V.T. Eric Layton Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I respectfully disagree with you also, Neil. In my life, I've experienced a great deal of social intercourse with folks whose real names I may never have known. Some examples... In the old 1970s Citizen's Band radio communities, we developed a lot of friendships with folks only knowing their "handles". In the biker community, which I've been a part for a goodly portion of my adult life, I have many, many friends with names like "Animal", "Slider", "Pink Lady", etc. More recently, in my online travels, I've developed meaningful relationships with folks from all over the world using only their online monikers. H3ll, I didn't even know your 1st name until recently. Has that ever kept us from communicating?What pseudonyms, nicknames, handles, etc. have always provided folks is a way to be selective about their own privacy and a way to be more selective about who they really want to associate with in a more intimate fashion. For example, I "met" Josh (Securitybreach) here at Scot's. I interacted with him pretty much as I have everyone else around here. Eventually though, Josh became one of those folks whom I chose to expose more of my private details to. In other words, he went from acquaintance to friend. I know Josh's home address. I know his real name. I know his phone number. He knows the same of me now. I've made that jump from acquaintance to friend with many people in all the varied communities I mention above. We all respect each other's privacy and continue on with our relationships. I give every new person whom I interact with in any community the benefit of the doubt. As time goes by, I may trust them more with more of my private details. I'm no fool, though. Choose your friends wisely; choose your enemies with even more discrimination.Regards, buddy! See you here and there...~Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil P Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I understand your disagreement(s). It's nice to be able to discuss things without everyone getting angry, like so many internet forums devolve into. :)I think google has mis-handled this, but I think their motives are ok. Having your first and last name visible, to me, builds a sense of community. You know who you are talking to. I don't think it's a coincidence that many of us here also have our actual names visible--even though we all have screen names (and some of them with long histories, even). Just exposing a name, to me, doesn't kill your privacy (at least not in America--I know there is a certain value in oppressed peoples being able to use the internet and not have to fear retribution for speaking their mind). People can know my name--in most places I use the screen name "neilparis", which (surprise!) is my name. I do understand some the desire for some people, out of a want of privacy or even convenience (I know there are people more well known by their screen name than their actual name), to keep it to themselves. I think a compromise could be letting you choose a nickname to your profile, that gets displayed next to/under your actual name. Or at the very least on your hovercard. You can set other names and have them visible in your profile and searchable, but that's not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I think google has mis-handled this...Definitely can't disagree with you on this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I think google has mis-handled this... Definitely can't disagree with you on this point. Yes, for sure. Can't disagree with that either :DGreat dissertation Eric! And so true!!! That has been the case for many years now on HAM radios, CB Radios, in clubs, even among people who are often only known as a pseudonym. There is nothing wrong with that.And there really are some very good and not at all shady reasons for needing or wanting to be known as a pseudonym. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Oooh! I did a dissertation and didn't even know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Oooh! I did a dissertation and didn't even know it. Well ... maybe not a dissertation/thesis, but hey it was as profound as one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I disagree, at least in the context of a social network. You're supposed to be connecting with people you know, and ideally (I suppose) make new friends/connections.The downside to that is that there are a whole lot of people whose "real" names I do not know. There are also a lot of people who know me only as ChipDoc. You might even be surprised at the number of people who call me Chip when we encounter one another in real life.How do I find these people in G+? For all I know, you might actually be in one of my G+ circles, since I tend to add people who seem to have Linux connections. This is actually why I use the same avatar everywhere - to give people a clue.I don't actually have a problem in providing my real name to G+, but the implementation was kludgy at best. I have been hearing that they're improving it though, and that's the whole point of the Field Trial in any case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 In my life, I've experienced a great deal of social intercourse with folks whose real names I may never have known. Some examples... In the old 1970s Citizen's Band radio communities, we developed a lot of friendships with folks only knowing their "handles". In the biker community, which I've been a part for a goodly portion of my adult life, I have many, many friends with names like "Animal", "Slider", "Pink Lady", etc. More recently, in my online travels, I've developed meaningful relationships with folks from all over the world using only their online monikers. H3ll, I didn't even know your 1st name until recently. Has that ever kept us from communicating?Heck, I fell stone in love with CallaLily; I even gave her a ring on the steps of the Field Museum in Chicago. To this day we call one another Calla and Chip. It doesn't seem to have interfered with communication at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amenditman Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) The downside to that is that there are a whole lot of people whose "real" names I do not know. There are also a lot of people who know me only as ChipDoc. You might even be surprised at the number of people who call me Chip when we encounter one another in real life.How do I find these people in G+? For all I know, you might actually be in one of my G+ circles, since I tend to add people who seem to have Linux connections. This is actually why I use the same avatar everywhere - to give people a clue.I don't actually have a problem in providing my real name to G+, but the implementation was kludgy at best. I have been hearing that they're improving it though, and that's the whole point of the Field Trial in any case.I do the same thing ChipDoc. Even though most people who know me by my screen name, amenditman, also know my real name. I use the same avatar everywhere. I AM the Tux Knight Templer! (debian swirl instead of a cross and sidux, may God rest it's soul, engraved in the sword) Edited August 1, 2011 by amenditman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Exactly. I have had friends throughout my life where the only name we went by was a 'nickname' and never even worried about whether one knew their last name or their real name. Still in contact to this day to some of them.It's the people that are important, not what they are called.My Dad always had a cute thought on all of this stuff ... You can call me anything but late for dinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Exactly. I have had friends throughout my life where the only name we went by was a 'nickname' and never even worried about whether one knew their last name or their real name.This reminds me of an amusing tidbit left over from my wedding day, lo these many years ago. When we handed invitations to our friends at the university, the most common response was "Wow, so THAT'S what your last names are!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 My millions of fans know me by this avatar since 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil P Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I think that's a prime reason why other name and/or nickname should be prominently displayed. Or at the very least much more conspicuous in the profile. Most people I see either don't know about it or don't care to fill it out (which is effectively the same thing). Although I suppose it's possible to have lived your life on the internet and not have any kind of alias. It would be tough though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 ***UPDATE*** Google+ name policy updated to allow nicknames Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrine Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Engadget doesn't appear impressed: Google + Nicknames = Hilarity. I guess I forgot to post a link to Ben Edelman's article here. This week Google announced Google Search Plus Your World ("Google Search Plus" for short). Reaction has been critical. Danny Sullivan says Google Search Plus "pushes Google+ over relevancy," and he offers compelling examples demonstrating this favored treatment. Meanwhile, EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg argues that Google is "using its market dominance in a separate sector [search] ... to fight off its challenger Facebook" -- essentially, alleging that Google is tying Google+ to Google Search, forcing users to accept the former if they want the latter. As Danny and Marc point out, Google is favoring its own ancillary services even when other destinations are objectively superior, and Google is using its dominance in search to compel users to accept Google's other offerings. But this problem is much bigger than Google Search Plus: Google has used similar tying tactics to push dozens of its products for years. I'm working on a detailed article with numerous examples plus relevant antitrust analysis. But with Google Search Plus prompting so much interest, I wanted to flag other areas where Google has invoked these tactics. See the rest of this three-part report where Ben Edelman evaluates the competitive implications of Google favoring its own services shows how Google penalizes those who decline to participate in its tied offerings provides legal implications Google Tying Google Plus and Many More Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Gotta love Engadget's take on it! And Ben Edelman did his usual great job on that article! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.