What’s In A Name?

With the advent of Google+, there also spawned a great topic of argument. I am referring of course to Google+’s name policy. This has spawned more debate and anger than I’ve seen on the Internet in a while, ranging from people who agree completely with Google, to people with legitimate reasons to be against them… to people who just like to argue. But what does it really boil down to? Is Google enforcing a “real name” policy, or just trying to enforce honesty?Lately I’ve noticed a lot of news sites, like Mashable, are reporting on the name bans, citing the Google TOS (Terms Of Service) as saying that “the policy, designed to fight spam and prevent the creation of fake profiles, suspended several high-profile users for using their commonly-known pseudonyms instead of their real names.” Even the top link on Google when you type in “Google+ Pseudonym Ban” comes up with faulty information. Where the sad fact of the matter is… this blatantly isn’t true.

As more discerning members of Google+ are beginning to notice and point out, Google’s TOS does not specifically ban users from using a pseudonym. Rather, it bans them from using an alias which they are not commonly known by. This would, for example, be like me only going by “ravnos” on there. I am known as ravnos to some people, but not commonly. Ian “ravnos” Muller would be more appropriate. The TOS also bans people from going by only one name (mononym). “Ian” or “Muller” would not be appropriate (more on this later). So what is the actual deal?

The TOS states…

“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.”

This does NOT mean you have to use your legal name. That is simply the example that they give. It does mean you have to use your common name, what the majority of people know you by and call you. To use a celebrity example – Lady Gaga. Or 50 Cent. They simply want a first and last name, and what you are commonly known as. Makes perfect sense to me. But is this still an issue?

I'm not even sure how to enter that into the name box...

Well, what about Banksy? Or users with a legal mononym? Or hell… PRINCE (the artist formerly known as…)? How are these people affected? Currently? Negatively. One user, who’s legal name (recent change) is simply “Sai” has had quite a few problems getting Google to recognize this, according to a lengthy post he made on Google+. At this point, however, it seems Google is almost too embarrassed to continue trying to solve the issue – their silence is very telling. Which is understandable, they are being attacked by a very small but vocal community, who has the backing of a lot of angry users.

So, is there a simple way to solve this problem and make everyone happy? Probably not, but the best approach right now would be to make an official announcement stating… basically what I just did. Additionally, it might help Google to access their stance on mononyms… obviously they have hit a roadblock there. My personal suggestion would be to have people list their name, as well as a nickname. Then allow people to control which name is visible to the public vs. Circles. This way I can be displayed as “ravnos” to someone who isn’t already in my Circles, but “Ian Muller” to those who are. I would also be searchable by either name. It makes sense to me…

I think the anger towards Google is misplaced at this point, but I do agree they need to clarify things more. Otherwise people are going to continue to be confused, and other media isn’t helping much.

In 140 characters – Why I “Like” Google+

So in recent days Google has released Google+… and the people have rejoiced. Or at least the people who don’t like Facebook (anymore) have rejoiced. Okay, fine… so it’s mostly geeks rejoicing. Why? Well… you see there is this small problem with social networking sites. They (usually) start off great, then slowly… or in the case of Myspace, quickly, become online gaming venues. And not even good ones. But with the emergence of Myspace and Facebook, a whole new world opened up. Networking on the internet wasn’t limited to e-mail, forums, and instant messaging. Blogs had already evolved beyond LiveJournal into something actually worth looking at… and for some people, the internet had become a viable place to live their lives… or second ones anyway.

So yay for the internet! Or something. But then games evolved… and expanded, or rather shrunk, and on came Zynga. Those of you who don’t know who/what Zynga is, congratulations… it’s possible that you’ve never played Farmville (or Cafe World… or Mafia Wars… or FrontierVille… or… you get the picture). Gaming on social networking sites overwhelmed those of use who legitimately wanted to use them for… well, networking. Keeping in contact with old/lost friends. Finding new friends. Looking for new music… (more on that later). But it wasn’t all bad. Twitter came onto the scene with a bang. Status updates for your life, not just on Facebook? I honestly don’t know anyone who doesn’t at least look at twitter, let alone have an account there (other than possibly my grandmother… but hey, she doesn’t count, right?). And then there’s Tumblr, a little notebook on the internet. I know people that use Tumblr almost like a blog. While I can’t bring myself to use it that way, it is useful for information dumping and randomness. Like a sketchpad for my brain.

Now don’t get me wrong, of course there are “other” social networking sites that still stay true to the original idea. But honestly… they are boring. Ah ha! The Catch-22. Boring… is boredom why the games have infiltrated the other social networking sites? Possibly. But boredom can be circumvented by other means. Better interface, more interesting design. More customization. The possibilities are endless, really, before you sell your soul to Zynga. One would argue music on your profiles, or even just music in general. Ah, but Myspace covered that, remember? And it’s nice… except when I find an old friend… go to their page, and suddenly get blasted by the latest and… worst Top 40 pop hit. Because I want to hear your music? I don’t assume people want to hear mine (though that doesn’t stop me from playing it at potentially deafening volumes… but that’s not my problem… I contain that to my physical world… not the internet). And one might argue that the introduction of music on Myspace was the advent of gaming there… more interactive-ness!

But a thought does occur to me. Isn’t the gaming on these site’s helping the point of them? Connecting with new people… blah blah blah. Yes and no. While I have met new people via Castle Age or FarmVille (yes, I have played the games… a gamer, what do you expect… plus how could I legitimize bashing them if I don’t try them first?), it still hinders the entire “social networking” idea. When I sign onto Facebook my status feed is littered with FrontierVille and Cafe World updates. “But you can ban them” you say? Yes… I know. If I block the game entirely, or the person. But what if I actually play the game, too? Just because I enjoy the game once in a while doesn’t mean I want it to be all I see in my status updates. Is there a way around this? Yes – the obvious one is keep social networking and gaming separate. But for convenience sake let’s take a different approach. Say I have two status feeds on Facebook. How hard would that be? One for game updates, one for legitimate ones. Or even customizable feeds! Oh wait… this sounds familiar…

Enter Google+!

With the introduction of Google+, we can do exactly what I just stated. Games haven’t infiltrated the beloved motherland yet, but who knows… they might. But Google is already prepared for that. By allowing me to split up my “Streams” by my “Circles,” I can control what I see when I peruse Google+. “But what if the same people in your ‘Family Circle’ play FarmVille” you ask? Well… if all that person posts is FarmVille updates… I’ll take them out of the Family Circle. And if it becomes that big of a problem… I will just remove anyone that plays games. “Ah ha!” You might think… “I have you there.” Why don’t I just remove them on Facebook as well? Well… because everyone plays the games on Facebook. I think I have one Facebook friend that doesn’t… and he’s about one more FarmVille update away from deleting his Facebook account anyway. So why bother at this point? Well… because the options are there. The glory of the internet (unless big media gets it’s way…) is that it’s free, it’s open, and the options are limitless. So try everything. Scorn nothing (till after you try it…). And pick the option that’s best for you.

Quick edit: A friend just linked me to this youtube video… which I think sums a lot of this up very, very well. What is Google+?

A note from the author: I’m not arguing that everyone should be on Google+. I’m not advertising for Google+. I’m simply stating my opinion that where Facebook and Myspace have failed (utterly) Google seems to be getting a pretty good start. And if you want to try it out and don’t have an invite… let me know. Also, yes… I know this was longer than 140 characters…