesterday.

I want to control what I put out there. I certainly don't want FB or Google or any other system I use to do it without my permission.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Google-Y...ews-13856.html

Google’s Results Get More Personal With “Search Plus Your World”
Whats up with this? Thoughts from the more computer savvy, please.
Link

Classic, that is a very interesting link.

But in a way, it appears to me as one of those "expansions" that
could eventually lead to downfall of Google's very success.
It has the same fragrance as the privacy issues of FaceBook.

I would like to believe all Google searches yield a "good faith" result,
based on some sort of scholarly derived algorithm.
But with the new Google+YourWorld, do I start worrying that may not be the case.

The idea is ridiculous of changing search results just because another
Dwellar- or FB- or Google-contact, visited Neiman Marcus or
my picture is in someone's Picasso file and Google's "facial recognition" is overly eager.

Another issue coming to my mind is among family members using the same computer.
Will my 8-yr old granddaughter suddenly get postings of my postings or postings from Dwellars ? :eek:
New code for the Cellar postings: NSF8yrolds

And, how many "pages of personal" results will take up screen geography.

One of my favorite sayings is: "There is a special hell for people who design packaging"
A corollary may soon be added for overly eager Google MBA software designers.

Or, maybe I'll just hit the "un-friend button" for the world.

Here's the whole thing

Last year Google founder Larry Page became Google CEO. And he noticed that a large part of the value of the Internet is in its ability to leverage social connections.

Facebook had just announced that it had figured out that it could target advertising to you because you told it what you like. This had pretty massive implications for a search company trying to pitch you ads based on what you are looking for.

Page also saw a world where companies who fail to quickly change direction are put at great risk.

So in April 2011, Page told his employees that the size of their bonus would be tied to the success or failure of the company's "social strategy".

This is a rather ham-handed way to turn a company's attention, but remember that the Google hiring plan, for the last 10 years, was intended to create a "monoculture" of geeky problem-solvers...

...and you know just how social those folks are... maybe because you are one...

But the problem is that Google has now sullied its otherwise-pristine search results with self-promotion, which it has never done before.

HLJ, do you feel the "sullying" is in the "self-promotion" or in the "social strategy" ?

It seemed to be the latter because in Classic's link, Google spoke of
being willing to connect with FB --- If FB was willing to expose "deeper data".
.

This is an interesting article and project... "Do No Evil" ... particularly to me as an Google uber-fan.
And as someone who loves it when "hoisted with his own petard" happens in real life.

eWeek.com
Clint Boulton
1/23/12
Facebook Targets Google+ With 'Don't Be Evil' Tool
Oh, oh, wait: here comes a man in a business suit...

Google knows the name of the-man-in-the-suit's mistress, swiss account number, and deepest secret fear. :cool:

My opinion of the new management at Google is dropping rapidly...

Caveat emptor !

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...HOQ_story.html
Washinton Post
Cecilia Kang
1/24/12
Google announces privacy settings change across products, users can’t opt out

Gmail will now become another junk address for me if that happens.
So ... What else can I use? anyone?

I have to use gmail for work and since my machine at work doesn't work, I'm hosed.

FTFY

I'm really getting the urge to cut all electronic ties... I'll just surf Lemann's for the necessary equipment.. DOH! ;)

Great! Thanks Lamp.
I just checked my other email accounts with aol & yahoo ... they're all full of spam/scams and asst BS. Frikkin fuuuhhhhh

Just in case someone does want to cancel and delete their Google account, here is a link and brief directions...

MyDigitalLife

How to Close and Delete Google Account, Gmail, Talk, Orkut, Web History and Other Google Services
Briefly, this is the procedure...
Read what Google says will happen if you do close and/or delete your account

Sign in and login to your Google Account at https://www.google.com/accounts/.
Click on Edit link beside My products heading.
You will see two sections – Delete a Service and Close Account.

To delete and remove a service from Google Account, pick an appropriate Delete <service name> link.

To completely terminate and delete Google Account and all services in one action,
click on the Close account and delete all services and info associated with it link.

Google will ask you to click on several check boxes to document you really do want to delete a service.

It's all straight forward and quick.

Sounds to me like they want this information to plan their business expansion/market strategy, rather than sell to marketers.:confused:

That's exactly what they want you to think.


Now take your pill and keep watching TV.

If you're afraid get a dog!