What is wrong with this message? | Hacker News Reader

What is wrong with this message?

dbushell.com

91 pointsdbushell77 comments

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.

Why should I want to disable Adblock, given horror stories like this one?

Yeah, "what ad?"

I did the exact same thing. I didn't even realize it was unrelated until I read this comment, I just figured something was going over my head.

That's truly awful ad placement. Especially as the blog also has a gigantic "hire me" button at the bottom too.

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).

It sits underneath the first paragraph on smaller screens (I've since added an extra sentence at the beginning.) It was unintentionally confusing in this case.

My screen is 1280x1024 which isn't /that/ small and it sits underneth the introudction.

I also thought it was related to the primary subject... and the real image, I thought was an error message from the advert company for clickabuse or something..

So when the author brings up usability and UI issues... should probably recitify those on his own site, before reaching out to others.

I saw the word sponsor and turned off adblock to see if that was the reason that word was there. Sure enough it was a distracting ad.

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.

Not being evil doesn't mean that you're an angel incapable of doing harm. It just means you're not malicious.

It's the difference between a car accident, and murder by car.

And they are malicious. For instance they are forcing removal YouTube apps on WP by revoking their API keys, simply for being on the wrong OS. They also removed mail features out of the blue to hamper WP users. By malice they also make it as hard as possible to select which calendars to sync (they hide the option when the browser is on a WP) and force phones to use legacy google maps. Luckily Nokia's HERE is much better.

"simply for being on the wrong OS"?!?

I was under the impression that the youtube app was revoked because it displayed videos without the requisite ads. That is, Microsoft was using Google as an unpaid content-hosting service.

Not for lack of trying - Google and Microsoft would on-again off-again "work together" and suddenly the requirements would be different or the result would be insufficient. Most recently, they decided that the Windows Phone app must be an HTML5 application even though it isn't on iOS or Android. Microsoft expressed interest in using the advertising APIs to adhere to Google's requirements, but for whatever reason those were never made available.

The whole Terms of Service for YouTube is very anti open web - everything about it screams distinguishing between privileged and unprivileged user agents. Now, of course neither Google nor any other company is beholden to making their platform work on every platform, but these actions seem deliberate.

For more on this, look into the blocking of Google Maps on Windows Phone, which was based solely on the user agent string sent to Google's servers. Or look into the curious case of IE11 receiving a different search page on the date of Windows 8.1's general availability, making it appear as though the update "broke" Google. Curiously, for weeks before Windows 8.1's general availability people using pre-release versions and MSDN/Technet versions had no problems whatsoever.

It's not clearly deliberate, malicious evil, and I'm perpetually a fan of Hanlon's Razor; but it definitely gives me pause every time I hear another one of the stories of Google's interoperability with Windows and Windows Phone.

Took me a sec here to realize that WP = Windows Phone. I was checking my WordPress sites (the "other" WP) to see if they disabled my YouTube plugins, and thankfully no.

Yeah, Wikipedia didn't make sense, so I searched and thought WordPress, then finally figured it out.

Part of it is probably that I've only ever seen one person use one.

It's more like driving while typing on your phone and ignoring the road for 15-30 seconds at a time, causing a 40 car pileup of death, then claiming "whoops, sorry, just an accident."

It couldn't, or they'd recognize that G+ is a false positive.

Google spam filter has many false positive.

I was expecting a complaint about a difficult-to-debug DBUS message.

No, that would mean "Hacker" was back in "Hacker News". Of course it's a post about Google+.

That's a bit uncalled for, this story is really not the worse "off topic" story we've seen on the frontpage lately, even though I agree it's a bit short on actual content.

To me the actual problem is not the error message though (which is fairly straightforward and informative) but rather the fact that there seems to be no recourse or ways to contest that. But then again, in my opinion, if you outsource your identity online by having it managed by a third party like google, facebook or twitter you deserve everything you get. That seems to be a fairly unpopular opinion however.

Eh, we share the same sentiment.

I don't think people should be surprised when (and these are all examples from the front page over the past couple days) the terms and conditions change, the URLs might start costing money or Youtube merges with G+. It's not news and it shouldn't be surprising.

If you want to own your online identity, buy a domain name instead of trusting a third party to manage it.

I was expecting either that or "dbu shell" a nice new interactive shell like fish.

Same here, since domain name is "dbus hell".

You weren't the only one.

<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?

edit: s/password/passport/

Ah, just like China where you need to hand over identification before using the internet at a cafe. You know, so you can be a "good citizen".

In my experience, Chinese wifi operates the same as in most other countries. Either no password, or the password is written on the menu or freely offered when asked for.

Chinese censorship is another issue, of course. But there's no need to post blatant lies about stuff you seemingly have no experience about.

How long ago was your experience? IIRC, they've been cracking down on this in more recent times. I guess it's possible that these crack-downs are temporary or regional though.

Two weeks ago. The situation seemed the same in a couple of cities. There were no restrictions at any shop or cafe that I came across.

WIFI access at Beijing airport did require a passport, though.

I mean cafes where you rent computers, not open WiFi.

> password

I suppose you mean passport?

Does your wife share her name with a celebrity?

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.

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.

It's less crazy than you might think. A US passport is a form of legal, government-issued photo ID. It's a proof of identity.

You might expect a driver's license, but keep in mind that some people may prefer to provide:

- state ID card - state-issued driver's license - US passport

Only one of those is proof that you're allowed to _drive_, but I'm pretty sure you can use any of those to prove identity.

Erm.. Do you think you might have missed the point that is crazy? Not 'the passport' (as in, 'why the passport and not something else?').

Asking for any legal 'proof of identity' is totally batshit crazy, period. I'm reasonably sure the GP wanted to express this in a nicer fashion than I do, while you discussed which documents are best to hand over..

I assume you meant she submitted a photocopy of her passport, not her password?

Your profile has been suspended because it impersonates someone.

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.

>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.

Effectively accusing someone of fraud is generally not wise, even if you're a giant corporation.

You can sue them for libel, but I only think that charge can go anywhere if you show material harm done due to their actions.

Considering this message is not plastered on the front page of the NYT, I don't think it could go far.

It can't really go anywhere. It's not a published statement. It's supplied to the owner of the account in privacy.

What I assume is the "impersonated" identity also appears to be in roughly the same business as this "David Bushell".

https://plus.google.com/117339560374768937720/posts

What if it is the producer/production manager?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0124239/

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.

Using "Guilty until proven otherwise" implies a rights-based discussion, or else it wouldn't be used.

I agree that it's really bad press though (especially given how this has been a consistent issue ever since G+ appeared).

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.

I am generally pro-consumer protection, but filling in a sign-up form is in most cases not binding the company to much. Data protection laws is one thing, but obligation for eternal service isn't.

Generally an EULA specifies that a company has the right to suspend an account without cause (leading to termination of obligations on both sides, so you don't have to pay for a service anymore). I'm not sure how valid that has held up in courts, but the notion of ending a contract is not a new one.

>But corporations do not have the absolute right to arbitrarily refuse or suspend services.

I agree they can't arbitrarily suspend services if there's some sort of agreement, but I thought that , by default, they can refuse. There are exceptions but they have to be codified (healthcare, for example).

I see your point, but I sure wouldn't want someone to expect me to not make decisions that best meet the needs of my business, and that would include discontinuing or changing my products or services. However, I can see how when you are a company the size of Google that there should be some kind of responsibility to those that utilize your services, particularly since there is an exchange happening that benefits both parties.

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.

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.

How should it be phrased? Honestly I see nothing wrong with this wording. Talk about an overreaction.

If it was just the message, maybe you could argue that he overreacted. But it isn't just the message, he can also no longer use his profile.

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

I'm not on the google+ hate train.

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.

> ... you shouldn't be using G+ as your "home" on the web.

Just cross off everything after 'G+'...

I'm not sure why you'd say that. G+ has some valuable communities. It's no different than coming to this site or going to reddit, twitter, tumblr etc.

Exactly, G+ Twitter, FB are content exchanges with value added in form of comments and discovery in my opinion, not content creation places. P.s. Google returns 404 on his G+ profile, is it correct http code? Shouldn't it be something from 5 while case is being resolved at least?

I'm intrigued: what's the other side of the "Take Action" link? Not curious enough to try to trigger the suspension, though.

Back to the topic at hand: writing "appears to impersonate" wouldn't have been so much extra effort, would it?

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.

Ah, so google thinks a given "FirstName LastName" is unique?

I remember Martha Stewart once filled the audience of her show entirely with people named "Martha Stewart."

Is it possible to use G+ without my real name?

No, G+ has always required your real name, whatever that means.

Google's current name policy

https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1228271?hl=en

It used to be more strict.

How long have you been waiting?

If Google would not require real names, it would not be an issue (I am not saying that nobody share the same real name, like Google seem to imply).

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.

Out of interest - were you using your real name?

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.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0124239/

I too share first and last name with some actor. This would be plain stupid of Google to suspend accounts based on that.

yes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com