Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

>Google's results are starting to waver

I'll be honest I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Google would intentionally hurt themselves by ruining their search results. Also,

>Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside.

I do agree it's B.S. but using 4 different computers on a regular basis and being a student I find it more useful to use their products than not. Especially, the syncing options so basically my drive/chrome holds everything between all my computers. This would be impossible without having some way to link them (via email say, well they use Google+ to try and make more money like every company NEEDS to do to survive). Therefore I say I am alright with their changes because Bing and DuckDuckGo have significantly reduced capacities (to the point of usability is fair at best)

View on HN

> I highly doubt Google would intentionally hurt themselves by ruining their search results.

Arguably bubbling is ruining the search results. Sometimes such a thing can be advantageous but I do go to https://startpage.com/do/search sometimes to break out and it can be quite productive when trying to find a new result. The only difference is that one is tracking me and bubbling results and the other is not.

Since Google has recorded my IP, I have a hard time breaking the bubble when using Google from at home, whether I am logged in or not. I know this be cause I once decided to set my locale on Google to Spanish. Now I have cleared my cookies, etc. and I am not logged in but it assumes from -- I can only imagine -- my static IP that I want all my search results in Spanish.

> I'll be honest I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Google would intentionally hurt themselves by ruining their search results. Also,

I think it's more likely they have competing objectives and they can easily allow their search result quality to slip in order to have large gains in other areas because, honestly, they have a complete monopoly on search.

The days of competing on search result quality are long gone.

Google+ is a blight. I have multiple Google Accounts (I don't need my real name attached to my main gmail account!) and it's utter horror trying to use Google products.

You either give up on having an anonymous email because they WILL FORCE YOUR real name to be attached to your email, or you give up on Google integration features because you simply CANNOT use Google features without a real name anymore.

Trying to switch between my "public Google account" for functionality and my "private Google account" for privacy is almost impossible when you consider how broadly Google integrates the features. It's simply unteneable, completely. Google wants my privacy gone, and is denying me access to their services until I agree to give it up entirely.

Very, very frustrating for users who have more than one account.

I tried to create multiple YouTube channels for uploading different types of videos since I didn't want them all bundled in one channel. That now requires making multiple Google accounts. It's not impossible but it's highly discouraged, and they require registering each one with a phone number.

Reply to myself: If you're an Android dev, sorry I've never rated your apps, left comments or gotten ahold of you!

The Play Store REQUIRES a fully activated real-name Google+ Account to rate apps and leave feedback, so I've been wholly unable to communicate with the dozens and dozens of apps that request feedback.

Sorry friends. Blame Google!

whats wrong with society where we don't want to tell someone constructive criticism or positive feedback like it was a face to face conversation except online ?

What's wrong with receiving valuable information without being able to ascertain who sent it to you?

Information you can't trust because the source is suspect is significantly less valuable. See: spamming on Yelp and Amazon reviews.

How much more can you trust a profile pic and a real-ish name than "someguy443"?

A hell of a lot more, when it's someone you know personally. That's why they want the Google+ info - so they can show you what people you know thought of something.

Really A lot more?

Lets say you wrote a cool android app, but there is a little bug in it that is triggered by a phone you don't own or weren't able to test, I have that phone. I go to contact you, which of the following reports do you trust more -

From: mhurron [at] saminds.com From: Google+ Roman Fox

Now be honest, even though this exact setup probably smells off. Given receiving a email from the above or from the above Google+ account, are you going to trust one or dismiss one simply on the name of the account?

you're just detracting from the original question. You're absolutely right that feedback and information can be given without being able to ascertain who its sent from, but still why aren't people able to be civil and provide feedback with their identities known.

> why aren't people able to be civil and provide feedback with their identities known?

I find this quite funny with you being the anonymous guy and me being out there in the open with my identity.

Maybe you should answer your own question?

I do give feedback and provide criticism on the Play and Amazon store. When a site asks for a username, I pick a username. If the site asks for a real name I'll give that as well. If HN wanted real names it should have asked.

The question is - has this policy reduced the number of spammy, irrelevant or ignorant comments on the Play store. It used to be several notches below the quality of Youtube comments.

The question is, does the policy prevent highly trained testing staff who are willing to donate their time to developers for free from helping developers (but for their own reasons wish to remain anonymous).

It's a trade off, and real name policies don't only exclude negative posters.

(To expand: I tested someone's js project on reddit just yesterday, offering my platform, multiple browsers, a decent writeup, images/screenshots etc. But my reddit account is fully anonymous. If my real name was required, s/he never would have gotten that free help)

Hmn. This is a genuine problem. And you can support the real-names-for-public-reviews-to-avoid-spam policy (I'm mildly against, myself), while still believing this is a genuine problem.

Do the developers give you no alternate avenues for communication? No email contact or anything?

What integration features are you giving up because of not having a Google+ account? It sounds like you want Google+ to _not_ be integrated, and yet you highly value the fact that other services are integrated. In the end, we can't have it both ways.

I honestly think that I'll eventually leave google once they start REQUIRING me google+, which it seems very likely looking at the pace they've been kind of blackmailing gmail users into becoming g+ users. They didn't do the Play store thing to "solve" the spammer issue (seriously? Is anyone really believing that sorry explanation?). What I've found personally is that zoho offers some very good free products. Their email client doesn't suck, I haven't used them much but it's one of the best options out there (I started to "field" google alternatives when they did the Play store thing because it was so out of line and proved the extent of their data hungry ways).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com