
Google Requires Proof of Google+ Activity to Attend SFPD's Bike Theft Workshop - Irregardless
http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/12/google-adds-bizarre-requirement-for-sfpds-bike-theft-workshop-attendees.php
======
zaidf
Google+ is ruining Google's products like a virus. All mega-successful google
products such as gmail, search and android didn't need much selling to the
consumer. With g+, they are literally shoving it in their users' faces no
matter if they dislike it. Why are the Google employees _actually_ building
solid products putting up with this?

At least a half dozen times I have clicked on a public google+ post only to be
coerced into attaching my google account with a google+ account. Screw being
able to read said PUBLIC posts. My solution has been to logout and read it.
But I'm sure plenty of people fill up that form mostly out of disdain and
google gets to count them as a new user.

Really, getting new users by uber trickery is bad not just for the user but as
much for Google Inc because it isn't a signal for a quality product(in this
case, the exact opposite).

~~~
kevinpet
By literally you mean metaphorically?

~~~
mikeryan
lit·er·al·ly /ˈlitərəlē/ Adverb

\- In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when
asked to go straight over the traffic circle".

\- _Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for
emphasis or to express strong feeling._

emphasis mine.

~~~
notatoad
So the new definition of literally is literally "not literally"?

~~~
d2vid
Yes. Think about the word awful -it used to mean "inspiring awe" but it
flipped and now always means bad.

I got curious so I looked up some examples that still can mean something or
the exact opposite:

Bolt - run away or secure in place

Cleave - cut or join

Garnish - add (parsley) or remove (wages)

Weather - weather the storm or become weathered

~~~
rfurmani
King James II of England, when he saw the restored and expanded St. Paul's
Cathedral, called it "amusing, awful and artificial." The architect, Sir
Christopher Wren, was not offended. On the contrary, he was flattered.

The king did not mean that it was funny or entertaining. He was not calling it
atrocious or appalling. He did not consider it fake or pretentious.

In 17th century England, amusing meant "riveting." Awful meant "full of awe"
or "awe inspiring." And artificial meant "artistic."

------
pasbesoin
This may be perilously close to (mis)using a public service for private gain.
I kind of hope it ends up in court, so that we can find out.

Google should just stop it, and behavior like this. 1) The Google+ control-
freak obsession mania; 2) Self-serving "public service" attempts.

Mind you, Google has done and does a lot of good and generous public service.
(Even when and as it is good PR and perhaps also promotes their interests --
on an optional, "opt-in" basis.)

But tying a public service to a self-serving promotion? Doesn't pass the smell
test.

------
WiseWeasel
I hope the few fake reviews they got out of this was worth the bad PR. Whoever
decided this was a good idea should be relieved of these kinds of decisions.

~~~
wnoise
Shouldn't you hope it wasn't worth the bad PR?

~~~
WiseWeasel
Hmmmmm, you make a good point. My heart's not in it, so I guess 'doubt' would
have been a better choice of words than 'hope'.

------
wes-exp
I've been increasingly dissatisfied with Google products lately, and stuff
like this is a big part of that. Once a company gets pushy and in your face
trying to get you to use their stuff, it can really backfire.

It seems like we're a long way from the original Google model of just
providing a good, unobtrusive product (one that I choose to use, voluntarily)
and otherwise getting out of the way.

------
leephillips
This is pretty crass on Google's part, and horrific PR.

------
packetslave
Looks like it has been fixed (the checkboxes in question have been removed
from the signup form). There's still a field for G+ info, but it's not
mandatory.

------
josteink
Not very classy. I've usually come to expect better from Google, but it seems
like they _really_ want to shove Google+ down everyone's throats despite
people being very clear about not wanting to take part of it.

------
marshray
Gmail used to be the easiest way to set up a spamcatcher email account for
simple anonymity. Now their user authentication and real name policies have
made that harder.

It's easy to throwaway an old single-purpose Gmail account. But it's very very
hard to walk away from your social network account that has all of your
friends and followers connected to it.

Targeted ads were small potatoes, I believe the top social networks are
seeking to be society's future arbiters of identity.

But do they have a good plan to monetize this identity provider business?
That, I don't know.

------
Zenst
Whatever next, burglars using social media to work out who can attend based
upon reviews and profiles and posts so they can target houses of people who
wont be in at a certain time. Worrying thought and not totaly impossible sadly
at this time of year.

From Googles perspective this is perhaps logical in that it generates revenue
potentual from those that do reviews and yet this has nothing to do with
wanting to attend a Bike theft workshop.

If anything it is comparable to collect 5 can ring pulls for free ticket to an
event, which is what happens marketing wise for many events/products out there
all the time and nobody complains. So I can understand googles approach and
how it does not fall into the evil pile. But it does seem a little bit lacking
in synergy for that warm comfort feeling.

Sad part is there will be many people do half-haearted reviews at the
detrement of buisness's in the area and from that worrying factor alone I
would have to say that Google have perhaps not thought this thru on many
levels.

Maybe it is some new marketing guru with a background in soft drinks that has
yet to adapt to the digital World in there marketing approach on promotional
synergy. That is what I'm wondering given this approach.

------
stcredzero
How about bikes with internal gears built into the frame? These bikes would
also have a small low power device with a radio receiver. When a key fob is
close enough, the device would unlock the internal gears, otherwise the pedals
spin free. Also, if the device doesn't receive a signal from the fob within 6
hours, the device starts waking up and listening for a cell signal. If it
receives the right token, it self destructs, taking the gearbox with it.

~~~
stretchwithme
Why not have your bike alert you to its location if starts moving away from
your phone?

~~~
stcredzero
Running cellular radio and GPS is several orders of magnitude more power
intensive than low power communications. For this reason, you want the high
power cellular radio and GPS to only come on in exceptional situations, and
then only for short bursts if possible.

That said, it's a good idea. But making the bike hard to sell is the main
deterrent. It's hard to sell a non-functional bike. By removing most of the
profit motive for stealing the bike, you decrease the amount of security
necessary to protect it effectively.

~~~
stretchwithme
So, how do you fix it if you accidentally make it non-functional yourself?

In other words, what will thieves have to do to make it work again?

~~~
stcredzero
_> So, how do you fix it if you accidentally make it non-functional yourself?_

You don't. I think it would be worth the risk of such an accident if the setup
really deterred theft.

------
drivebyacct2
Look at the screenshot... it's not a required field.

They're giving priority to those who have used Google Local. It may still be
uncouth but the headline is baity.

> _But, Friedman made clear, "If you RSVP you will definitely get a spot."_

> _He told The Appeal that an RSVP is necessary for security and catering
> reasons. "Everyone who goes needs a [security] badge to get in," he said.
> The space where the event is being held has a capacity of 200 people, he
> said._

> _It's worth nothing, however, that at the same event last year only 25
> people showed up, reports the Weekly._

etc.

~~~
Irregardless
Wrong and wrong. Google added it without the SFPD's knowledge:

> _None of the San Francisco city officials who organized the event, it seems,
> knew about the marketing language Google inserted on the RSVP page._

> _The officer spearheading the program, Matt Friedman also didn't know about
> the additional marketing language._

And you are required to indicate whether or not you've reviewed 5 businesses
on Google+ Local.

The intention was clear: To coerce people into using Google+. I'm not sure why
you're trying to justify it by arguing semantics.

~~~
drivebyacct2
... I quoted the article and made an observation about the screenshot. Nothing
you wrote contradicts anything I wrote.

"Wrong and wrong" yourself. The headline is absolutely false.

I make no excuses for, as I said, the uncouth nature of this addition. It's a
pretty stupid way to encourage G+ usage anyway. (25 people last year, pfft)

------
Evbn
Post five honest reviews of Google+ on the Place pages for local offices.
Problem solved.

~~~
drivingmenuts
How does Google even guarantee that those reviews are honest? Bob's Bait
Shoppe could easily pay five employees to post five glowing reviews about how
Bob's Fish Annihilator brings all the fish to the yard. Unless you actually
know the person, it doesn't seem there's any way to guarantee the honesty.

By the same token, if Bob's having a bad day, five people could easily write
how the Fish Annihilator ruined their marriage and stole their dog, without
ever having any evidence of either occurrence.

Anecdotally, I know of one business here in Austin where the owner ordered his
employees to post good reviews on various social services using their private
email accounts.

~~~
Evbn
Reread parent post more carefully.

