Talk:Google+

Unofficial Google Plus Wiki

Hi, I nominate the Unofficial Google Plus Wiki to be in the External links section: http://wikigpl.us/

This is a site which compiles the latest tips and know hows of google plus. Obviously the length and detail would not be suitable here, additionally it is for limited audience at the moment. However who are already in the system or just joined raise the same questions and the information is beneficial for both new users or for the ones who just very curious about the details. The site is neutral and has references to google insiders who originally posted majority of this information. There is no official wiki of google plus just yet.

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ..." "... amount of detail .." ".. or other reasons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feczo (talk • contribs) 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:Reliable sources and WP:ELNO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at it. Please look at the page, it is reliable and has references eg. <source: David Yonge-Mallo> https://plus.google.com/117851035855826465807/posts/4Engwqgr4nZ who actually works for google https://plus.google.com/117851035855826465807/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feczo (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

additionally From: Trey Harris (https://plus.google.com/u/0/116222833568410151476/about) "+Szabolcs Feczak Thanks—I've looked at this and it seems quite nice! As a regular Google engineer, I hope you understand I can't endorse any outside work, but I'll try to link to it in a post soon. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feczo (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My Stream Screenshot

I've just added a screenshot of my Stream, so that people who don't have access to Google+ can see what it looks like. I don't expect the image to survive once this article is expanded and Google+ is opened up to all, but for now I think it's useful. Jaruzel (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

One screenshot for a website is typically acceptable. (Just realized that there's already one in the infobox.) I think your screenshot is fine and helps illustrate the site. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"invite was ended" is not entirely true

There's a workaround and people still invite. --84.130.182.171 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for this workaround? Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And is the workaround sanctioned by Google? If not, then the phrase "invite was ended" is accurate. Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 17:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And this "workaround" worked for less than a day before Google fixed it (if ever ... I tried it and it didn't work for me, but I don't exclude the possibility that it worked at some point). --B (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, someone sent me a Google+ invite today (July 5), and it worked. Pianotech ^{Talk to me!}/_Contribs 00:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I also was sent an invite yesterday and got in today. --Nextil - (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Invites are Google sanctioned, (though the amount of invites may be limited). I received an invite, got in, and sent invites today. There is a section on the home screen where you can send invites. At one point there was a section at the bottom that said something like "Send 9 invites" and had a list of suggestions, but that section has since disappeared, so I am uncertain as to the number of invites that are allowed at this time. --Katiewoz (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Closed beta and pictures, NDA in effect?

We should probably be a little bit careful with posting pictures from Google +, it's a closed beta after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommie (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Negative, there is no NDA. It was an open beta before it was closed. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Statememt about Andy Herzfeld is wrong

He designed the circles interface but did not have anything to do with the Google-wide redesign. This according to a post he made on Google+ to clear up misconceptions in the press ... not sure how to find a suitable reference for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.233.250 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the direct link: https://plus.google.com/117840649766034848455/posts/FddaP6jeCqp LGFN (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of certain links

On facebook, it won't let you post links to torrents or porn on your wall. Does Google plus restrict linking to certain sites, and if so, what types? --LeedsKing (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Distorted logo

The logo in the infobox shows distorted. I've changed the pixel count to half of the original image to keep the original proportions, but it has been reverted and shows distorted again. Why is this technical problem happening? Diego (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what's up with the distorted logo? Am I the only one who sees it badly now? Diego (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What in the image are you seeing distorted? It appears fine to me - the proportions are correct and there's no abnormal pixelation that I can see. Which browser and version are you using? I can try with that to see if I can replicate a problem. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It shows vertically compressed in Firefox 4, Chromium (one year ago) and the native Android browser (I think that's WebKit based, too), so at least two different engines. The original size and my half-size reduced version show fine in both. Diego (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Same problem here. --Stryn (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd, I'm not seeing that here (using Firefox 5, IE9, and Android browser) - but clearly at least one other person is seeing the same issue. Just ruling out the basic stuff, have you cleared your local cache to make sure it's not a saved version of the image on your local machine? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not cache-related. I've logged out of my account to also make sure that it's not related to the skin I'm using. This is the HTML generated by MediaWiki for that image:

<td colspan="2" class="" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="/enwiki/wiki/File:Google%2B_logo.png" class="image">
<img alt="Google+ logo.png" 
src="http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Google%2B_logo.png/180px-Google%2B_logo.png" 
width="180" height="55"></a><br>
<span style="">Google+ logo</span></td>

If you can see this version correctly, I propose using it as it's guaranteed to keep the right proportions. Diego (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you brought this issue up at the village pump? I'm suspecting that it may be related to Template:Bugzilla, but it may be beneficial for some of the developers and/or users involved with supporting the technical areas to take a look to confirm. If it is related to that bug, then reloading the newest version of the image with a new name may resolve the issue (we could ask the person who uploaded it originally to try this). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that this logo which appears to me is not a transparent version, although the latest version of the logo is transparent[1]. I have the same problem in some other wikis too (eg. fi-wiki, es-wiki). And it's not related to browser. --Stryn (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gender issues

The title in the Gender issues section has been changed to Privacy issues. But it does not describe general privacy issues (only gender-related ones) and it does contain a reference that is only about gender disproportion, with no privacy issues at all. I think the original section name should be kept, and I don't understand why user Barek undid my revert if there was no consensus for either name. Diego (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the sources. The original one is clearly describing privacy issues. The new one you had added argued against the three categories "Male" "Female" "other", while Facebook had only "Male" and "Female". So, in theory, there's criticism of the "other" category, but not of being narrow buckets as is being claimed by your addition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've read the reference, in fact I posted it in the article before user Everyone Dies In the End changed the title. The source describes how "other" is an offensive term to describe minorities, and that Google should have no business in forcing users to self-identify into a weird category they didn't create. How is my sentence not an accurate description?Diego (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I was rewording my reply when you posted to this, which is better worded for clarity:

Read the sources. One is clearly describing privacy issues. The other had argued two points; a) against the three categories "Male" "Female" "other", while Facebook had only "Male" and "Female". So, in theory, there's criticism of the "other" category, but not of being narrow buckets as is being claimed by your addition ... and b) that instead of "I am", alternate descriptors such as "I feel", "I was", etc would be more interesting - but that's not a criticism of what's available, but an idea to expand new descriptor fields. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the sarcasm in "most people I know who do not fit into social norms prefer “Other” as an identifying term". You don't think that whole paragraph includes criticism? Diego (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

After re-reading the source I realized something: the criticism is also not directed at Google+, as is implied by your wording ... it's a criticism of all social media sites. Even if the phrase is added back, which I argue is not appropriate, it should be clarified that the source of that claimed criticism is only using Google+ as the launch point of the discussion as being the newest player in the field, but concludes with a mention that the change for additional descriptor fields should be to Facebook, Google+ and all social media sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll rewrite the sentence along those lines. Next time, I beg you to read the sources before reverting content and placing commentary on them.

I still don't think the section title "Privacy issues" is valid for the content. Sentences like "Why are Facebook and Google getting involved in gender? Why are they asking people to identify their own gender for the purpose of social networking?" and "Do Facebook and Google think this is an important, primary way we should be identifying ourselves?" are definitely not about privacy. I'll change the title to something. If in the interim you have further new ideas about what the title should be, please edit them or discuss them here but don't repeat the change to "privacy" without consensus. Diego (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, what? Commentary? I did not add commentary - and I did read the sources before and again after making my reverts. The first two questions listed above are clearly privacy related, claims that they are "definitely not about privacy" is nonsense. The third question listed is gender related, I will grant you that one - but that one is the criticism that is not being Google+ specific. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That aside, I do agree with the revised wording that more neutrally presents the criticism and targets it at the appropriate places. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So, can you live with the current title? Diego (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I miss the stuff after the paragraph about the privacy issues. IE the issue about the majority of the beta being males and I don't think that should be lumped together with being forced to show your gender and called gender issues. As gender issues usually refers to sexism and not privacy issues. Anyway I didn't see the other part and would have separated the two into one being under Privacy issues and the other being gender issues.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gender gap article

I have removed the bit about the gender gap. I actually read the article and it is based on one guy's survey of his friends. And even for what it purports to be - unscientific anecdotal evidence - it's very bad at math. "Shout out to Internet researcher danah boyd, with a roughly 75:25 male/female ratio – you were the only one above 10% (I had six women out of 50 people, about the average on my check ...)". Umm, the last time I checked, 6/50 is > 10% and if 6/50 is about the average, then there was probably more than one over 10%. So he then takes his new math and guesses at the reason for the gender gap. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure there is a gender gap, but this is not anything resembling a meaningful source (much less a reliable source) for it. --B (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Official / Alternate Names?

Should we mention that the name of the service is "Google Plus", and is sometimes stylized as "Google+"? I feel that we should somehow mention that this service is referred to equally as "Google+" and "Google Plus" in the first sentence. Sp!ke (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's sometimes even shortened to G+, + or Plus. --84.130.255.117 (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)