

Google connects Play Store with Google+, reviews will feature name and picture - bornhuetter
http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/11/27/google-connects-its-play-store-with-google-public-reviews-will-now-feature-your-name-and-picture/

======
bad_user
This is a good thing and I do not agree that it is negative for users.

Often I see reviews such as " _love the app but it's crashing sometimes since
I upgraded to ICS 2 days ago, so I gave it 1 star_ ". Don't get me wrong, it
happened to me too on my iPad when I upgraded to iOS 6, but I simply sent an
email to the developers, asking them whether a fix is going to come in the
next day or two and they replied back promptly that I should wait for a fix
later that day. The result of this interaction was a 4-star review and a happy
user.

The sentiment of self-entitlement in some users is absolutely amazing,
especially for free apps. I also see lots of reviews such as - " _the app
sucks because it displays ads and to get rid of ads you must pay_ ". Well, if
you're a cheap bastard, there's nothing wrong with that (I'm a cheap bastard
too), but have the decency to stand up to your beliefs.

A negative review can really damage the reputation of an app. It can be used
by your competition to lower your rankings and it can be used by bored people
that have nothing to do other than to piss on the work of other people.

Anonymity has its place but I don't think it has a place in the app store.
Many developers don't have the marketing budget of bigger companies, so they
can't generate enough good reviews to bury the bad ones. Fake reviews are also
harder to generate. This can't be bad for users.

And contrary to what other people say, nothing is going to stop me from
posting bad reviews. I can stand for my own beliefs and I don't really care if
my employer or anybody else thinks otherwise. If your app sucks I'm going to
tell you so. If your app is mallware I'm going to go to extreme lengths to get
it blacklisted.

~~~
avar
I don't hesitate to give apps 1 star if they're not useful to _me_ for
whatever mundane reason. My primary use of the review system is to use it for
my own later reference, and to get better personal recommendations on apps
that _I_ like.

~~~
sk5t
This makes no sense... "Downloaded recipe app, I don't like to cook, one
star!"

~~~
avar
Say I'm looking for a mapping application and one doesn't even have data for
where I live, or some other attribute that would cause me not to consider it
in 6 months when I look for mapping apps again.

I do the same for restaurant reviews, I might give one 1 star even though it
serves palatable food, just not the kind I like.

By doing so the recommendation algorithms that harvest my feedback have access
to both positive and negative feedback pertinent to me to give me better
future results.

That's how those kinds of scoring systems work best, not by averaging
everyone's scores and pretending we're all robots that (dis)like the same
things.

~~~
bad_user
What you're saying is true, which is why reviews are context-dependent.

E.g. this user lives in Germany, so his review has more weight for Germans.
This user likes Indian food so his review has more weight for people that also
like Indian food.

Well that would be the ideal. But then you need the ranking process to know
_something_ about you, at which point you can't really work with real
anonymity. Maybe Google could hide the real names and profiles of people that
want to remain anonymous, but use their profile in the ranking they are doing.

------
UnoriginalGuy
This seems positive for developers, extremely negative to users.

For the developers they get more accountability and are able to talk with
their users if they want more information. It also might slightly discourage
some fake-negative reviews (e.g. anti-competitive reviews).

For users it has all kinds of negative consequences. You will need a G+
account to review at all. You will appear in Google search results (i.e.
potential employers can find that you downloaded the Angry Birds app). It will
allow developers to both harass reviewers directly (via G+ messages) and
indirectly (use G+ information to find them in the telephone book and call
them/send them a rude letter/sue them).

All in all it is a mixed bag. I think in general the response to this will be
mostly negative. Blizzard tried this with their Battle.net accounts and it
resulted in a massive amount of bullying, harassment, and in general problems.
They were forced to pull it soon after.

~~~
antr
The only way this can be positive for the users is if Google links the
developers' Google+ accounts to their Apps. This way they will be held
accountable too.

Right now users do not know who the developers behind the Apps are (unless
explicitly mentioned in their website, etc.), by linking it to the Google+
profile (here comes my WAG) developers of crappy, spammy and clone apps can be
made accountable, and consequently reducing the number of overall bogus/lame
apps in the Android ecosystem.

~~~
diminoten
I'm trying to imagine the scenario where my app publishing history precludes
me from a job, and I'm struggling.

~~~
blake8086
Apps for tracking specific medical conditions.

Apps related to financial difficulty: budgeting, bankruptcy, etc.

Apps that seem mischievous: hacking, tracking, encrypting, pirating, etc.

~~~
diminoten
Yeah, I don't see a scenario where a company would decide not to hire me
because of any of this activity.

------
sergiotapia
I hate this centralized real-life association to a real person deal.

I only use my name here on HN because I feel it's a professional outlet just
as much as it is a forum for interesting articles. But I do NOT want to share
personal information with some services. The Play store is one of them.

This is terrible news for users.

------
cryptoz
Aha! Now all developers (not just "Top Developers") will be able to
communicate with their users! This is most fantastic news. It's always been
frustrating for someone to leave a comment and there be absolutely no way to
respond to them. This solves that handily.

~~~
yusufg
Curious as to how you would communicate with a user. Do you expect to add that
user to a Google+ circle and then send him/her a message. Not really a big G+
user so I'm not sure if a user can get a message from someone if they have not
added them mutually to a circle

~~~
haberman
I've sent G+ messages to people who have not added me to a circle. This is
supported, just like on Facebook.

------
aestetix
Ahh, back to the Google problem.

There are so many issues here, and a big one is the misconception that forcing
people to use their legal name (or in Google's case, their "name-shaped name")
will somehow improve the "quality" of comments. Not only has that been
demonstrated to be untrue[1], but it also hurts people who have quite valid
reasons (including personal desire) to keep their names or personas separated.

One other thing to keep in mind: it is not the name which is used that changes
how you speak, so much as the context in which you speak. For example, a lot
of sites started forcing "Facebook only" and noticed a change in user
discussion/comments; I'd argue that this change was less the display name
someone used, and more the fact that their discussion became viewable by
people _outside the scope of the non-Facebook website_. Think about how
context matters: if you are (for example) homosexual and closeted to your
family, would you change what you wrote, knowing it could be shared with them?

There are many many more elements to this, and yet the bottom line is I think
that not only do these moves by Google reflect incompetence at the executive
level and a clear disconnect with the real needs of real people, but they also
demonstrate a lack of respect for the things people need most online: agency
and free speech.

I've spoken publicly at several conferences about this, and am now working to
establish a "NymRights" working group within NSTIC, an online standards
organization. If you're interested in this issue, volunteer!

-aestetix

[1]
[http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011...](http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011123001526.html)

------
forkrulassail
Well, that removes me from their rating ecosystem.

~~~
gulbrandr
Me too, I will never review an app ever again.

~~~
benvd
You're afraid people you know will be able to associate a review of a mobile
app with you?

Genuine question. I really cannot fathom why that would matter.

~~~
chokma
Health applications - a review for an app which allows you to record you stool
consistence (for Morbus Crohn) could negatively affect your chances for
employment as well as open you to ridicule by others.

"You gave AcmeFamilyPlanner 4/5 stars, Mrs Candidate - say, do you want to
have a career or a family?" (Hm, of course this could help remove bad
employers from your list of prospective work places ;) )

~~~
jmillikin

      > "You gave AcmeFamilyPlanner 4/5 stars, Mrs Candidate -
      > say, do you want to have a career or a family?"
    

I am almost certain that questions like this are illegal in any nation a HN
reader would want to work in.

~~~
avar
You wouldn't ask that question, but use that information to disqualify the
candidate before the interview.

Just because you can't legally discriminate based on certain things doesn't
mean people don't find ways to do so anyway.

------
glennsayers
I actually like this. I think (hope) it will force people to put a bit more
thought into their reviews. Anonymity with reviews is unproductive for the
developer and brings down the quality of a store.

EDIT: However when companies like Enfour publicly slate those who leave bad
reviews, maybe keeping their name private is a good thing.

~~~
sabret00the
I've written some fantastic reviews. Why am I being punished by an unproven
notion? This doesn't help anyone. It's merely a terrible marketing ploy to
further push G+.

------
angstrom
If this gets accepted as de-facto standard it would mark another shift towards
less anonymity on the internet or an increase in fake accounts.

------
abrahamsen
It mirrors what they did with Google Places, when they changed it to Google
Local.

<http://www.google.com/places/>

------
jff
Maybe this will make people put a little more thought into their reviews than
"DONT WORK UNINSTALLED" (rated 1).

------
bond
Don't know what's with people here saying will not review apps anymore.

What kind of person are you? So your review is only good if you don't show
your real identity?

------
Irregardless
Just another way to artificially inflate the "daily active users" and signup
numbers for Google+. Hey Larry, Google+ is dead, and it's about time you
stopped ramming it down people's throats.

Don't believe me? Go to a bar and tell someone you've just met to add you on
Google+ when they go home. Are they done laughing at you yet? Oh, they've
walked away already? Told ya so.

------
nilved
This also removes the ability for people on Google Apps accounts, which are
not yet eligible for Google+, to leave reviews.

~~~
cryptoz
Are you a time traveller? I think they fixed that just over a year ago.
[http://googleenterprise.blogspot.ca/2011/10/google-is-now-
av...](http://googleenterprise.blogspot.ca/2011/10/google-is-now-available-
with-google.html)

~~~
nilved
My understanding was that that's only available with Google Apps for Business,
but that article seems to contradict that. With that said, I don't see the
option to enable Google+ on my free Google Apps account.

~~~
DannyBee
Works for me. It's in additional services. The sorting places it after
everything else that starts with "Google"

~~~
nilved
I don't see it there, but I probably just have it disabled or something
elsewhere. I'll work it out; sorry for the misinformation.

------
sabret00the
I used to write reviews all the time. Mostly to help developers and help other
Android users who have the same device as me. As a result of this move, I no
longer write reviews in the Play Store. Great work Google, you helped everyone
other than those that matter!

------
viraptor
That will definitely stop reviews from people with funny non-latin letters in
their names who are still reluctant to join g+. I know they say the problem is
not there anymore, but my gmail account is far more important than an app
review. I can wait.

------
anon_a_mouse
The only losers to Google's inconsiderate decision to remove choice from the
consumer will be the developers... I will not be be leaving feedback now; so
what next? Google gonna stop me installing 'andapps' from Play Store if I
don't comply and accept their manipulation?... Google will eventually back-
peddle on its decision to expose users personal details without, at least, the
option not to reveal personal detail. bad_user "This is a good thing"... Your
opinion only and not consensus. bad_user "and I do not agree that it is
negative for users."... Your opinion only, and you do not 'speak' for
others... remember your place!

------
trendspotter
I posted this much earlier here on HN. See:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4836095>

~~~
trendspotter
It was exactly the same story that I posted 6 hours earlier than bornhuetter.
I even took the time and added some more related links. Why do I get downvoted
for my comment here? I don't get it.

~~~
cryptoz
Most of us were asleep then. Read the Guidelines linked at the bottom of the
page; stop complaining, that's why you're being downvoted.

------
waterlesscloud
Why not just give the app developer the Google+ names of everyone who installs
the app?

Why is that different?

~~~
recursive
People who install the app aren't required to rate.

