SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the arrows-buy-ennui-utter-gnome-our-crust-as-wheat dept.
According to the Google+ Page, Google is finally giving up on forcing everyone to user their real names to join Google+.
When we launched Google+ over three years ago, we had a lot of restrictions on what name you could use on your profile. This helped create a community made up of real people, but it also excluded a number of people who wanted to be part of it without using their real names.
Over the years, as Google+ grew and its community became established, we steadily opened up this policy, from allowing +Page owners to use any name of their choosing to letting YouTube users bring their usernames into Google+. Today, we are taking the last step: there are no more restrictions on what name you can use.
We know you've been calling for this change for a while. We know that our names policy has been unclear, and this has led to some unnecessarily difficult experiences for some of our users. For this we apologize, and we hope that today's change is a step toward making Google+ the welcoming and inclusive place that we want it to be. Thank you for expressing your opinions so passionately, and thanks for continuing to make Google+ the thoughtful community that it is.
I know many folks that refused to join Plus, just because of the restrictions and the fact that they *cough* suggest you to anyone in your contacts. They've given up on youtube comments, app store ratings, and a dozen other things that require Plus accounts.
Some might now join, though most probably won't simply because Google was so darn stubborn about this for so darn long.
What say the Soylentils?
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Wednesday July 16 2014, @04:38PM
Says the person who, according to browser statistics (from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp [w3schools.com], has a 59.3% chance of using Google's browser, or an 84.4% chance of using a browser with Google's fingers in it. They make me sick, and the fact that they fund Mozilla is even worse.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday July 16 2014, @06:23PM
Nobody else seems interested in funding them. Who here has donated in the last two years?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Thursday July 17 2014, @11:24PM
But they won't, and I refuse to have my money actively support the above. My rule of thumb is that if I have spend my time to hunt through about:config and install add-ons just to restore base functionality, then I've paid my dues.
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 16 2014, @07:52PM
If you are going to appeal to statistics, at least appeal to OUR OWN statistics:
http://wiki.soylentnews.org/w/images/b/b8/Sn_report_mid_june_2014.pdf [soylentnews.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:28PM
Fair enough. Of the 48671 visits:
(going by the browser family, because I'd really rather not calculate for individual browsers)
33.72% were Chrome/Safari,
31.92% were from the Gecko rendering engine (lovingly funded by Google)
The unknowns accounted for a massive portion (roughly the size of Gecko minus Internet Explorer), which may include old versions of Gecko or mobile versions of Chrome.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.