Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Lively Review

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the deja-what-now dept.

joc1985 writes "An objective review of Google Lively after a few hours of playing around. It seems to be a bad copy of Second Life. Somehow all the rooms are crowded, and porn has made its way in there already"

12 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. An opinionated an biased review by MLopat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is hardly an objective review. Then again the Slashdot submitter is also the author of the blog...

    When you read comments like "if it wasn't for the logo at the top left you wouldn't even know it was owned and operated by Google. The page is blend with no much color or style" it really makes you wonder. Does it matter that Google didn't brand it everywhere they could like other companies? In classical Google fashion, they took a simplified approach, which itself is a form of Google branding (just look at google.com)

    Then the reviewer goes on "It is 100% centered around the mouse, this for me is a horrible defect that must be solved immediately. I happen to know every keyboard shortcut known to man kind (sic) and I absolutely hate the mouse. I am sure there are many people like me out there. " Well good for you buddy. And great research you've done there in assuming that everyone else is just like you.

    Finally he concludes with saying he found "several Sex oriented rooms". A quick glance through the room index shows maybe a dozen of the 1000+ rooms that are listed there have a sexual theme. Seems like a pretty good ratio considering the amount of porn to be found on the internet and people's computers in relationship to the rest of the content on the web.

    But then again, remember this blog is from "The Random thoughts of a Christian IT Professional."

    1. Re:An opinionated an biased review by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He has a point on porn: the terms of service forbid it, much to my dismay, I must say. But then, it is open for anyone older than 13 so I see no way Google could get around that.

      --
      Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
    2. Re:An opinionated an biased review by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Besides the fact that guy obviously isn't a native English speaker, "several" and "maybe a dozen" seem pretty in line to me. His point seems to be that Google isn't being as tight with it as they are with YouTube, which is certainly true (although I'd suspect that's a result of pre-takeover YouTube policies being carried on by Google). It's not a matter of any concern to me, but its his opinion. And it's not like adding keyboard shortcuts would eliminate mouse usage, as you seem to think.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    3. Re:An opinionated an biased review by Phurge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      too funny. Google censoring porn? Google is the gateway to internet porno.

      --
      I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
    4. Re:An opinionated an biased review by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd suspect that's a result of pre-takeover YouTube policies being carried on by Google

      If that were true, what's the reason for the Google Video policies, then?

      I suspect the reason for filtering adult material has more to do with good business sense than anything else. If you allow adult materials, then your site is likely to become a haven for such materials rather than achieving its original goal. Sort of like how the various free internet backup and file sharing solutions became havens for warez rather than achieving a solid business goal.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  2. "Porn has made its way in there already" by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You write that as if it's a bad thing.

    1. Re:"Porn has made its way in there already" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you enjoy watching married couple porn without coveting the guy's wife?

  3. Youtube what? by ArIck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not as tight as Youtube policy? The only region where they may be 'tight' is in removing copyrighted material.... nothing else..... Just look at the recently uploaded, most viewed by day, week or maybe even month.... more than half of them involve some almost naked girl in the preview and sex based themes (although they may not contain actual sex scenes) but that still is not tight implementation....

    1. Re:Youtube what? by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe I'm missing something, but that sounds like an extremely tight implementation. It sounds to me like "draw the line distinctly and allow everything up to that line". You said it yourself: " almost naked girl" with no actual sex scenes. It looks like they're allowing everything up to, but not over, the line.

  4. Re:Porn vs theology by darkrowan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly.... Christian and Unbiased can't really be said in the same sentence and with a straight face.

    --
    AccountKiller
  5. Re:Porn vs theology by __aarcfd8085 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure slashdoter and unbiased can't be said in the same sentence with a stright face either. In fact you have to work pretty hard to find anyone who is unbiased.

    ....apart from me I'm very un biased....

  6. It's much simpler than that actually. by mweather · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Porn gets blocked by web filters. Google's business goals for Google Video and YouTube are to generate ad revenue. What content generates that revenue is irrelevant.