Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#101

Post by innes »

dlss wrote: post #98
innes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The naming problem is no greater proportionally 'at web scale' than it is at lower numbers of users. Used in this context, it's a cringeworthy bit of chin-stroking jargon. At global scale would be a more sensible. 'At web scale' doesn't mean, 'With users from outside the US'.

re: proportions: If Google+ was only for Chinese plumbers, the percentage of "problem" names (and the kinds of problems those names posed to the G+ DB schema) would obviously be different -- hence the usefulness of the term "web scale" when talking about this sort of problem. re: "web scale" not implying/talking about global users... Do you know of anyone operating a web scale business that doesn't have global users?…

Hmm, actually global scale is wrong too - I retract that :) The problem arises regardless of 'scale' (number of users).

To reiterate: the number of users (scale) is irrelevant to the issue of problem names.

I can see why someone sprinkled buzzwords on the HN title that didn't exist anywhere in the article, and weren't applicable though. Makes the issue sound more 'techie'.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#102

Post by saurik »

pornel wrote: post #99
tintin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your roughly translated HN name is also funny: Blue buttock gargle ;) But yes. Programmers have a hard time using unicode. It's a shame not all programming languages use unicode. I also think is has to do with bad research. It isn't hard to check different types of family names and naming order. There are a lot of countries where they place the family name first followed by there personal name. I'm still trying to fi…

You can't (simply) use family names to group Polish names (and I think Slavic in general), because spelling of names often (but not always) depends on gender, e.g wife of Mr. Kowalski is Mrs. Kowalska.

Yes: Slavic in general (my other example is Russian; wife of Makarov is Makarova).

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#103

Post by saurik »

innes wrote: post #96

NB: the nonsense phrase when operating "at web scale" doesn't appear anywhere on the linked page.

Given that I wrote both the article in question (on a medium, Google+, that has no title field) and the title of this post, I think it is fully in my right to assign the title the way I want to ;P.

For context, though, that phrase is there to point out that when you are dealing with a worldwide audience of tens to hundreds of millions of people, you cannot make silly assumptions (see patio11's set of "myths") regarding names.

As for using that /specific/ wording, that is how Google themselves often describes the state of operating with that large, and that diverse, of a userbase, making it anything but "nonsense" and in fact fully "apropos".

(Also... what is "NB" supposed to mean?)

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#104

Post by saurik »

innes wrote: post #101
dlss wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re: proportions: If Google+ was only for Chinese plumbers, the percentage of "problem" names (and the kinds of problems those names posed to the G+ DB schema) would obviously be different -- hence the usefulness of the term "web scale" when talking about this sort of problem. re: "web scale" not implying/talking about global users... Do you know of anyone operating a web scale business that doesn't have global users?…

Hmm, actually global scale is wrong too - I retract that :) The problem arises regardless of 'scale' (number of users). To reiterate: the number of users (scale) is irrelevant to the issue of problem names. I can see why someone sprinkled buzzwords on the HN title that didn't exist anywhere in the article, and weren't applicable though. Makes the issue sound more 'techie'.

I wrote that article, and consider the title I assigned to it here on Hacker News to be its official title; this is also the title that I used when I linked to it on my Facebook Page. Why, therefore, it matters at all that these words "didn't exist anywhere in the article" is beyond me.

As for "buzzwords", if you deal at all with Google employees, this becomes an irritating mantra: systems that have less than a hundred million users are often considered "toys" (and, to be clear, I can totally understand why this would be this way to these people).

And yes: I think that the point that "this actually happens to everyone everywhere" is an interesting point, and was the first comment on this post by patio11. I found that a very interesting insight, as many of my examples are more "those cases that come up when dealing with a global user community full of interesting edge cases", which to me /defines/ "web scale".

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#105

Post by saurik »

tantalor wrote: post #70
politician wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title is a reference to the fact that G+'s identity system fails to cope with names considered normal in their respective cultural contexts. In fact, it couldn't be more to do with "web scale" since it refers to how literally everyone in the world reveals their (sometimes multiple) identities through Google's world wide social network.

It might be a poorly defined term, but I believe "web scale" refers to the performance and availability, not features, of web applications. To say "They messed up feature X for population Y" doesn't speak to their ability to scale. No matter how much effort Google put into supporting "real names", they would still disappoint somebody. Does Facebook do this any better? I believe they also require users to provide thei…

Despite how many people seem to claim that Facebook requires real names, I have numerous people in my list of friends that have never had a real name associated with them; these are not new accounts, nor are they inactive ones: these are real accounts my friends have been using for the last 8 years on the service. Facebook somehow "gets" this in a way that Google may be trying to "cargo cult" in some way, but if that's the case Google is missing the point and failing at it.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#106

Post by tantalor »

saurik wrote: post #104
innes wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, actually global scale is wrong too - I retract that :) The problem arises regardless of 'scale' (number of users). To reiterate: the number of users (scale) is irrelevant to the issue of problem names. I can see why someone sprinkled buzzwords on the HN title that didn't exist anywhere in the article, and weren't applicable though. Makes the issue sound more 'techie'.

I wrote that article, and consider the title I assigned to it here on Hacker News to be its official title; this is also the title that I used when I linked to it on my Facebook Page. Why, therefore, it matters at all that these words "didn't exist anywhere in the article" is beyond me. As for "buzzwords", if you deal at all with Google employees, this becomes an irritating mantra: systems that have less than a hundr…

  Why, therefore, it matters at all that
  these words "didn't exist anywhere in
  the article" is beyond me.
What is the purpose of the quotation marks then? Irony?

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#107

Post by saurik »

tantalor wrote: post #106
saurik wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote that article, and consider the title I assigned to it here on Hacker News to be its official title; this is also the title that I used when I linked to it on my Facebook Page. Why, therefore, it matters at all that these words "didn't exist anywhere in the article" is beyond me. As for "buzzwords", if you deal at all with Google employees, this becomes an irritating mantra: systems that have less than a hundr…

Why, therefore, it matters at all that these words "didn't exist anywhere in the article" is beyond me. What is the purpose of the quotation marks then? Irony?

Yes. Again, that is the official title of the work: imagine that it had been at the top of the linked to page, ironic quotation marks and all.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#108

Post by innes »

saurik wrote: post #103
innes wrote: post #96

NB: the nonsense phrase when operating "at web scale" doesn't appear anywhere on the linked page.

Given that I wrote both the article in question (on a medium, Google+, that has no title field) and the title of this post, I think it is fully in my right to assign the title the way I want to ;P. For context, though, that phrase is there to point out that when you are dealing with a worldwide audience of tens to hundreds of millions of people, you cannot make silly assumptions (see patio11's set of "myths") regardi…

Implication of "NB" in this context: don't blame the author of the piece for the cheesy buzzword in the HN posting.

I twig now that the author and the HN poster are one and the same internet celeb. So... sorry about that :)

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#109

Post by dreamdu5t »

blahedo wrote: post #74
FaceKicker wrote: post #11

As much as I understand the privacy concerns etc., am I the only one who REALLY hates being on Facebook and seeing a fake name with all sorts of odd punctuation and random capitalization in a list that consists otherwise of clean "Firstname Lastname"s? Even seeing "Equality" as someone's middle name bothers me to an extent. Maybe I have OCD, but I'm personally glad I don't have to see this on Google+ for now (but I w…

I have a number of former students who do this, and generally they have come up with some clever way to modify their name so that a search on their IRL name will not turn up their FB page, but a glance at the FB name will immediately bring to mind the IRL name. It's a useful tactic for anyone job-hunting, honestly, because as inappropriate as I find it that employers take into account irrelevant outside-of-work behav…

I do this on FB by removing the vowels in my last name. It is clearly obvious to anyone who I am once they see my profile/listing, but searching my name will not bring it up.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#110

Post by dreamdu5t »

Can somebody explain the problem with allowing people to choose their own names? They claim it is to foster "an environment." What kind of environment? Surely not an honest one, since using real names doesn't cause people to act honestly.

Forcing real names fosters an environment of rigidity and conformity. But I guess people like that about FB and Google+. At least MySpace allowed you to pick your colors.

The Internet could be it's own place, it's own unique environment, but instead people like FB or Google+ want some poor attempt at a one-to-one mapping of the real world.

Post reply on HN