You know, Google, the web already had this feature • Hacker News Board

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#431

Post by criley » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 3:58 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #378

criley wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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)

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#432

Post by superuser2 » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:00 PM UTC

josteink wrote: post #315

kunai wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing Google Glass does that my smartphone already can't. And how is Apple waging war against openness? WebKit is open-source. They're pushing HTML5 against Flash (open vs proprietary). Darwin (OS X without Quartz and DPS) is open source. A few of the apps included with OS X are open-source. Google cars? Driverless car research has been going on for years, both before and alongside Google. Look, I'm not ba…

> And how is Apple waging war against openness? Lawsuits against competitors kicking their ass using open platforms? That and making their every single a move a walled garden you have to use with no other options. I see you mention WebKit as an open alibi, but that's a poor example. It was forked from an open project and thus they were forced to leave it open. These days though it's not even being maintained in a way…

> That and making their every single a move a walled garden you have to use with no other options.

OSX runs whatever you want it to. If you are referring to code-signing, keep in mind that Android requires you to explicitly allow unsigned apps as well.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#433

Post by superuser2 » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:22 PM UTC

kaoD wrote: post #110

dannyr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried using Facebook and it wants me to create a Profile! I want to post a tweet but Twitter wants me to create a Profile!

I already have a profile both for Google Play and for YouTube. They want me to sign to a different service. "I want to post a tweet but Twitter wants me to open a bank account!" Your argument is invalid. Also: they wouldn't be nagging me if I had no account. Did they nag you when using YouTube while logged out? They don't nag me when I'm not logged in.

Identity across Google's services is an absolute mess. They seem to be trying to integrate on one identity per person rather than separate YouTube, GMail, Google Search, Play, etc. accounts. Which makes perfect sense, considering they're all part of the same organization.

"I just want to register for courses, but my university wants me to make a .edu email address!" would be a better analogy. They aren't part of the same functionality, but the organization is moving towards one identity provider across all its services.

Could you imagine the nightmare for IT if email, library, VPN, course registration, brusar, Blackboard, facilities ticketing, software discounts, help desk, file server, 802.11X, workstation login, etc. were all separate usernames/passwords? There is a reason most universities have one central authentication service. My school's network IDs are even even integrated with ID cards so (as of next year) you can reserve space with your network login and then tap/swipe your ID to access it.

It isn't like Twitter asking you to open a bank account because Twitter doesn't also provide banking.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#434

Post by angryasian » Sun, Apr 14, 2013, 9:01 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #428

angryasian wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#435

Post by return0 » Sun, Apr 14, 2013, 7:59 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #382

return0 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy is right. A lot of it has to do with the demise of the PC too. You can't build a Napster on underpowered and severely restrictive phones and tablets, so the net is increasingly becoming the new cable TV. However, by design, the internet is not destined to be like that, and it will not be. The past few years may have been an aberration.

Well, the phones and tablets get less underpowered and restrictive each day. Current phones are way more powerfull than PCs were when Napster was launched. They could easily run something like it today. As they are also powerfull enough to decide what to do with meta tags (or the more modern semantic ones) and to keep several dictionaries of data in place. They just don't do that for marketing reasons. I also think t…

How is it that they get less restrictive each day?

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#436

Post by adamauckland » Sun, Apr 14, 2013, 8:07 PM UTC

thisisrobv wrote: post #162

3825 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I hate them because I care. I am sorry but I can't understand your rationale. Please elaborate? What do you care about and what do you hate? Do you care about Google as a publicly shared company and hate the lack of focus in the growing company? Do you care about the web and hate the growth of walled gardens? >Google is forcing me away even though they're the best at what they do What specifically bothers you? If th…

Google has done an amazing job of mixing really shitty practices like this with really amazing things like the self driving car and glass. As long as they continue to diversify and innovate they will have supporters... even if they often break their "don't be evil" motto.

It's almost as if Google isn't a single person...

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#437

Post by freshhawk » Sun, Apr 14, 2013, 9:54 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #332

silverbax88 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that has happened to me over the past month that I never thought would happen - I'm actively looking to use Bing and DuckDuckGo over Google. Bing, something I laughed at just a few months ago. Google's results are starting to waver and the Google+ requirement is a cancer eating their products from the inside.

>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…

> 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.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#438

Post by qu4z-2 » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 3:28 AM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #416

coldtea wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? 1) There are tons of decent email services out there. 2) GoogleTalk, who uses that? 3) YouTube I agree. Though that's an acquired company, so it's not all to Google's credit. If it was up to Google, we'd only have the shitty Google Video.

> 1) There are tons of decent email services out there. Honestly, no, not really. It's especially not true if you want to avoid one of the main problems with Google products (ad targeting). Gmail itself is actually pretty poor IMHO as it is, though. The UI drives me crazy sometimes. So I may eventually go to a cheap paid service and also get rid of ads too. > 2) GoogleTalk, who uses that? Me and a number of my close…

> 2) GoogleTalk, who uses that?

Everyone I know. It's the only person-to-person (ie not irc) chat protocol I use. OTOH, at least it's jabber, which is federated. So yeah.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#439

Post by RestlessMind » Mon, Apr 15, 2013, 9:50 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #406

RestlessMind wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> YouTube, etc. has been milked to death and ruined in the process. Youtube, in fact, is much better in 2013 than what it was in 2007. eg. I have seamless integration with other products I use (eg. uploading a video from my android phone) or I can purchase/rent content which I couldn't earlier. Can you explain how Youtube has been "ruined"? > like how they consistently buy off startups and kill them, also annoy the h…

> Youtube, in fact, is much better in 2013 than what it was in 2007. eg. I have seamless integration with other products I use (eg. uploading a video from my android phone) or I can purchase/rent content which I couldn't earlier. Can you explain how Youtube has been "ruined"? I can. For one, being able to purchase/rent is irrelevant to the original YouTube idea. It wasn't a movie marketplace -- it was about sharing v…

> People can purchase/rent content from 10000 sources, it's not what made YT useful originally.

Correct, but now I can do all my online-video-related activities in one place. How is "going to 10000 different sources" better than that? Google already has my credit card info. Ability to purchase content on YT means I don't have to give my CC details to yet another website. How is that not a good thing for the user?

> 1) Constant ads, from "skip in 4 seconds" to "you have to watch all 30s, sucka".

I prefer that experience over alternatives which have even more intrusive ads.

>2) Taking off videos, or taking off their audio content, when some media company decides the music is theirs.

This can happen to any website. Google is just complying with the law. Are you proposing that Google should violate the law?

> 3) Forced G+ integration. I agree, its bad. But saying YT is "ruined" because of that is hyperbole.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#440

Post by flyinRyan » Tue, Apr 16, 2013, 11:46 AM UTC

knightzero wrote: post #414

flyinRyan wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, people who oppose China's human rights policies while living in China need to step up and stop hiding behind anonymity, the cowards!

Yes, you are right. I can see how requiring your name when rating an android app or commenting on a YouTube video would drastically affect human rights activists in China. I am sorry if you are expecting a company whose business model revolves around selling user information to protect your anonymity, then you are going to have a bad time. A company like Google is going to comply to government request for information…

I was addressing your comment about "take responsibly for what you put online". We need the ability to be anonymous because sometimes things that need to be said simply can't be said if you're not anonymous.