No Google Plus for Avatars
I was hoping to add a brand new social option for those who interact with the digital world through pseudonyms if/when my invite ever arrives, but it looks like Google Plus is one option that I can’t recommend for avatars or others for whom their online identity is a nick name. Despite recommending that the name you use on the system should be one “that you commonly go by in daily life”, Google fails to recognize that people from many walks of life do go primarily by a pseudonym online. In other words that pseudonym is how they are commonly identified in their daily life. Actors, bloggers, pro gamers, Indie Game developers, role-players, whistle blowers and people with creepy stalker exes are just a few of the myriad of use-cases for pseudonyms. Screen names and nicknames are the Nome de Plume of the online world, and publishers knew better than to force their best-selling writers to use their real name. Why can’t at least one social network figure this out?
There are many people that I interact with that I know primarily or solely by their screen name/ nickname. Sure some people will know to look for Sean Plott if they are trying to connect with Day 9, or to look for Markus Persson if they are trying to connect with Notch. I suspect that many will simply give up though. And what about the Opensource Obscures of the world? These are people who have identities, identities that they “go by in daily life” even. Google of all companies should get this. Their search algorithms certainly seem to:
- Notch vs. Markus Persson.
- Day 9 vs. Sean Plott.
- Opensource Obscure: 39,000 results
- Botgirl Questi: 20,500 results
- Nexus Burbclave: 1,220 results (yes, I feel like a speck of dust in this list)
More info on the issue including a rather embarrassing case of a Google spokesperson being caught in a lie…err clarification…in this article by Hamlet Au.
Edit 8:10 EDT: I have finally gotten in to Google Plus and had a chance to check out the product. From a technical implementation standpoint, I am quite impressed and see a lot of potential, so while I can’t fully recommend Google Plus within the context of this post, I do think it deserves the same strong asterisk that facebook gets. Potentially useful, but requiring some compromises that may not work for you.
Note: The original article used a less accurate search method to arrive at the larger numbers that I first published. Per the suggestion by Opensource Obscure in the comments, I have updated those numbers using more accurate methods. I believe they still tell a compelling story.
Update 7/13: I have decided to add Google Plus to my list of social networking options, but it receives the same asterisk treatment that FaceBook does. It is a shame that they do not understand that all identities are constructs regardless of their legal certification.
nice post Nexus…clearly, I share your feelings.
About those numbers – if you put names between quotes you will get more accurate results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Opensource+Obscure%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Botgirl+Questi%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Nexus+Burbclave%22
and these results are still relevant: they show that virtual identities, relationship networks created by using those identites, and reputations of people who use those identities can be consistent across multiple online services and communities.
Thank you Opensource. You bring up a good point about adding accuracy via the usage of quotes. The top results turn out roughly equivalent but the overall set of results is much better. I’ll update the Original Post with corrected numbers.