
Why I won't get a Google+ Custom URL - vrypan
http://blog.vrypan.net/2013/11/08/why-i-wont-use-a-gplus-custom-url/
======
davidjgraph
Here's how it works. The techies create something. The legals come along and
say, OK, to release that in the wild it needs some T&Cs that cover our arses
for everything and then some, because people keep sueing us.

In practice, would Google ever dare invoke this on a large scale? No, you know
that. Yes, there should be some transparent process that is undertaken if
yours were revoked, but Google only like stuff that scales, manual processes
like that don't.

And really, if the ability to revoke your URL at any time wasn't in the T&Cs,
do you really think it would make any difference to the revoke rate?

Sure, nobody in their right mind would depend on such a URL sticking around,
but this post isn't "Why I won't get a Google+ Custom URL", it's "Why I won't
use a Google+ Custom URL as the primary mechanism to link to myself online". I
don't see much argument against just claiming one, if you're already a g+
user.

~~~
dsr_
Me in 1993: Yeah, but seriously, nobody is going to start charging for domain
names. Writing a hundred bytes in your named.conf? What would you charge, ten
cents? Doesn't make sense. And everybody swaps secondary service with
everybody else, and your upstream includes it at no extra charge.

~~~
Hellenion
Where can I read more about this seemingly magical era? I'm so young that it
sounds like a faerietale.

~~~
jmduke
It's hardly a canonical source, but very much on the 'seemingly magical' side
of things -- there's a Twitter account devoted to crawling old boards and
pages and tweeting interesting snippets.

[https://twitter.com/wwwtxt](https://twitter.com/wwwtxt)

Incredibly wonderful -- and very surreal. It's bizarre to think that only
twenty years ago, the Internet was an entirely different culture.

------
Ensorceled
Why I won't get a Custom URL:

> Many people have the same name. Add a few extra letters or numbers to this
> URL to get one that is unique for you.

Why would I want yet another "MyName<randomcrap>" identifier? How does that
help friends and family remember or identify me? What purpose does it serve?

I'm yet another person with a nickname that identifies me all over and has for
years, I too own the domain. But Google+ keeps insisting I have my "real name"
... except it's not my real name because I have to add random crap to be
unique.

I have no idea why they cling to this.

~~~
simoneau
Even though I prefer +simoneau, e.g.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=simoneau](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=simoneau),
I had come around to living with +MatthewSimoneau (if only to keep someone
else from getting it). When it required me to add some trailing garbage after
my name though, I also canceled the process.

~~~
liyanage
Same here, I don't understand why I'm forced to append junk, and I'm pretty
sure my first/last name alone aren't taken.

I canceled at that point.

~~~
liyanage
Interesting, a day later I got an e-mail that let me claim my full name
without suffix.

------
chestnut-tree
How did Google not realise when they launched Google+ that URLs that end in
ridiculously long strings of numbers (107350252619396782277) was a poor idea?
Now it feels like they're adding a sticking plaster to fix their initial
design decision.

Google+ on the whole seems quite poorly designed from a UX perspective. Most
people seem to use Google+ like a blog, but the two column card layout on the
desktop (three columns on some Google+ sites) makes it impossible to read
posts in chronological order. This is so blazingly obvious, one can only
wonder why Google went ahead with this pattern. If the site is optimised for
mobile (which seems to be the case), why do they push the same design to
desktop?

The way comments open up in a small scrollable panel also makes for a pretty
miserable experience on the desktop. As does clicking a tag and having to
explore everying from within the constricted space of a card (again why do
they push this pattern to desktop users if it's intended for mobile users?)

Can you actually add titles for Google+ posts? It doesn't seem so. This means
you redundantly repeat the name of the blog author as the title of every
single card/post.

And what's with the bizarre gigantic image at the top of the page that only
reveals itself when you scroll to the top? Was this meant to be a delightful
surprise feature? It just feels odd.

Finally, there is a button on the left-hand side of the page in the header. It
looks like a button, it's shaped like a button. But when you move your mouse
pointer over the button, a menu appears automatically (on rollover). If it's
meant to be a rollover drop-down menu, then don't make it look like a
clickable button. As always with Google and their UX, it's one step forward,
two steps back (IMO).

~~~
rallison
I actually like a lot of the UX, at least for the content that I consume. I
enjoy viewing content in some of the photography and photo sphere groups, and
for this a one column layout would be too wide without scrolling quite a bit
more.

Now, that said, this is more casual consumption. I don't care if I miss a post
or two due to your chronological post issue. I also imagine there are a number
of people like me when it comes to this.

Clicking the tag and having it inline is a nice way to see if you actually
want to lose your current context and go to the full tag browsing mode. I also
like this.

The image at the top? Nice way to not lose screen real estate on first load. I
find it fun.

So, obviously we have some differences of opinion, and some of it may just
come down to the sort of content we consume/create, but count me in the group
that actually largely likes the interface.

~~~
scholia
Hidden menus that pointlessly jump out into the oceans of unused space. Half-
hidden photo and a hidden search box that bobs pointlessly up and down.
Clunkily-unusable Circles. Endless pages that make it impossible to access old
content (Facebook does this much better). Porthole icons. Pointlessly
disappearing notification system. Mouseover popups that sometimes pop up (but
don't contain any useful information) and sometimes don't pop up (compare
"Community invitations" with "You may know").

The whole thing is full of utterly useless bits of "design". Some of these may
contribute to making it horribly slow, though I'm sure there are other reasons
why it's so bloated....

------
kibwen
I noticed the same clause in the TOS last week and was taken aback. Ideally
I'd love to be able to distribute my Google+ URL with the same confidence as I
distribute my email address: namely, _if you send a message to this address,
you can guarantee that I 'm the one who receives it._ The fear here is that,
should Google start charging for this "service" in the future, and should I
decline to play along, someone else could squat on my former URL and intercept
any traffic intended for my page. Please, Google, for my own peace of mind,
either make this a paid service _up-front_ , or pledge that a given URL will
always alias to the same individual.

(Though perhaps the email analogy is a bad one, since IIRC both Yahoo and MSN
periodically release long-dormant addresses back into the eligible pool.
Though still unsettling, it's a more reasonable approach than "we may force
you to start paying us an unknown amount at some unknown future date".)

Ultimately, I was about to go through with it anyway until I realized that
doing so would _require_ me to register a phone number with my Google account,
which I have so far avoided. That requirement was the final straw.

~~~
grecy
> I was about to go through with it anyway until I realized that doing so
> would require me to register a phone number with my Google account, which I
> have so far avoided. That requirement was the final straw

That's exactly how I feel. I try very hard to not give my number out, why the
hell does google _force_ me to tell them, just to get a URL?

~~~
sp332
I think it's for Google accounts in general. Even getting a gmail account
requires this.

~~~
riffraff
it's not, it asks for one but you can omit it, even though it will keep
bugging you about it from time to time.

------
suryamp
Alright you guys, I'm gonna blow your minds.

Try this kind of link: profiles.google.com/[YOUR USER NAME HERE]

For example, vrypan's custom link would be:
[http://profiles.google.com/vrypan](http://profiles.google.com/vrypan)

~~~
jamesbritt
Sweet. But how does this work? I'm not the only James Britt on g+, but
profiles.google.com/jamesbritt goes to my profile page.

~~~
CCs
It uses your gmail id. This "profile.google.com/<emailid>" is there before the
Buzz time, long before Google+.

~~~
jamesbritt
Interesting.

Some data points:

I have a few gmail accounts. One is for james.g.britt, but
profiles.google.com/jamesgbritt does not resolve to the g+ page for that email
address.

I also have a g+ page for james@neurogami.com (via google apps)

profiles.google.com/neurogami takes me to the g+ page for _that_ e-mail
address.

------
devindotcom
I almost claimed a custom URL yesterday when I was writing up the YouTube
comment change and in the process updating my G+ profile. They wanted my
number to claim it, which I believe they already have for 2-factor on Gmail.
In the end the whole process with YouTube was so galling that I just deleted
my whole account. As OP notes, it's not like Google+ was the first place
people would look for me, and it's not a useful resource for me, so why have
it at all?

~~~
cloudwalking
Deleting your account was less galling than using your phone number to confirm
your identity? Hm.

~~~
devindotcom
No, the whole YouTube thing. Having a channel, unchecking a bunch of boxes and
worrying about extra policies - having an extra Google+ page with its own Talk
address and inbox, in addition to the channel's inbox, etc. I just realized I
don't use it, probably won't ever, and it'll only keep trying to get me to
connect via other means, so I thought I'd nip it in the bud.

~~~
cloudwalking
If you don't use it, why don't you just ignore it, like 99% of most YouTube
uploaders?

All of these recent Google+ changes, aside from "Real Names," only affect
people with a large YouTube following.

I absolutely support you deleting your YouTube account in protest of the ever-
increasing Google+ requirements. But at least call it what it is--deleting
your account in protest.

~~~
rejoinder
Actually I sympathise with the poster here. I just tried to get back to the
personalised vanity chooser thing in G+, and ended up clicking on Settings
then to Account, which got me to a google account page. On the right handside
there is a link to a profile, and there's a nickname listed. I can't even
remember what that's for or what that profile belongs to. There's even some
reference to Buzz that I thought I'd killed. I go around in circles. And don't
even get the whole Youtube integration thing. So I just back away from it and
try and ignore it. You get overloaded. I'm not at the point of deleting my
account, but not far off - mainly out of confusion.

------
edent
Also worth noting is that you _cannot_ change the url once assigned. So,
better hope you don't get married - or that a serial killer has the same name
as you. [http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/10/googles-broken-name-
policy-a...](http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/10/googles-broken-name-policy-
again/)

------
macspoofing
Is this really any different then the T&C that governs your cryptic
[https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/](https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/)
url?

Whatever the current T&Cs says, google can certainly reclaim or start charging
for your current plus url, and heck even your google account. Google can do
whatever the heck they want, and you really have no recourse.

------
declan
<vrypan> is upset that Google+'s TOU for custom URLs gives the company too
much unfettered discretion.

In reality, Google+'s overall TOU for the service also gives the company
plenty of discretion. As do similar ones from Twitter and Facebook. (Gasp!
Bulk-delete your accounts now!) The overall Google+ TOU says, for instance,
"Google reserves the right to restrict the content on your Google+ Page at its
discretion."

Facebook says you can't create "more than one personal account" or provide any
"false personal information," which probably half of the folks on HN have done
at some time or another. Facebook can "remove any content or information you
post on Facebook" if, in its own discretion, the company feels like it
violates the TOU.

Twitter's TOU says it can "create limits on use and storage at our sole
discretion at any time without prior notice to you." The company can delete
tweets "at our sole discretion." And so on.

In reality, as <davidjgraph> says, Google (and Facebook and Twitter) would not
invoke this on a large scale. There would be a reputational impact. The
language does come from the lawyers, but largely because of the plaintiff's
bar, not because SV GCs enjoy adding this language to TOUs.

tl;dr: If you're going to assume the worst from every company, you might as
well never create any account or log in anywhere.

------
cloudwalking
Honest question: are these terms of service significantly different than other
services? Do Twitter / Github / etc have similar terms?

~~~
hk__2
From GitHub TOS:

> GitHub, in its sole discretion, has the right to suspend or terminate your
> account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Service, or any
> other GitHub service, for any reason at any time. Such termination of the
> Service will result in the deactivation or deletion of your Account or your
> access to your Account, and the forfeiture and relinquishment of all Content
> in your Account. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for
> any reason at any time.

~~~
declan
That to me looks broader than Google, Twitter, or Facebook's TOU. I look
forward to the impassioned post highlighted here on HN saying:

"Wait, wait, wait! Did they say that they may decide to charge me for my
Github account in the future? And that they may remove it 'for any reason at
any time?' A Github account is an identifier. I'll use it to identify myself
on this service. I'll link to it from my website. I may print it on a business
card. Like Github said in their email, I'll use it to 'make software
development more collaborative.' But they can take it away for any reason or
deactivate it? No way. Github is not a place I own, it's a place Github is
kind enough to let me visit and have some limited activity, but they can
always kick me off or ask for an (unspecified) rent."

Sigh.

~~~
patrickaljord
This Google bashing on HN is really getting ridiculous.

------
usaphp
I think the author is making it a bigger deal than it really is, nothing stops
google from bringing down the google plus or any other service he might be
using(just like google reader or wave) so according to his logic (printed on
business card etc...) you can't even have a long unfriendly URL because google
can shut down google plus any day they want to or just start charging people.

~~~
anoncow
Google Profiles used your email id as your unique identifier which made more
sense. Now I have an email id, a name and a g+ profile unique url which are
all different.

------
saurik
They authorized "JayFreemansaurik" and "JaysaurikFreeman" (both of which are
highly confusing to even parse) for me, and the form won't even let me try to
request "saurik" so I also gave up and am just a number.

FWIW, I was totally OK in a world without usernames. The problem with
usernames is that people figure out how to take them from you, and they get
burned forever. What happens when we all die? I respected the numbers.

When they added the username mechanism that seemed to be selling out on that
wonderful principal. The result also is clearly suboptimal: cocacola has a
username, but pepsi is just a number (as their trademark is too short).

------
josteink
I have a name which is 100% unique in the world. There are no other people
with my combination of first name and last name. Not in my ØÆÅ country. Not on
the planet. None. Not making this up. It's a unique one. Certifiably.

And Google has the balls to ask me to create a Google+ URL with lots of
numbers and gibberish added? What? They can just seriously fuck off.

~~~
riffraff
as a data point, to me it simply proposed +GabrieleRenzi, which may be unique
in g+ but is certainly not unique worldwide (heck, there are at least 4 people
named like me on facebook).

So maybe they just decided that something like "€∂gàr sm0ll" should be
considered the same as "edgar small" ?

------
louthy
The reason I won't get a custom URL is because after getting the "Click here
to get your custom URL" email, I was informed I had to give them my mobile
number before this process was achievable.

It seems Google is on an absolute mission to get my mobile number, they've
been relentlessly hinting that it's essential that I give it to them for what
feels like forever.

No Google, you cannot have it. Please, stop asking.

~~~
wyclif
Note that you don't have to give Google your mobile number. You can use a
Google Voice number.

~~~
louthy
That's not really the point is it? They said they couldn't give me a
personalised URL unless I gave them my mobile number. Clearly I could have
given them any number. It's the fact they're holding features to ransom that I
find utterly disturbing.

Do no evil. Yeah right.

------
pearjuice
PROTIP: Just redirect _vrypan.com /plus_ to your G+ page.

Bonus: Use _vrypan.com /+_

------
gesman
For this exact reason I registered my own 1-letter URL shortener domain and
use it to create my own custom redirects whenever I want without submitting to
someone's BS TOS.

It's better to promote your own brand than someone else's.

Send me email at: g@c.gg :)

~~~
johnchristopher
I got curious and checked c.gg and I see it is for sale.

Are you selling your own shortener domain you used to create your own short
URL's ?

~~~
gesman
I tried to build business on it (didn't have time/resources to push it) then
sell it in the past, but it didn't happen. Then I started seeing more and more
value having your own, really short and easy to type URL shortener - for exact
reason author wrote this post.

I plan to set it up like my personal "tiny.cc" allowing for vanity urls for
easy navigations

For example:

[http://c.gg/regex](http://c.gg/regex) [http://c.gg/az](http://c.gg/az)

~~~
zrail
I have the same thing on pkn.me. That just resolves to my normal blog which
redirects to the canonical URL. So I can have, for example,
[http://pkn.me/r](http://pkn.me/r) for my resume and
[http://pkn.me/mmp](http://pkn.me/mmp) for my book landing page.

I used to give random 5 letter strings to my posts as their ID but now I
actually put some thought into it so I can have good, rememberable short URLs.

------
vonskippy
His reasoning can be applied to all free social media, which is a valid
reason, and why smart people should avoid the step back in time to a central
AOL-esque media hub. He has his own domain, what more does he need? Why feed
the social media black hole (all things enter - nothing escapes)?

------
ensmotko
My custom Google+ URL is
[http://google.com/+AnžePečar](http://google.com/+AnžePečar) even though
typing letters with diacritics is nearly impossible on 99% of the keyboards
out there. I should have kept the random numbers...

~~~
ghuntley
[https://plus.google.com/+AnzePecar](https://plus.google.com/+AnzePecar)
redirects to [http://google.com/+AnžePečar](http://google.com/+AnžePečar) so
infact you now have two URL shorteners. Native tongue and english.

------
uladzislau
Why the phone verification is required to claim a custom URL? Custom URL is a
poor incentive to provide Google your phone number.

~~~
josefresco
I have a mobile number but have opted out of texting (they are blocked so I
don't get charged) and instead use a free texting app which also assigns me a
virtual number. Unfortunately the verification text from Google does not make
it through. I tried two texting apps, and even tried my normal cell number
hoping that Google had some agreement with my carrier to pass the code along.

Seems odd that Google would risk turning me away from Plus simply because I
cannot receive texts. Get over it Google, I'm not giving you my cell number.
Find another way to verify my identity, I only use practically _all of your
services_ and have given you pretty much all of my personal information at one
point over the last dozen years.

~~~
clauretano
those verification texts work when sent to google voice numbers, for what it's
worth (plenty of other similar systems break when you give them gvoice
numbers)

------
brm
When you read this, think about how many words an otherwise smart man wrote
about something that's completely inconsequential. Down-vote me all you want
but please consider how you're spending your brain power.

------
kolev
Google's decision is stupid: they make one person happy and a gazillion others
with the same name - pissed off. I'm not sure if any business wants to be in
this position. I'm boycotting it as I have the proper username with Twitte,
Facebook, LinkedIn - you name it. Why would I want to be something that
doesn't represent me on Google+? Sorry, but we have choices and only a small
portion of my friends use Google+ anyway. Poor choice, Google - if you started
in the beginning, it would have been a good choice, but it's a bit too late
for such nonsense. I still have not been offered a vanity name anyway and a
bunch of people with a couple of friends were. You either do at for all at
once or you don't at all. People take it as fair if somebody was first to
register it. People think it's unfair when Google decides.

------
archagon
At this point, I'm not even sure how my identity is split up on Google's
servers between my original Google account, my Google Plus account, and my
legacy YouTube account. Sometimes I feel like I'm logged into three different
things at once. And now I can't even use my original username as my Google
Plus URL? Does that mean that my legacy YouTube account is no longer active?
Or has it been merged with my Google Plus profile without my consent, despite
consistently clicking on "no thanks" every time the window popped up?

This sort of quagmire causes me to unconsciously stop using the services
causing it. Already, I've found myself much less interested in liking and
favoriting YouTube videos.

~~~
sugarenia
Exactly my thoughts. The experience is very jarring, plus the whole "use your
real name in YouTube" thing that Google has got going on is annoying at best.

------
echeese
What I did before I got mine, was redirected mydomain.com/\+ to my Google+
profile, it's shorter, and more importantly, I control it.

~~~
jamesbritt
Oh, clever.

I set up plus.jamesbritt.com to redirect to my g+ profile page.

Yours is cooler. :)

------
slowdown
One more important thing about these custom URLs:

1) Your Google+ profile is publicly indexable by searh engines.

2) Having a custom URL means anyone searching for your name on Google is going
to find out your Google+ profile _easily_. Basically, your identity is now
even more easier to discover. (When contrasted to the ordinary Google+ URL of
random numbers)

3) If you are using the same profile picture on Google+ as your Facebook,
people can track your Facebook profile, too. This is bad if you have a fairly
active social life, but wanting a bit of a privacy.

------
ivanbrussik
_facebook_ \- choose whatever username you want

 _HN_ \- choose whatever username you want

 _twitter_ \- choose whatever username you want

 _reddit_ \- choose whatever username you want

 _tumblr_ \- choose whatever username you want

 _Google+_ \- we choose it for you, you can't change it, we might charge you
for it, and we might also take it away at some point

also - why does G+ need to insert the /u/0 after the domain name? twitter,
facebook and the rest you can simply type domain.com/username but G+ just
needs to make it so much less user friendly.

~~~
cloudwalking
Seriously, did you read any of the other comments on this thread?

Facebook: "If you select a username or similar identifier for your account or
Page, we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe it is
appropriate"

Twitter: "We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation)
to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, to suspend or
terminate users, and to reclaim usernames without liability to you."

Reddit: "Service Provider or third parties may charge you fees for products or
services offered for sale through the Website, and/or for access to portions
of the Website or the Website as a whole" AND "Provider may, in appropriate
circumstances and at its discretion, suspend or terminate the access of and
take other action against users, subscribers, registrants and account holders"

Tumblr: "Tumblr reserves the right to refuse registration of, cancel, or
modify a Tumblr URL in its sole discretion."

And finally, you don't need any "/u/0" after the domain name. See:
[https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds](https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds)

~~~
ivanbrussik
these are all terms of service considerations. you can still choose a username
upon signup for almost any social media account except G+. g+ is the only
service that assigns a username to you.

i did not know that about /u/0, thanks!

------
leepowers
> A URL is an identifier. I'll use it to identify myself on this service. I'll
> link to it from my website. I may print it on a business card. Like Google
> said in their email, I'll use it to "point folks to my profile". But they
> can take it away for any reason or decide to charge me a (yet unknown)
> amount of money in the future? No way. I'll stay with my current, unfriendly
> one,
> [https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/](https://plus.google.com/107350252619396782277/)

Uh, what makes you think that Google doesn't have the right to take away the
numeric URL or charge money for the numeric URL? (Or simply change the URL
structure/scheme for Google+ at any point in the future.) Whether you use a
numeric URL or personalized URL is irrelevant: Any service/server you don't
control can change at any time for any reason. You should always direct people
to a domain you own and control, even if all that domain does is auto-redirect
to your current Google/Facebook/Github/whatever profile.

------
mxuribe
I firmly believe that using uncontrolled urls - such as facebook, g+, etc. -
on business cards, print material, or even as your established "online home"
is unwise. I think its better to maintain/publish urls originating from a
domain name that YOU control...And then create links (with underlying
associated metadata "rel=me" style links) or setup redirects...Such as:
YourDomain.com/gplus or YourDomain.com/linkedin...etc...

This leaves YOU in control. Can be done on the really cheap. And if google,
fbook, linkedin, or any of these services changes things around such as urls,
or UI, or ToC, or anything YOU don't agree with, then you kill the
redirection/links. Quick, easy and from one central point.

Granted their sites will have a little more SEO juice up front...And, maybe
I'm being idealistic, but eventually all search engines will begin to see that
YOUR domain is the authoritative point on the web for YOU...and that the start
point is YOUR domain not the myriad of social networks.

~~~
sigkill
I agree with this. Something like <first><lastname>.<tld>/social or /card and
have that page list all your fb, g+, linkedin twitter links.

Bonus, you get a permanent email address that NO ONE can take away from you,
for life.

------
reidrac
This is weird. I could suggest a custom URL typing it myself. The form said
that it would be reviewed but it got approved straight away.

May be is because I just used Google's suggestion but _removing the accent in
my surname_ (I don't like them in an URL, and besides is the same thing I use
in LinkedIn).

That was 9 days ago.

~~~
lingben
what is the process for this? do you have to wait till they approach you or is
there an online application?

~~~
reidrac
My session expired and had to log in again, and there was a form. I didn't
apply or anything like that.

As I said it felt a little bit buggy ("we'll review your request", and then it
was approved straight away), may be Google has refined the process.

~~~
lingben
so nothing triggered it? just random?

------
a3_nm
At least the TOS are honest and transparent. Even if Google did not warn
specifically that they can kick people out or start asking for money, they
would of course be free to do so. So, is it worse if Google reminds you that
you have no guarantees whatsoever? ...

------
wnevets
Doesnt twitter and facebook have the same type of ToS?

------
atmosx
Doesn't ALL free services have he same sort of clause?

I'm missing what's new compared to using... _put here any the non-paid service
online_?

EDIT:

Here are Gmail Terms of Service[1]: \--- Modifying and Terminating our
Services

We are constantly changing and improving our Services. We may add or remove
functionalities or features, and we may suspend or stop a Service altogether.
\---

What happens if they suddenly suspend their service? NOTHING! :-) we all
_hope_ and have many reasons to believe that they wont do that, anytime soon.

[1]:
[http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/](http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/)

------
goldenkey
An example of such shenanigans is WeWorkRemotely.com. It was posted to HN
recently, and was totally free. Less than a week later and they want $200 for
a listing. Egregious behavior, especially for something put on by 37 signals.

------
shurcooL
I tried to get a Google+ custom URL and couldn't. They require a phone number
to send you a confirmation SMS. I no longer have this protocol (due to an
abundance of more technically advanced, and free to use alternatives).

------
amakaruk
This is based on inductive reasoning:

This process is heading toward a time when your online identity corresponds
directly to your personal ID. This will create a debate between at least two
sides:

1\. Privacy rights activists will argue that tech companies are complicit with
the NSA and that we should fear totalitarianism and a police state's
repression.

2\. Others will argue that this verisimilitude between the online self and the
material self provides for security and convenience.

On the one hand you have those that value freedom and on the other hand you
have those that value convenience.

------
lyricalpolymath
We hacked this nonsense by creating a simple redirect on our website:
[http://eyevel.com/G+](http://eyevel.com/G+) ;) You can too! It's a simple
htaccess line or a router on your app

put this into the .htaccess of your host and change where appropriate
(yourdomain, extension and G+ long userID)

RewriteEngine on

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^yourDomain\\.com$ [OR]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www\\.yourDomain\\.com$

RewriteRule ^B\@G\\+$
"https\:\/\/plus\\.google\\.com\/103815970554408703928\/posts" [R=301,L]

------
anoncow
While choosing a unique url you also give Google the right to (almost)
publicly list your mobile number (Helping a user find you if they know your
number). I can see websites, which store all possible number combinations to
drive page views, trying to get username, email and other details from this
Google feature. Soon everyone who gives Google their mobile number will have
their name, G+ profile and possibly email id made public.

------
carrot
Wow, I didn't know that. I got the same e-mail and went all the way through
with this exact same processor for one of my "pages". When I think about it, I
don't really care as much about that G+ page as the other related social
networking profiles, but this would still affect me if it were enforced at
some point in the future. Well, I made the change, unlike you. Score one for
actually reading the TOS.

------
Guillaumeish
What about a workaround?

I'm /guillaumeish pretty much everywhere, and using my "real name" it's
against my religion. I can't do it.

I got no time to test it atm (and I don't remember the G+ policies on name
changes) but couldn't you just change your name to "Vry Pan", refresh and
claim the VryPan handle... than change your name back to whatever it was
before? They have a time restriction like facebook?

------
pkrumins
You all already have a nice looking google+ url, you just don't know about it.
It's:

    
    
        http://profiles.google.com/first_part_of_your_gmail_email
    

For example, my email is peteris.krumins@gmail.com, and my google+ url is:

    
    
        http://profiles.google.com/peteris.krumins
    
    .

~~~
gohrt
Does everyone have that, or only people who created Google Profiles before
Plus replaced them?

------
espadrine
I remember having been similarly surprised by the TOS.

However, the only annoyance and consequence of it, to me, is that I cannot
share the link anymore than I used to. So I switched, and I'll switch back if
they ask me to pay.

I am much more worried about them discontinuing Gmail. Since Reader, I have no
idea what they are ready to kill.

------
sarreph
Unfortunately, there is likely [please correct me if I'm wrong] a similarly-
worded array of clauses in the contracts for many of their other services (or
even g+ itself), that if taken seriously (i.e. not in a legalese manner),
would likely cause a similar level of _unjust_ alarm.

------
privasectech
I wrote about this over a week ago, also they demand your cell phone number
and apparently don't allow you to change it.

[http://privasectech.com/2013/10/terms-service-google-
vanity-...](http://privasectech.com/2013/10/terms-service-google-vanity-url/)

------
iamleppert
In other news, Google can do whatever they want with URLs they own & control.
To think that your long number URL is any less safe is equally as amusing as
thinking just because they give you a vanity URL, it's yours forever.

Google will do what they like with any Google-owned property.

------
ez77
Does anybody know if Google plans to allow claiming a deleted account... ever?
I'm hoping that since I was granted +MyName in G+ I will be allowed to recover
(long story) MyName@gmail.com... (It was MyName@googlemail.com and I wasn't
happy... and let it expire...)

------
torbit
There like domain names. No surprised at all. I'm surprised twitter hasn't
charged yet.

------
math0ne
I'm sure the exact same things apply to the current unfriendly url you are
using now.

------
sblawrie
Panayotis, you spelled the word "intellectual" wrong on your homepage.

~~~
vrypan
Fixed. Thanks.

------
INIT_6
Gplus.<mydomain>.com I fixed this problem a while ago.

~~~
gesman
Make it: me.<yourdomain>.com

(In case big G will decide to abandon G+) :)

------
kuahyeow
Got the +Custom Url in the end, despite the unchangeability. Does this matter
much, if one has their own domain name, anyway ? Btw, the long form url still
works

------
lemcoe9
I will soon make a post: "Why I don't care that you won't change your Google+
Custom URL."

------
joeblau
I got mine! The only place that I didn't get my name exactly the way I want it
is on Twitter.

------
benmarks
Wait, you read the T&C's?

------
ultimatedelman
i thought this article was going to be about how the "verify your phone
number" system doesn't actually send you a text message to verify your phone,
thus making it impossible to actually claim said custom URL....

------
ywyrd
That's why I never agree to anyone's terms and conditions online.

------
GalacticDomin8r
Why I won't read articles that begin with "Why I"

------
cuillevel3
The argument makes no sense. URLs are not meant to point to the same resource
forever. They are not 'permanent'.

And Google won't just start billing his credit card without consent...

------
yuletide666
Wait, people still use Google+?

~~~
noarchy
When did they start?

I follow some tech sources there, mostly related to Android (and therefore,
tied into Google's ecosystem anyway), but that's about it.

------
gcb1
im pretty sure those 3 points are true of any service, anywhere.

------
keeblus
Tl;dr I like to whine.

------
ye
I don't understand why they call it "custom". More like "assigned".

~~~
akkartik
You can technically apply to make it anything you want, and the set of allowed
names should technically be far larger than the set of disallowed ones. But
I'm waiting to see if they'll let me take +akkartik rather than +KartikAgaram,
so we'll see.

~~~
mmahemoff
They made it possible to request a different URL for maybe 12 hours after
launching custom URLs, but quickly stopped offering it. Probably got inundated
with requests. By the time I got my invite (about a day after they started
sending them), there was no such link.

Also, they weren't just allowing people to register any old nickname or brand
name. It was probably more about letting people make minor corrections.

