Bonus complaint: Lately I have been feeling that google just doesn't care or they have too much going on to pay attention to detail. I have been really disappointed with their social products as well as services since google checkout. I downloaded the google now app a while ago and was shocked at how it killed my battery and never used it again, yesterday I decided to test it out, a few hours later I wanted to use instagram but my power was at 3%, I smiled and just disabled the app. This disregard for winning at both the first & second moment of truth is what is killing google's ability to diversify their revenue from just search.
This. So much this.
I have not yet received any email asking me to upload a photo of myself, but the constant pestering while watching Youtube, and with shady, ambiguous options happens everyday now.
The sad thing is nothing beats YT for video right now.
I'm about done with Google, just starting to move my stuff off it now.
It ends up working pretty well, though I guess it is more hassle than it needs to be.
If you opt-out of every e-mail type, they just add more e-mail types and automatically opt you in - check the settings again.
I find this behaviour somehow more dishonest than the others.
Just untick everything. Super simple (unlike, say, Facebook).
If Facebook is smart enough to know that my second account is from the same person as my first account, how are they not smart enough to know I'm not going to friend my friends twice?
Especially in the chance it starts publishing anything about my youtube usage.
In part I assume at some point google wants to start putting this on my google profile automatically. Olive watched "Kitty Corliss, grinding the crack" for the 87th time today. See what has them so hooked[linku]
Not to talk about the amazingly stupid animations on Google+ that makes it impossible to scroll fast on an iPhone 4. I was making an effort to use Google+ more ... and then Google gives me that shit.
Look Googlers, I know that you suffered under the reign of the Cupcake Princess and were unable to release anything cool because dealing with her was more painful than watching an entire episode of Sex and the City. I know that. But that doesn't mean you have to go out of your fucking way to add frivolous, pointless, wankery to your UIs.
If you want to do something productive: fix the Gmail UI.
Anyway, I found this: "Mayer, a long-time Google executive dubbed the “cupcake princess” after she constructed detailed spreadsheets weighing up the benefits of various cupcake recipes". Now, compiling cupcake spreadsheets, is, uhhh, frivolous maybe? But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that male executives at software companies do the same for beer; or bikes; or Star Wars. I don't think they get such nicknames.
Anyway, there's an unpleasant bro scent to your comment. If we care about our freedom and independent agency, the Google corporation must be broken up, and sooner rather than later. But even the largest heap of banal evil in the known universe can be dealt with without unnecessary bigotry.
I'd say "guess the gender", but given the company, you probably already know the answer.
(That being said: I think she is good CEO material. In fact, when she took over Yahoo! I bought stock in the company).
If you really can't imagine that it wasn't a sexist remark then I'm sorry for you: it must be hard to be so easily offended.
And please don't bring the concept of "offense" into this. No one is offended. I'm disappointed that you're hurting other people, and I'd like you to stop. But I'm not "offended". Taking offense to things is a waste of time.
You're right. It must be that time of the month...
Please, go back to reddit.
Things have really been getting out of hand here, lately it seems almost anything that even has the faintest trace of 'usually being associated with female gender' is interpreted as being sexist. Some people have been taking the good Samaritan attitude a little too far I think, are we supposed to restrict everything we say to gender-neutral language or what?
If you call Donald Rumsfeld, "Rumsfeld", but Condoleezza Rice, "Condoleezza", or President Obama, "Obama", but Hillary Clinton "Hillary", then there's something going on. Sexism is so entrenched that we often don't even feel that we're being sexist; that doesn't mean that we're not (just like Google, that set out with the best of intentions and even explicitly adopted a motto of 'don't be evil' -- which is fascinating, and brilliant, on so many levels, BTW -- and yet unintentionally became the most privacy invading, soul-killing consumerist company in the history of mankind). So, the easiest litmus test in this case is to ask yourself, "would I have said the same thing (as often) about a man?" If the answer is no, then there's at least some soul-searching to do.
Aren't Michele Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi referenced by their last name as much as Donald Rumsfeld is?
I am just using anecdotes and select data after all so I don't think I'm definitely right or you're definitely wrong.
Really the whole comment you replied to is just bellicose noise, and it's unfortunate that HN would be a place where that would sit as a top comment. Though I suppose in some way it's a selectivity bias because everyone with a grudge about Google+ (predominately people who don't use it, as an aside, but who seem to feel really passionate about not using it, though I suppose the same happens among many non-Facebookers) is highly likely to look at this submission.
I love how you tell me why I called her Cupcake Princess.
Veering dangerously close to sexist behavior there—make an extra effort to think about what you're saying when you talk about women in our field. Regardless of what you think of her, it's demeaning to reduce her from a CEO on par with any male in the industry to a "Cupcake Princess"—LOL, they aren't qualified to lead!
Seriously, though, don't be a douchebag, there are more than enough in our industry without this shit leaking onto HN.
On the other hand, I do believe in her as a CEO. I think she is precisely the kind of CEO material Yahoo! needs. I don't think she is VP material. The day Marissa Mayer took over as CEO I sold my Amazon stock and bought Yahoo! stock. And I don't even like her.
Now, you, on the other hand, reduce Marissa Mayer to a gender. Someone weak that needs to be protected and treated with care in comment fields.
Precisely who is the sexist here?
No, you can speak all the ill of Marissa Mayer you want. Effectively saying, "She's a woman," as a way to speak ill of her is bogus, though.
>Now, you, on the other hand, reduce Marissa Mayer to a gender. Someone weak that needs to be protected and treated with care in comment fields.
Nobody is being "protected," least of all Marissa Mayer. Women who aren't in the industry because of pervasive sexism obviously can't speak for themselves to combat that sexism, so other people have to do it.
To be quite honest, I really do not give a damn about your mental hangups and I am truly sorry if I have ever given the impression that I do. But it does bother me when people have the cheek to tell me what I meant when I said something. I know what I meant and when I say that it wasn't meant in a sexist way, then only an idiot would persist in trying to tell me what I meant.
Because ultimately I care more about sexism than a social network UI, and people in this field care shockingly little about it compared to most fields.
Presumably Marissa has better things to do—being the CEO of Yahoo and all—than wandering around the internet defending her reputation. I'm confident she needs no protection, I'm trying to protect HN from becoming as misogynistic as the rest of the industry is.
They just tried recently.
I'd like to stop using GMail, but there aren't worthy competitors (free, large, mostly reliable). My ISP (which is a major one) sucks at mail compared to Google.
But mind you: the rims on the thing have a carefully selected hue of blue that was found among 39 others to be the one hue that gave the best ct rate on ads, so it isn't like the process was random or anything.
I have a very simple test for product usability: it must not confuse the hell out of my parents. Gmail makes my parents shot profanities at the computer. Test failed.
(Okay, there I probably managed to offend at least one ethnic group, one religion and I said something that is almost certainly ageist. Feel free to be offended while I shall busy myself not giving a fuck)
I waited 2 hours for an email yesterday only to find it hidden in a new "Promotions" tab instead of my inbox, which meant it didn't get pushed to my phone for some reason.
Google -- I can organize my own email, thank you very much.
Gmail is slowly making me give up email altogether.
I am not saying that email perfect and doesn't need innovation, but there should be greater sensitivity towards complexity and friction on Google's part. It is bad enough already that various functions are spread semi-randomly around in different buttons, drop-downs and links so you have to click around to get things done. There's really no need to try to get too clever about things.
I'd like more predictable behavior ("where did that email I looked at just 5 minutes ago end up?") and I would really like a better filtering system. They should have a look at the scoring system in Gnus and then think long and hard about how you build a sensible UI atop that kind of expressive power.
The better solution is for developers to not release updates that forcibly change your already-configured settings.
I wrote this a few days ago...it spent some time on the front page here at HN: http://www.maxmasnick.com/2013/07/19/fastmail/
FastMail isn't free, which is a plus in my book (clear business model not involving ads). It is comparable or better than Gmail in all the other ways that matter to me. See my post for more details.
There's plenty of engineers at Google who feel incredibly frustrated every time one of these decisions is made and remember the good ol' times when Google used to put the user first.
She had been holding things back -- for good and bad. It was very hard to get new things done while she was the gatekeeper for UX. There were a lot of things that didn't work too well when it came to the process of developing the user experience. A big part of which, as far as I could tell, was Mayer's inability to conduct UI reviews in a meaningful manner. I was present at a few of them. It was like attending a meeting being presided over by the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland. Sadly you wouldn't find many people willing to speak up about it, because that could potentially be Very Bad For Your Career within Google. So people would just tolerate her childish, spoilt behavior.
The good thing was that very little frivolous nonsense was shipped. The bad thing was very few positive changes were made as well.
So when Mayer was "reallocated" (and eventually resigned) there was all this pent up frustration and pressure to get work done on UX. And I think the pendulum swung a bit too far in the other direction because of it.
In the beginning most of the changes that came out were incredibly positive. For instance I think the overall look of Gmail and the move to a flatter overall design was a good thing.
But eventually things started to go a bit pear-shaped. For instance I have no idea what made the Google+ people think that the mad scrolling animations was a good idea. I can't imagine how it enhances the experience, and if you are on a smart phone, it is a really slow way of flicking through your feed. Slow is not a Google value. Google products should never be slow.
In Google+ I wish they would have focused on usability rather than embellishments. For instance: why the hell is it so awkward to start a hangout on Google+? Why is the UI for this so fucked that it takes people a dozen uses to learn how to do it without mousing around for ages? Seriously, if I were the PM for that product I'd nail down fixing that problem as the top OKR for the next two quarters and focus on getting just that done. Hangouts is the single most useful feature Google+ offers, and the key thing that differentiates it from Facebook; yet the user experience for getting a hangout going between a group of people is fiddly.
(som of us where enthusiastic google fanboys earlier.)
- Remind me in a week
How about: don't bug me ever?
I don't even use YouTube for uploading or commenting, but I also don't want my real name and a photo of me on that site in any form. There's always the small chance they'll do something stupid like roll an update that makes my "previously viewed videos" available to my "social connections" by default without notifying me.
The latest one was in fact blatantly wrong because the two answer choices began with "Yes, do ..." and "No, do ...", which didn't make sense because the question was posed in the opposite way.
It really used to be so nice until Google got their grubby hands on it. Nowadays I can barely get through a single video without massive stalling issues, or 30 second ads for a 10 second video. It's ridiculous.
[download, download, download!]
Actually laughed at that one.
Edit: This is on Chrome, so if it doesn't work like that on other browsers it's most likely a bug.
How 'bout you just set a profile photo? It doesn't need to be your face, doesn't even need to be photo. Actually, a distinct avatar would probably work better than a photo.
But put something there. It's tiresome to try to follow a conversation without an easy way to distinguish participants.
So fire up GIMP, put your initials over your favourite shade of pink and upload it to Twitter/Google+/GitHub/Gravatar/whatever. Or pick a picture from Flickr with a permissive license.
Don't punish others with a generic icon.
Completely unnecessary ad hominem here.
(Really. Use HNSærch to take a look)
It's a good indication that you are serving their purpose and not the other way round, though.
So that's the price I pay for allowing FB login on some of our pages.
Update: It looks like Facebook switched from a long list of checkboxes to an all-or-nothing system.
Facebook doesn't stop sending notifications, and Gmail is blind to the dot ... :-) It's like two beautiful girls talking to each other and not listening to any body who is around trying to interrupt their loud gossip.
YouTube must have thought that, since it was a short (~20sec) video with a person's face depicted prominently, the person had to be me and updated my profile image with a snapshot of this video that actually looked like an intentional profile image. Maybe it was just random, maybe they actually tried to select a fitting image.
I have Thunderbird running on another computer and Claws tried to download my mail while on airport.
So thanks Google, I guess I will have to stop using those accounts, because I don't like sharing my phone number ;(
Have we actually asked ourselves what value are we giving to these companies in return to using their service?
Why wouldn't you upload your company's logo as the profile picture?
They're probably too strong in search to be dislodged right now, and will probably remain so in the short-to-medium term, but some of their non-core services are ripe for disruption by startups.
which is exactly the problem