Google Requires Proof of Google+ Activity to Attend SFPD's Bike Theft Workshop
sfappeal.com
sfappeal.com
At least a half dozen times I have clicked on a public google+ post only to be coerced into attaching my google account with a google+ account. Screw being able to read said PUBLIC posts. My solution has been to logout and read it. But I'm sure plenty of people fill up that form mostly out of disdain and google gets to count them as a new user.
Really, getting new users by uber trickery is bad not just for the user but as much for Google Inc because it isn't a signal for a quality product(in this case, the exact opposite).
Everytime I visit another Google property I'm presented with yet-another "turn your account into a G+ account" popup.
It's very annoying, to say the least. I wish they'd just let me pay for the damn service, I'm getting very tired of being the product they sell (and not behaving exactly as they think a good little product should).
Sounds like I haven't been missing out on any of the fun.
- In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".
- Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.
emphasis mine.
I got curious so I looked up some examples that still can mean something or the exact opposite:
Bolt - run away or secure in place
Cleave - cut or join
Garnish - add (parsley) or remove (wages)
Weather - weather the storm or become weathered
"Awful" isn't a reversal of meaning, it's a narrowing of meaning.
> Bolt - run away or secure in place
These are homynyms, not divergent meanings. A crossbow bolt is fast, a door bolt is secure.
> Cleave - cut or join
These appear to have converged from the separate Old English verbs "cleofan" and "clifian": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&s...
(Interestingly, "literally" has been misused to mean its opposite since at least the 1680s: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literally&allow... . We've held off the "it means just what I choose it to mean" hordes so far, why give up now?)
http://www.rinkworks.com/words/contronyms.shtml
Words that are their own antonyms.
My favorite is off: "off - off, on (e.g., the alarm went off)"
The king did not mean that it was funny or entertaining. He was not calling it atrocious or appalling. He did not consider it fake or pretentious.
In 17th century England, amusing meant "riveting." Awful meant "full of awe" or "awe inspiring." And artificial meant "artistic."
Too much trouble. My solution is not to bother. People putting their content behind Google+, Facebook, and other fences should know that they are excluding a potentially large audience that prefers to stick with the open web. They might not care, but they should be aware of it, in case they might be interested some day in allowing people to read what they have to say.
Whenever I need to sign out for something, I just open up incognito mode/private browsing.
Google should just stop it, and behavior like this. 1) The Google+ control-freak obsession mania; 2) Self-serving "public service" attempts.
Mind you, Google has done and does a lot of good and generous public service. (Even when and as it is good PR and perhaps also promotes their interests -- on an optional, "opt-in" basis.)
But tying a public service to a self-serving promotion? Doesn't pass the smell test.
It seems like we're a long way from the original Google model of just providing a good, unobtrusive product (one that I choose to use, voluntarily) and otherwise getting out of the way.
It's easy to throwaway an old single-purpose Gmail account. But it's very very hard to walk away from your social network account that has all of your friends and followers connected to it.
Targeted ads were small potatoes, I believe the top social networks are seeking to be society's future arbiters of identity.
But do they have a good plan to monetize this identity provider business? That, I don't know.
From Googles perspective this is perhaps logical in that it generates revenue potentual from those that do reviews and yet this has nothing to do with wanting to attend a Bike theft workshop.
If anything it is comparable to collect 5 can ring pulls for free ticket to an event, which is what happens marketing wise for many events/products out there all the time and nobody complains. So I can understand googles approach and how it does not fall into the evil pile. But it does seem a little bit lacking in synergy for that warm comfort feeling.
Sad part is there will be many people do half-haearted reviews at the detrement of buisness's in the area and from that worrying factor alone I would have to say that Google have perhaps not thought this thru on many levels.
Maybe it is some new marketing guru with a background in soft drinks that has yet to adapt to the digital World in there marketing approach on promotional synergy. That is what I'm wondering given this approach.
I would also put a photocell on the device inside the internal shifter which would also set off the self-destruct mechanism. If I sold these, I'd have a warranty in case of malfunction. The trick would be to make them malfunction infrequently enough.
That said, it's a good idea. But making the bike hard to sell is the main deterrent. It's hard to sell a non-functional bike. By removing most of the profit motive for stealing the bike, you decrease the amount of security necessary to protect it effectively.
In other words, what will thieves have to do to make it work again?
You don't. I think it would be worth the risk of such an accident if the setup really deterred theft.
They're giving priority to those who have used Google Local. It may still be uncouth but the headline is baity.
>But, Friedman made clear, "If you RSVP you will definitely get a spot."
>He told The Appeal that an RSVP is necessary for security and catering reasons. "Everyone who goes needs a [security] badge to get in," he said. The space where the event is being held has a capacity of 200 people, he said.
>It's worth nothing, however, that at the same event last year only 25 people showed up, reports the Weekly.
etc.
> None of the San Francisco city officials who organized the event, it seems, knew about the marketing language Google inserted on the RSVP page.
> The officer spearheading the program, Matt Friedman also didn't know about the additional marketing language.
And you are required to indicate whether or not you've reviewed 5 businesses on Google+ Local.
The intention was clear: To coerce people into using Google+. I'm not sure why you're trying to justify it by arguing semantics.
"Wrong and wrong" yourself. The headline is absolutely false.
I make no excuses for, as I said, the uncouth nature of this addition. It's a pretty stupid way to encourage G+ usage anyway. (25 people last year, pfft)
By the same token, if Bob's having a bad day, five people could easily write how the Fish Annihilator ruined their marriage and stole their dog, without ever having any evidence of either occurrence.
Anecdotally, I know of one business here in Austin where the owner ordered his employees to post good reviews on various social services using their private email accounts.