A link didn't get broken, a photo didn't fail to load...instead an account was suspended intentionally. That has nothing to do with being a beta, and has everything to do with Google being a company that spits on its users.
A company that actually cared about their users would just fix the error and edit the name or simply send a warning...instead Google goes for the kill shot each and every time.
Crap like this is exactly why people should be wary of putting in the effort to switch over to Google plus...for all you know you might end up losing everything a few months later
> There should be nothing malleable about that
When I said malleable, I was saying that any standards/procedures currently in place could be changed to accommodate unforeseen consequences/fallout/whatever. In this example, a policy of "ban accounts with names that don't match m/^[a-zA-Z ]+*/" could be loosened when they ban someone that has a legitimate gripe, and realize the mistaken logic behind that policy.
You shouldn't be spending so much time railing on them for the banning of an account so much as how they respond to it. Do they apologize and change policy? Do they backpedal, blame the account-holder, and leave the policy in place?
As far as judging the response...you can't do that, since the issue was made public....if the issue went through the proper channels, there'd be a very high chance of her being told that there is nothing Google can do.
There is such a thing called common sense, and in this case, it was severely lacking. What other kind of mines are hidden in the terms of service that will get your account banned over nothing? What other rules will be added later and applied to all accounts retroactively.
Will you find yourself 4 years from now getting permanently suspended from Google plus, because in your message history, you used the word "Bing" in a message to your friend today?
Any other company, you have a good chance of getting a retarded decision revoked. With Google, you have a better chance of playing a 24 hour marathon of Russian roulette, than getting an issue resolved through the support system.
I posted elsewhere here, but judging from an older copy of the profile in Bing, the profile used to be for "Adafruit Industries." I'm guessing the profile was flagged when it wasn't as close to a person's name.
1) user sets up account, "Adafruit Industries"
2) user's account is flagged by someone, unknown to user
3) user is reading online, learns more about the Terms of Service, and finds out Google is serious that they /must/ use their real name
4) user /changes/ the name of their account to fit the Terms of Service
5) at some undetermined time later than #4, Google decides to act on the now obsolete flagged data, to punish the user for a minor transgression that they already unilaterally corrected
Does this really seem like a good way to be treating users? I've now read enough about Google+ issues that I'm on the verge of closing my Google+ account, and I already have a ton of followers and never had anything but my real name in the blank (despite the fact that EVERYONE online knows me as "saurik", and VERY FEW people know me as "Jay Freeman", so arguably "Jay Freeman" is a fake name and "saurik" is real)... I just can't risk my Google account getting closed for some frivolous reason: it is just that important to me.
Also, by the way, this entire notion of putting your real name on a service whose very premise is about privacy seems ludicrous... I know a ton of friends, both famous (hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter) and closeted (barely use a computer), who simply don't like telling random people online their real name, much less connecting it to a picture of themselves. Why isn't this circled or something?
"Humorously" enough, I just went now to find MuscleNerd's profile on Twitter and Google+ to show an example of someone who people /love/ on Google+, /only/ know as MuscleNerd, and obviously are quite famous, and you know what? It turns out his profile was deleted today... I don't even think he's noticed yet, and I don't think his insanely large following is going to be very happy about it.
For the record, I do want Google+ to support pseudonyms. I think Bradley's post showed that we want to get there too. But it's going to take some time, and in the mean time, my impression is that the Google+ folks are trying to keep fake/spammy/business profiles from getting out of control.
Added: Looks like it's back now. The field test is definitely helpful for finding corner cases that we can improve before rolling out more broadly.
One small thing: If you do the query [site:plus.google.com ladyada] on Bing, it looks like Bing has an older version of the profile. The title for that search result is "Adafruit Industries - Google+" So my quick guess is that the name of "Adafruit Industries" might have been the issue. Either way, I'm glad that it's solved now.
I don't mean any snark with that question, for what it's worth, but I fear that you don't scale well. :)
For example, it looks like Amanda Walker from Google stopped by Ladyada's blog and left a comment just before me with even better advice than I gave: http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2011/07/23/google-suspended-lim... . Amanda pointed to the official way to appeal, and I believe that appeal would have gone through quickly. So I think the right thing would have happened in not that much more time.
And that's pretty weak "support", telling someone to go fill out a customer support form. Especially since it's Google we are talking about here, where the support is pretty much worthless.
Seriously, I hope you guys have some A/I handling support that's just isn't working properly yet...because if the support is handled by actual human beings, you must have an active policy of hiring the lowest common denominator.
this is the same exact reason why my adwords account was permanently suspended over a campaign that was disabled for more than 6 months(which was approved at the time I ran it), just because Google decided to change their rules midway through and apply them retroactively to all campaigns past and present.
I don't believe that's correct in this case. I believe that earlier today the profile didn't look like it had a real name.
I think Matt will be able to handle that :)
Google's help pages, which I'd started reading through, make it sound as if the Google+ profile exists separate from this other access. But I've now seen enough such "WTF I'm blocked -- from everything!" stories to make me very hesitant.
I've thought of making a new account to use with Plus, but there is also some buzz going around that makes it appear Google has coincidentally become more aggressive about pursuing and blocking "duplicate accounts". Again, anecdotes, but worrying.
1) Not just Google+ profile dependent activity, but Gmail, Calendar, Docs, etc.
There are also some anecdotal stories of people now having trouble due to having multiple Google accounts.
I won't accept my invitation until 1) I know it can't bork my access to Gmail, Calendar, Docs; or 2) I can use it under a different Google account without worrying about being whacked (I don't have a detailed knowledge of these supposed events) for having "duplicate accounts".
I agree with other comments, here; unless you're one of the "beautiful geeks", historically Google support is, well, not so much.
Would be nice to get a warning email, rather than waking up dead.
Guys, it's a beta right now. This is why. Part of signing up for G+ at this time is volunteering to be a bug tester.
She found a bug that where it allowed here to put quotes in her name, even though she's not supposed to.
When people get special treatment because they are prominent, have a reputation, or have a posse, that's a problem. Often the problem is that the special treatment should not be special, but should be the usual case.
I have at least four friends on G+ with this problem... which makes me suspect that the name/identity/pseudo problem is not merely a few special cases, but is in fact widespread.
I 100% will not support another platform which does this. Its to important to the arts not to have pseudonyms.
This is absurd.
Because it's still in beta.
>This is absurd.
No it isn't.
If it's marketing this, quotes in your name stuff, is not funny.
If it's a true inability to iterate and scale without a public beta, well they are not a start-up, it is kind of absurd.
Of course there are going to be little hickups like this. The problem is already fixed. How is that absurd?
I think the profile previously said "Adafruit Industries." You can still see that name in Bing.