That is some distracting ad placement, particularly given the content of the blog post. I spent a good couple of minutes trying to figure out what was wrong with the copy on the "Heart Internet" ad before I realized that it had nothing to do with the blog post.
If your screen is sufficiently big, it shows up to the right of the blog post. I turned off adblock trying to figure out what was wrong with the ad placement before I resized the window. It should probably always show up to the right.
I didn't even notice the ad until reading through the HN comments. My eyes went directly to the red copy since it was centered in the page (and the ad, which apparently is there, is white and to the right).
Leaving aside the question of whether this message should even exist, here's a somewhat better approach:
Your profile "Your Name" has been temporarily suspended because it appears confusingly similar to <a href="...">Other User</a>. We do not allow profiles that appear to impersonate another user. If this is not correct, please <a href="...contact form that works with suspended profile...">contact us</a>.
Of course, having a "contact us" link would break Google's usual support policy (namely, don't offer any).
Google has gotten big enough to where "don't be evil" is just a cute saying that people mouth with absolutely no conviction whatsoever.
The company can distinguish spam from legit messages pretty well from what I hear so there's clearly corporate knowledge of the notion of false positives and false negatives. But seemingly none of that made it from the gmail division over to the G+ division.
<rant>
The question I am going to ask is - What's wrong with Google? They had solid services, great reputation, every techie loved them. Now they fit perfectly in the stereotype for a big, bad and greedy corporation.
In retrospect:
April 2013 - they butchered Adsense YT reporting by removing the real-time reports from your Adsense profile and moving them to YT. There was a massive drop in earnings afterwards! Instead of aiming for transparency they gave their users the finger.
Then comes the constant harassment with this G+ thing. I've gotten the popup message around 50 times.
Should I discuss Gmail redesign - hidden interfaces, new sorting system. Absurd things!
And the latest - G+ comments on YT. Yeah, that improved the comment quality.
I am wondering who's fault that is. There probably is a committee of managers who come up with these "changes".
</rant>
I come off as too negative, but I am just mad at them. That's why I've stopped using gmail, gtalk, hangouts, etc.
My wife has had the same thing happen to her today. Her Google+, and by extension, her YouTube account through which she promotes her work (she's a musician) were suspended, apparently without any notification.
There's an appeals process, and she's linked to her website and Facebook profile and submitted a photocopy of her passport to prove her name. Does anybody here know how long this is likely to take, or the chances of it being successful?
It was before, when Google had a very strict "real name" policy they were actively and aggressively policing. The actual name review process probably hasn't changed much since then though.
Lol first they force the damn thing on you and now they start randomly canceling account to force you to identify yourself.
That's not going to happen. The day they cancel my account is the day they can say goodby to all that lovely data they have on me since I'm not making another one.
Did they request a photocopy of her passport? That's a crazy request if they did. I sure wouldn't send it to them if it were me, but I could see how if your business was being affected it would be something to consider.
>A straight up accusation of potentially illegal acts. There’s no ambiguity, I’m guilty until proven innocent
Usual complaints, but it's weird how people expect corporations to somehow adopt a charter of rights like "the right to a fair trial for your corporate ban-hammer". Much like complaints about "free speech" when reddit bans some subreddit.
There's no obligation for Google to prove anything (until you start paying for something, in which case you start entering contract law issues).
There's a lot of value-add in offering a minimum of customer service nowadays, considering the complete lack of service by most companies.
The point isn't entirely about rights: corporations have users and they don't like to piss them off.
Obviously, Google can afford to piss off a few people without dying out, but good copywriting is probably worth it, in terms of avoiding bad press (and generally creating nice UX).
Beyond that, if it's true that Google has no obligations to users, it's equally true that users have no obligations to Google. So they can go ahead and be as irrationally angry about any Google decision as they want. That's how the market works--it does not care whether your anger is rational or not.
Why do people keep confusing the law with their own personal ultra-libertarian ideology?
Companies have plenty of legal obligations towards their clients, especially outside the US where consumer protection is actually a thing. And "free" users are clients as well (no such thing as a free lunch, there's a reason why Google wants you to agree to a very long legal document before signing up, you're entering into a business arrangement where you pay with your data).
It's weird how people expect there to be no laws concerning corporations and their clients.
By which I'm not saying that the OP has any recourse in this particular case. But corporations do not have the absolute right to arbitrarily refuse or suspend services.
"My company, my rules" is an ideology, not the law.
Presumption of Innocence is not directly enshrined in the US constitution. It is implied by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. However, it is acceptable practice in the US for local jurisdictions to relax aspects of the Presumption of Innocence. For example, for rape cases in some jurisdictions, it is not necessary to address the mens rea.
"It is not that you are innocent until proven guilty as many believe. It is that you are assumed guilty because of the assertion made and until your presumption of innocence prevails your protestation of innocence is simply the challenge to the prosecution to prove its case...With the presumption is innocence you do not have to prove innocence as it is a given. The burden of proving otherwise is upon the party making the assertion."
So the Presumption of Innocence is simply placing the burden of proof on the accuser and therefore any lightening of the burden of proof is effectively an erosion of the Presumption of Innocence.
Is it really a right if local jurisdictions can simply decide to erode it?
Now, certainly there is another side to the story. The argument made in rape and sexual assault cases is that, "Of course, the defendant is going to claim consensuality." The position that mens rea is impractical in cases of rape and sexual assault is not entirely unreasonable. My point is that the commonly held view that US citizens have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty isn't so assured and cut and dry as most of us believe.
I don't think this message is really horrible. The fact that they suspend your account is kind of weird, but IMO, you shouldn't be using G+ as your "home" on the web. I don't think it's meant to be that way. I've been using it since beta, and I've found that joining relevant communities and following certain people makes it an awesome mix of reddit (sans-comments) and twitter. My home feed has all the stuff I want to see from G+, and I will look into new communities once every few months.
I would never send anyone to my G+ profile. There's nothing really on it. I don't use it as if it were Facebook and load my history with vapid statements or "inspirational" quotes.
I think now, more than ever, it's easy to get your own "destination" site up and running with minimal effort. The social stuff? It's just a way to kill time. It shouldn't be everything.
The "Take Action" link opens a modal giving three options:
1. appeal
2. change name
I forget the third... The appeal asks for links to prove your name like other social profiles, plus an option to upload 1 document (e.g. photo ID / passport). After submitting you're told to wait and find out the outcome of the appeal. They also link to the rabbit hole that is Google "help" pages.
Maybe they forgot to include "seems". Doesn't appear like that big of a deal. There's a "Take Action" button ready to fix the issue. Is such a thing illegal in the UK?
The author left out a detail? Does his account impersonate someone else? I think that's an important part of the conversation, even if the messaging is presumptive.
The author's name is David Bushell. There are 25 David Bushell's in the UK who have accounts on LinkedIn. I have no idea how many David Bushell's there are world wide.
I assume the author wasn't pretending to be any of those other David Bushells.
Just for clarity: A few of the Dan Beales, or DanBCs, that show up on Google searches are not me. I've never worked in radio, for example.
I never head of David Bushell before, but a Google search shows that he is a producer and production manager. However the OP's website comes before the IMDB site in the search. Interesting.
[+] [-] ryanbrunner|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillysaurus2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LukeWalsh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nwh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aestra|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathanjaeger|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wil421|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|12 years ago|reply
Your profile "Your Name" has been temporarily suspended because it appears confusingly similar to <a href="...">Other User</a>. We do not allow profiles that appear to impersonate another user. If this is not correct, please <a href="...contact form that works with suspended profile...">contact us</a>.
Of course, having a "contact us" link would break Google's usual support policy (namely, don't offer any).
[+] [-] msandford|12 years ago|reply
The company can distinguish spam from legit messages pretty well from what I hear so there's clearly corporate knowledge of the notion of false positives and false negatives. But seemingly none of that made it from the gmail division over to the G+ division.
[+] [-] true_religion|12 years ago|reply
It's the difference between a car accident, and murder by car.
[+] [-] couchand|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username42|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lmm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathancahill|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blueblob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mseepgood|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angersock|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purringmeow|12 years ago|reply
In retrospect: April 2013 - they butchered Adsense YT reporting by removing the real-time reports from your Adsense profile and moving them to YT. There was a massive drop in earnings afterwards! Instead of aiming for transparency they gave their users the finger.
Then comes the constant harassment with this G+ thing. I've gotten the popup message around 50 times.
Should I discuss Gmail redesign - hidden interfaces, new sorting system. Absurd things!
And the latest - G+ comments on YT. Yeah, that improved the comment quality.
I am wondering who's fault that is. There probably is a committee of managers who come up with these "changes".
</rant>
I come off as too negative, but I am just mad at them. That's why I've stopped using gmail, gtalk, hangouts, etc.
[+] [-] inglesp|12 years ago|reply
There's an appeals process, and she's linked to her website and Facebook profile and submitted a photocopy of her passport to prove her name. Does anybody here know how long this is likely to take, or the chances of it being successful?
edit: s/password/passport/
[+] [-] astrodust|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gberger|12 years ago|reply
I suppose you mean passport?
[+] [-] aestra|12 years ago|reply
I posted this comment in another thread, it might be of value to you:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6732852
It was before, when Google had a very strict "real name" policy they were actively and aggressively policing. The actual name review process probably hasn't changed much since then though.
[+] [-] Fuxy|12 years ago|reply
That's not going to happen. The day they cancel my account is the day they can say goodby to all that lovely data they have on me since I'm not making another one.
[+] [-] rrich|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] endianswap|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gberger|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tantalor|12 years ago|reply
This message is wrong because it asserts something which isn't true. That is, you are clearly not impersonating somebody else, right?
If it was a copy writer I’ve lost all hope.
Copywriters aren't responsible for this type of mistake.
A copywriter transforms a message into coherent language. The language here is clear and readable. The message is the problem.
A straight up accusation of potentially illegal acts.
This message is not accusing you of fraud, that's your own hyperbole.
[+] [-] rtpg|12 years ago|reply
Usual complaints, but it's weird how people expect corporations to somehow adopt a charter of rights like "the right to a fair trial for your corporate ban-hammer". Much like complaints about "free speech" when reddit bans some subreddit.
There's no obligation for Google to prove anything (until you start paying for something, in which case you start entering contract law issues).
There's a lot of value-add in offering a minimum of customer service nowadays, considering the complete lack of service by most companies.
[+] [-] TillE|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperpape|12 years ago|reply
Obviously, Google can afford to piss off a few people without dying out, but good copywriting is probably worth it, in terms of avoiding bad press (and generally creating nice UX).
Beyond that, if it's true that Google has no obligations to users, it's equally true that users have no obligations to Google. So they can go ahead and be as irrationally angry about any Google decision as they want. That's how the market works--it does not care whether your anger is rational or not.
[+] [-] bowlofpetunias|12 years ago|reply
Companies have plenty of legal obligations towards their clients, especially outside the US where consumer protection is actually a thing. And "free" users are clients as well (no such thing as a free lunch, there's a reason why Google wants you to agree to a very long legal document before signing up, you're entering into a business arrangement where you pay with your data).
It's weird how people expect there to be no laws concerning corporations and their clients.
By which I'm not saying that the OP has any recourse in this particular case. But corporations do not have the absolute right to arbitrarily refuse or suspend services.
"My company, my rules" is an ideology, not the law.
[+] [-] stcredzero|12 years ago|reply
http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm
"It is not that you are innocent until proven guilty as many believe. It is that you are assumed guilty because of the assertion made and until your presumption of innocence prevails your protestation of innocence is simply the challenge to the prosecution to prove its case...With the presumption is innocence you do not have to prove innocence as it is a given. The burden of proving otherwise is upon the party making the assertion."
So the Presumption of Innocence is simply placing the burden of proof on the accuser and therefore any lightening of the burden of proof is effectively an erosion of the Presumption of Innocence.
Is it really a right if local jurisdictions can simply decide to erode it?
Now, certainly there is another side to the story. The argument made in rape and sexual assault cases is that, "Of course, the defendant is going to claim consensuality." The position that mens rea is impractical in cases of rape and sexual assault is not entirely unreasonable. My point is that the commonly held view that US citizens have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty isn't so assured and cut and dry as most of us believe.
[+] [-] randyrand|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joe-Z|12 years ago|reply
And why is that? Probably because some algorithm thought his profile impersonates someone else, which is apparently not the case.
And the way Google choose to communicate their suspicion and the actions that followed it to their user was by (practically) saying:
"You did bad thing x, and now you have to pay the consequences for it."
Can you see his point better now? (Personally I can fully understand him)
EDIT: Oh, and a better approach is mentioned in this HN-comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6732820
[+] [-] wambotron|12 years ago|reply
I don't think this message is really horrible. The fact that they suspend your account is kind of weird, but IMO, you shouldn't be using G+ as your "home" on the web. I don't think it's meant to be that way. I've been using it since beta, and I've found that joining relevant communities and following certain people makes it an awesome mix of reddit (sans-comments) and twitter. My home feed has all the stuff I want to see from G+, and I will look into new communities once every few months.
I would never send anyone to my G+ profile. There's nothing really on it. I don't use it as if it were Facebook and load my history with vapid statements or "inspirational" quotes.
I think now, more than ever, it's easy to get your own "destination" site up and running with minimal effort. The social stuff? It's just a way to kill time. It shouldn't be everything.
[+] [-] sbhere|12 years ago|reply
Just cross off everything after 'G+'...
[+] [-] andrewaylett|12 years ago|reply
Back to the topic at hand: writing "appears to impersonate" wouldn't have been so much extra effort, would it?
[+] [-] dbushell|12 years ago|reply
1. appeal 2. change name
I forget the third... The appeal asks for links to prove your name like other social profiles, plus an option to upload 1 document (e.g. photo ID / passport). After submitting you're told to wait and find out the outcome of the appeal. They also link to the rabbit hole that is Google "help" pages.
[+] [-] Zoomla|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbreit|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joetech|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
I assume the author wasn't pretending to be any of those other David Bushells.
Just for clarity: A few of the Dan Beales, or DanBCs, that show up on Google searches are not me. I've never worked in radio, for example.
[+] [-] alextingle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aestra|12 years ago|reply
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0124239/
[+] [-] dbushell|12 years ago|reply