Humans are no longer responsible for such things at google. If you have objections, submit them to the Algorithm, Who already knows what you have to say and doesn't care.
Dear Googles: Stop asking
181–190 of 261 posts
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just got an idea: The hard part about setting up your own email server is, by far, ensuring deliverability. New/dynamic addresses tend to not be trusted by other mail servers, so that is really the most "dangerous"/time consuming part. So, why not do the following?: * Set up your home server to accept email. If it goes down for a few hours, hey, pretty much every mail server will retry for a few days, so you're pre…
I do this (but will argue doing it under some free limit misses the point: man up and pay for your use...); in my case I'm using either AuthSMTP or CritSend for my personal manually-sent outgoing mail (I don't remember which; I have accounts with both).
Of course you should pay for this, but, at $0.5 for the first thousand emails after 10k, you'd have to try very hard to pay even a buck. I use them for all my products, though, and pay them gladly.
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem comes from the fact of treating Google+ like any other social network like Facebook. Google+ is supposed to be an identity layer for all of Google. The fact that they have status update posting, etc is secondary. Google would like to assign a face, name and phone number to every Google account. And why is that? For various reasons. A face and a name is very valuable for targeted ads. And a phone n…
If that's the case, why not be up front about it?
Because saying you're the next OpenID won't allow you to be the next social network sensation à la Facebook.
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just got an idea: The hard part about setting up your own email server is, by far, ensuring deliverability. New/dynamic addresses tend to not be trusted by other mail servers, so that is really the most "dangerous"/time consuming part. So, why not do the following?: * Set up your home server to accept email. If it goes down for a few hours, hey, pretty much every mail server will retry for a few days, so you're pre…
"New/dynamic addresses tend to not be trusted by other mail servers" Running my own mail server for over a decade, and never had a deliverability problem. Of course, you shouldn't try to send from a dynamic IP, but what is a "new" address?
I mean SMTP servers with no reputation. I've been running my own server for years, but I never looked much into it, I am led to believe that the server must have good reputation to avoid spam lists, is that not so?
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just got an idea: The hard part about setting up your own email server is, by far, ensuring deliverability. New/dynamic addresses tend to not be trusted by other mail servers, so that is really the most "dangerous"/time consuming part. So, why not do the following?: * Set up your home server to accept email. If it goes down for a few hours, hey, pretty much every mail server will retry for a few days, so you're pre…
I've never considered that. That's actually a really good idea, especially as reliability will be higher. My connection rarely drops and I have a static IPv6 too so DNS may be far easier to configure. Edit: An idea to ease transition would be to setup the vacation responder in gmail to remind your contacts about your new address.
You mean if you're using a Gmail address? If you have your own domain, you can just redirect it.
Would anyone be interested in me doing a writeup of this? It sounds like maybe it should be put out there.
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#186I just went to plus.google.com and I had a huge popup asking me to subscribe a bunch of things and enable a bunch of notifications.
Things I've explicitly turned off, because I dont want to be bugged all the time.
The only way to move on was to edit the URL back to what it was before I got redirected.
Google+ is all about coercion. There's really no mistaking about that.
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
What memo? Do you have a link?
Searching "yegge memo" on google gives a plethora of relevant results. A copy of the full text can be found here: https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX
Now that I'm re-reading this, it seems to me that Google is doing exactly the opposite. It's even more product focused, and is now moving towards making everything one big product called Google+.
There's no platform here at all. Not externally (who develops for or on Google as a platform?), but apparently not internally either.
Because the haphazard way in which different properties interact, the way functionality and data bleeds through, and all the damn bugs because of it are all signs of products and data being hooked up to each other with duct-tape.
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never considered that. That's actually a really good idea, especially as reliability will be higher. My connection rarely drops and I have a static IPv6 too so DNS may be far easier to configure. Edit: An idea to ease transition would be to setup the vacation responder in gmail to remind your contacts about your new address.
You mean if you're using a Gmail address? If you have your own domain, you can just redirect it. Would anyone be interested in me doing a writeup of this? It sounds like maybe it should be put out there.
I'd be very interested. Even without a writeup I think I'll try implementing your strategy, but a little documentation would help a lot.
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#189Listen, and understand. That Google Plus is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you complete your profile.
Somehow I feel a bit uncomfortable laughing at this.
If Google ever becomes involved in defense work, with this attitude, we are fucked. Imagine combination of armed drones, Google's self-driving car technology and a vast amount of real time data on everyone everywhere.
Now where did I put that tinfoil hat?
Re: Dear Googles: Stop asking
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
That a bad plan comes from a famous person doesn't make it any less of a bad plan. In the spirit of Google: +1 for people and +2 for companies now actively moving away from almost all Google properties because they're becoming so unpleasant and/or unproductive to use. I know they're all about being data driven and running empirical tests: that's why the {expletive deleted} page moves around every time I come back and…
Do you have any proof that significant number of people are moving away from almost all Google properties? This sounds very anecdotal.
I'm merely offering an anecdotal view and make no claim otherwise, though FWIW it's a pattern I've now seen with multiple clients who previously had varying levels of Google dependence as well as my own companies and myself personally.
The thing that made me mention it was that so many of the reasons given by so many of the people involved are fundamentally the same. If what I've seen is at all representative, Google are increasingly perceived to be a security/privacy risk (though this is hardly unique among cloud services) and perhaps worse for them, they're not perceived to be a stable long-term bet (too many dropped products, too many unwanted changes happening too fast, nothing special in terms of quality or features, and little support for users).
Some of these factors presumably won't be as damaging to Google in the consumer market, or at least not as quickly, so I don't see their main advertising business dying any time soon. However, to businesses with real money on the line and organisation-wide IT strategies to plan, Google's overall offering looks increasingly unattractive. For example, Google Docs/Drive/Apps have been tried by various groups I know. None is still happy with them, and several have been forced to move at least some of their activities to alternative systems because the Google ones just weren't capable of getting those jobs done. Chrome is another example I've more often heard mentioned between curse words than flattering ones recently. And I already mentioned in another post the horrible experience we had trying to organise some Google Ads.
Google's resilience appears to stem in part from traditional alternatives shooting themselves in the foot by also pushing to cloud-based offerings and therefore immediately running into similar concerns. Even so, Google seem to be getting worse faster than everyone else.