Google+ isn’t playing games with abusers of it’s policies and is cracking down on Google+ profiles that aren’t using legitimate names, odd characters, or contain misleading information.
I personally know what it’s like to visit sites like Facebook or MySpace where you’re looking for an old friend and you just can’t seem to locate them. Some time goes by and you wonder who this odd fellow is that’s chatting with all your friends. You dig into the profile and find a ton of funny images, culture references, and other stuff, but nothing that tells you why this person is chatting with all your friends. Finally you give up and send a message, yep, it’s that old friend you couldn’t find, he’s just using his on-line name because he’s unemployed and looking for jobs.
What a situation! Why does this fellow not have more control over his info so he can use honest information without worry? Technically, at this stage, users of FB/MySpace have the control, but when the companies are selling your info off to the highest bidders, would you blame anyone for feeling a bit shy? On top of that, making the changes needed isn’t clear or easy so can you blame people for trying to sign into Google+ with the same attitudes?
Google+ is trying to understand, they are avoiding outright bans on accounts with ‘nick names’ and issuing warnings well ahead of taking any actions. If an account is a clear violation of Google+ policy, spamming, etc., it’s closed instantly to prevent abuse of the system. They are also taking the time to clearly outline the policy, why you no longer need to hide behind an anonymous identity, and adding methods to include enough info to be found by maiden names, pseudonymous, alternate languages, etc.. should you choose to make any of that info ‘public’ and searchable.
For people who were derailed during the Google+ signup process, you’ll be glad to note that the signup process has been improved to explain your choices more clearly to prevent users from accidentally signing up under a pseudonym.
I have a friend that got fancy with the signup process in my circles, and it’s a bit odd watching his name morph as I interact with him and Google+ is picking between his profile name, his real name, and his GMail/GChat choices.
He’s expecting to get a warning letter soon asking him to unify his name selections with real info, but at the same time he should have the option under ‘other names’ to share his personality a bit.
Some folks on-line think Google+ is ‘missing the boat‘ on what users want, claiming that they won’t bend to Google’s rules to use the service. Personally, if I wanted to chat with a bunch of strangers, never giving up my info, I can name off countless places where that’s possible. Google+ is where I want to connect with real people, have real discussions, and skip all the nonsense that’s typically associated with the trust issues of the past.
If you have a Google+ account, this post even tries to challenge the legality of requiring a real name within the EU. While the fellow making the post does not seem to have fully read the user agreement when he joined Google+, missing the part where he opted to accept the rules, he may still have some merit in pushing Google+ to be as flexible as possible.
For what it’s worth, on the topic of trust, I didn’t share an image of my face publicly on Google+. To me that’s a private option because nobody is going to search for me by face, not anyone I’d like to have find me at least. If you’re in the right circles on my profile, you can gaze at my ugly mug all day if you want, just don’t be a creep and take pictures of me sleeping!
SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 2:59 pm
Yesterday on the Official Google Blog, Matt Braithwaite posted an article about transparency reports, including some very frank details about Google’s dealings with removal requests and user data requests.
Google, in their typical style of blowing us away with information, has given users multiple ways to view the information, broken down by country, date range, and request types. The detail goes right down to traffic by time and location, allowing users to actually visualize things like the Egyptian protests.
It is also very interesting to see the compliance of requests, showing an understanding of internet awareness and rights. Most countries had a rather high success rate in petitioning Google to remove information, South Korea managed 32, 152 requests with a sterling 100% success rate.
India however was at the opposite end of the spectrum with a %22 rate of compliance to their removal requests.
The only place I wasn’t impressed by the level of detail was the geographical sources of the removal requests. 
I wasn’t expecting to get street address details, but it would have been great to see what areas the complaints originate from vs. a country level map.
Unless Saskatchewan is really where all the complaints from Canada came from?
Still this is a new level of transparency for Google:
- First time revealing compliance % for requests
- More information on request sources
- Breakdown of user, local, federal, police, government, etc.
- Notification of effected users by request
- Clear metric of Government influence on search results
Amazingly there’s still a rally cry for the FTC investigations into Google.
While I support honesty and thoroughly unbiased policing, I do have to wonder what anyone expects to learn that previous investigations hasn’t turned up. Especially when looking at a company as transparent as Google.
SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 6:08 pm
Today on Webcology Jim Hedger and I discussed privacy. I should note that when it comes to privacy I have a fairly right-wing approach to most aspects of it (though not all). Jim on the other hand tends to be a little more left-wing on the subject (reminding me of the Net Neutrality debate we’ve had numerous times). 
The discussion spanned Facebook and Google (with a little general issues in there) and started with the fact that Facebook has come under attack lately for selling information to third parties to advertising and has this included in their privacy policy. Jim of course understands the desire to capitalize on the data but has issue with the practice of violating people’s privacy like this. I don’t quite see it that way and here’s why …
When you enter any information into an online source you are giving it to the world. That’s about that.
People seem to believe (falsely) that when they enter their information into Facebook (or any other online source for that matter) that the information is somehow only called on by their closes and dearest friends. That somehow Facebook is the benevolent entity that is allowing developers to build tools around their system for the good of mankind and somehow shouldn’t profit. And magically – there will never arise a situation where Facebook (or similar entity) has their data taken by hackers. This belief by people that they can enter copious amount of personal data into Facebook assumign that Facebook is somehow collecting it for the good of all mankind actually annoys me.
So the onus lies on …
You.
Who has hold of all the information that could be abused? You do. Facebook didn’t launch one day with all the information about everybody on the planet. No – they just asked and you told them. If we stop and ask ourselves, “Do I want the world to know this?” about the information we give away then the privacy issues won’t exist. I’m OK with the world knowing I’m an SEO, I went to Cairine Wilson Secondary School, I watch Arrested Development and I play Bioshock 2. Information that I wouldn’t want the whole world to know – never makes it into Facebook or any other social medium.
I was lucky to have a father who was a political adviser and who is now a lawyer. He would say, “Never write anything down you don’t want the wold to know.” At the time he was referring to print but the same can be said for the digital world. Don’t give your information to a third party if you don’t want the world to know. The onus lies with you – not them. They have to protect their interests (profit) and you have to protect yours (privacy).
Let’s also remember that capitalism has an uncanny way of self-regulating. If your information is used for purposes you don’t approve of enough times – you will stop using the service. So if Facebook violates your trust you will stop using Facebook and the slow and steady decline will begin.
The exception to my rule …
For the companies out there who think I’m given them an all-clear the are some exceptions. I only put the onus on the individual when there is reasonable reason to believe you are giving the information away. When I search on Google I know my behavior is being tracked (heck – they’re personalizing my results based on it) and then I enter my favorite shows into Facebook I know it’s being stored. But what about pre-installed widgets and toolbars that come with your fancy new computer. They can track your behavior but in my humble opinion – I believe this is where the scrutiny should lie. If my new PC by default is monitoring my behavior, preferences and web patterns then this is private information and the consumer likely isn’t aware this is going on. If they search int eh toolbar (for example) then it is the individuals responsibility but if it is data gathered when the individual likely didn’t know and and shouldn’t reasonably have known that data was being collected – herein lies the potential violation of implied privacy.
But of course this is just my opinion. The rule of the day though: Don’t write anything down you don’t want the world to know.
SEO news blog post by Dave Davies, CEO @ 10:27 pm
For anyone who’s read my blog posts for a while or who saw me speak in San Jose earlier this year you’ll know that I’m particularly interested in personalization and specifically, Google’s patents on the subject. It’s because of this that the launch of 23andme yesterday was particularly interesting though I have to say, I haven’t seen anything in any of the patents on how this ties together.
For those that haven’t heard yet, 23andme is a DNA testing facility of sorts. For $999 they’ll send you a saliva kit which you mail back and a few weeks later you can logon to their site and see how your DNA looks as far as a few conditions and diseases go (heart attacks, strokes, etc.). Now the real curiosity to me is that this company is funded by Google. Why?
Well one reason could be that one of the founders is Anne Wojcicki, who has a background in health-care investing and is married to Google Inc co-founder Sergey Brin. Good reason HOWEVER Sergey can’t just hand over millions of gBucks whenever he likes so there has to be a benefit for Google.
There is the chance that the folks over at Google simply believe that this is an interesting project and lucrative in it’s own right and thought to diversify their funding sources. Of course! Advertising is sooooo yesterday. Time to move on. 
Or there is some data that the gPeople are hoping to get? Is this the first step in a larger project to get our DNA. What personalization options will Google have if they know you’re going to die at 45? You’ll know you’re in trouble when funeral home ads start popping up when you’re partner is surfing the web.
It’s definitely WAY too early to come to any conclusive idea as to what the folks at Google are really hoping to accomplish but it’ll be interesting to watch them and how they use the data they collect.
The issue I find more immediately concerning is the privacy issues. While the 23andme website claims high levels of security (and I have no doubt they’re telling the truth there) the government can step in and demand the files. I’m not saying they’re going to do it, but they could. And to me, that’s a bit frightening [ i don’t know what my DNA says about me but I don’t know if I want my government and, worse yet, my insurance companies to know.
Some other sources of info on this launch:
SEO news blog post by Dave Davies, CEO @ 4:14 am
