Slashdot Mirror
Google+ Runs Out of Disk Space, Swamps Users With Notifications
dkd903 writes "Yesterday, many users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox with multiple email notifications in very quick succession. Earlier today, Vic Gundotra, Head of Social at Google, explained what was causing it – Google ran out of disk space on the server that keeps track of notifications."
Well its still an 'in work' product. So they made a mistake, good thing they didn't tout it as finished yet. Don't know about the rest of the allegations because I don't have an account.
It hasn't 'come out of beta', according to the page its : "in limited Field Trial" which I suppose means 'semi-open beta'.
Never run out of disk no more !! And I am not a gillion dollar company in case you thought so !!
Wow... So much hatred towards google+, despite it starting to shape up as a great product! Have you even used it, or are you just a facebook "relationship manager"? If you'd use it, you'd see it is very polished, circles are thousand times better than anything fb has, hangouts are cool... And above all, google seems to care about its users, unlike fb. Anyway, for a beta, it is surely very stable and fast. I didn't see any of those "constant problems" you speak of (did anyone see them, or only zuck?), and stating it has "even bigger privacy problems" than fb - can you say that with a straight face?
Google did the same mistake here they've done several times earlier.. They published an unfinished product...
No, they're field testing an unfinished product. It's the reason why it's hard to get an invite.
...on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service.
They don't seem to be having much difficulty getting users to move to their service. In fact, most of their difficulties lies in slowing down the demand because they can't handle it at this stage of testing, as shown by this particular problem. It's expanding way faster than they want it to, with more than a million users already signed up (according to TFA). I've sent invites to a bunch of people, and none of them have actually gotten the invitation mail yet, because google is throttling the number of invites they send.
This included with the constant problems on Google+
Field testing. Finding bugs is the purpose of this.
not really offering anything new and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook really isn't doing good.
What are these even bigger privacy problems? Google+ is centered around increased privacy controls, which is also what they're offering that's new.
Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.
Pff...considering that a few days after they began public testing, Google+ was among the top 10 referrers to web sites, it's more likely that Facebook will die a quick death as soon as field testing is over. About as quick as myspace died once facebook opened up to non-university students.
I don't use FB (never have, never will) and just don't *approve* of google getting any more cosy with user info than they already are.
just that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
*sigh* Monopolies aren't illegal. Please try to remember that.
Abusing your monopoly position, that is illegal. Google doesn't abuse their monopoly.
The reason for this distinction is that you can get yourself into (and remain in) a monopoly position without harming the public. But the majority of companies can't resist abusing that power if they obtain it, and need a smack-down or break-up. (usually because it's a slow process and they just creep into a behavior of abuse as they creep into the monopoly) Technically speaking, when you have a monopoly, you become a lot more efficient - advertising costs go down, you avoid "race to the bottom" games, the best employees in a field are concentrated and working together. In the end, customers can benefit from a company having a monopoly, it just requires the company's directors to take a strong high-road stance in the face of the temptation of greed you get operating in a democracy. ("do whatever it takes, be it illegal or immoral, to maximize profit")
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Why are you always in a rush to post wrong information about Google+? http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/07/0252228/Google-Deleting-Private-Profiles Is Facebook playing with Slashdot commenting system?
What are you talking about? http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/facebook-instant-personalization-how-to-disable-it-and-why/8006
Facebook tracking is on something like 1 in 3 websites
I finally got an invite yesterday from a friend. It still needs a bit of tweaking but hands down the best social website since Facebook was nice and clean back in the day. The fact that it's rising this fast should make some people over at Facebook a bit worried. I'm going to finally start transitioning.
Back in the day Facebook was only .edu and thus didn't have the lowest common denominator on it. We used to make fun of people on MySpace for "ThEiR HoRiBLZ Grammer" and such. But if you start reading LameBook or Failbook this group of people is now over on Facebook. And as long as Google+ remains invite only, I can't see them ever getting over to Google+.
CSB:
Facebook royally screwed me when they did the automated bans of numerous apps. My app. User 1 (me).. Was caught up in it.
When my grandma died I was tasked with scanning in family photos. I needed a faster way to upload them so I wrote my app. I had thousands, if not tens of thousands of photos uploaded, sorted, tagged. Most of my large family isn't the most technological, and facebook was much easier than Gallery. Plus they could tag each other, comment on the photos "Oh this is when Dad took us to that beach and set the house on fire" etc. When the auto ban bot came through it was all gone. My appeal reply was boiler plated. "Sorry our bot says you're doing spamming." Unlike some people, I do still have all the photos. (It looks like there were numerous photo uploading apps that got caught up in the ban.)
Thankfully with my app it only took about 24 hours of my bandwidth to reupload them, but all of the additional value added metadata that was lost. (I am not retagging them). Any photo less than 2048x2048 doesn't count towards your 1GB Picasa (Google+ Photos?) quota. I've already started looking at the PHP Google API. I'm hoping to have all my photos up there soon. Anyone that wants to see any new photos I take, will follow me to Google+.
-
But not everyone was allowed access. It was a limited release. When a MMO is in beta do you think the game developer should be "held responsible for what goes wrong".
Quite a long time, but this isn't a beta like the late, fully-public beta of Google Mail, its like the very early, invite-only, restricted beta of Gmail.
Uh, they aren't using to "cover their asses", they are admitting it was a mistake, apologizing for it, and explaining how it happened.
Google did the same mistake here they've done several times earlier.. They published an unfinished product on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service. This included with the constant problems on Google+, not really offering anything new and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook really isn't doing good. It was hot for a few days when coming out of beta.. Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.
Actually, if they ran out of disk space, it's more like they had a bigger response than what they anticipated, so it's probably going quite well.
As for the "same mistake they've done several times earlier", are you referring to the undoubtedly failure of products such as GMail or GTalk? Or of Google Search, maybe? They seem to have been adopted pretty widely to me...
And as both a Facebook and Google+ user, I can't really say how you manage to state that privacy is worse on Google+ than in Facebook, where they introduce new options violating your privacy all the times and without alerting you (almost all weeks I found new checkboxes to uncheck in my privacy settings, not to speak of the scam/spam apps and the poor security record FB has). Maybe you can elaborate your line of reasoning? Else, it's just trolling.
Frankly, I am closing down my Facebook account, and I'm giving a Google+ a shot. In the past three days, friends in my circles on Google+ went up from being just 6 to about 40-50. I expect this number to increase. Deep integration with other Google products, such as GMail, will most likely ensure a big number of participants.
If Google+ fails, I won't at least go back to FB. There is a lot of social pressure to do so, but quite frankly it sucks. You use it because most of your friends do, not because it works well. The only thing I will miss is the capability of creating events among friends, but there are other ways.
42.
... all I can said is that FB has nothing to worry about. The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.
If you would call an interface that's not cluttered with Mafia Wars and Farmville updates "boring", then I suppose it's boring. But I prefer it over FB's.
Circles are drag-and-drop. I'm not sure how they could have made it easier. By comparison, FB has you check boxes next to names when you edit Groups.
If you create a new post and share it with only one person, that's functionally the same as a Wall post. Granular control over who sees what you post is G+'s biggest selling point.
Agreed on Photos. The integration to Picasa feels clunky to me.
Honestly, most of your criticisms seem to come from the perspective someone who hasn't spent more than 10 or 15 minutes with G+. Of course it doesn't work exactly the same way as FB. What would be the point?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
"Yesterday, many users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox..."
Yesterday some users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox.
There, fixed that for you.
I, e.g., did not get spammed, (And yes, I have a g+ account.)
Don't forget that it's a free product that you can choose to use. I realize that may be hard for you to remember ever since you ascended to your throne.
Oh, would you mind gracing us with a link to your myriad of bug-free products?
I guess it is only inevitable. Some people (most?) despise MS, some people (me) despise apple. IMHO Google has always been forthcoming with genuine and (for the most part timely reasons why they have or have had a problem. I have always had good luck and good experiences with Google, even when we went to Google Apps at the plant. I have found Google+ to be a better experience (so far) than FB. Of course they will need to load it up with a bunch of useless games to attract the masses over from FB. I suppose this post now qualifies me as a "Google Fan Boy" and fair game for the flamers, so have at it if that is what makes you happy. Google is Skynet and I am a Droid Borg.
Held responsible how? You want a money-back guarantee?
Sometimes the ungrateful attitude of the entitled whiners around here takes me aback, despite years of reading it.
I really don't care what they do with my data that I *PUBLICLY* post on Google+ or Facebook, .... I posted it there because I'm not concerned about the privacy of that data. Ever heard the term nothing is free? Most users of Facebook, including myself, feel that we get enough benefit from using those sites that allowing them to use some useless data for some targeted advertising, or whatever they want to do, is ok.
Privacy is easy, don't post shit you don't want to be sold, mined, or made available to anyone in the world...
+++ATH0 NO CARRIER
You aren't paying with your privacy, because your privacy has no value to anyone but you. You may have "paid" with information, but good luck trying to make that abstraction count for anything in the real world.
Of course, if you want to be impractical about things, you can bitch till the end of time. Doesn't make it mean anything, though.
At least they admit that it's not ready unlike other companies that make you pay for the beta quality product.
Google+ uses Google's standard terms of service which say "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit."
Pretty much exactly what you're asking for, minus the ability to claim ownership of other people's work just because you uploaded a copy.
That's not entirely true. You could have a democracy that is very socialist. Also, people confuse "Capitalism" as an economic system with "Capitalism" as a moral system. The economic system does not encourage greed. It's about economic freedom without a government dictating how you should spend/invest your money. This freedom allows you to be greedy or generous. Then there's "Capitalism" as a moral system, which is a more recent invention by rich people to justify their privilege. It's a variation on the "might makes right" mentality, claiming that wealth and economic success is the measure of virtue, and therefore anything done in the pursuit of wealth can't be bad.
Democracy requires capitalism.[citation needed]
FTFY.
They don't run all their services on the same cluster.
(+1, Disagree)
Democracy does not require capitalism. To say otherwise is completely illogical. For example, true Communism would work best in a democracy.
I'm pretty sure corruption is a major problem in most economic and political systems.
But, google doesn't lease that data out to third parties as FB does. Also, FB is expanding into other areas. FB encourages third party development, and exposes all of your personal data to those third parties, because your niece likes to play FarmVille, her information is tracked/shared with numerous third parties, and distributed to who knows where. Google, it just, well... Google. They aren't sharing their data, and yes, they collect more of it, this doesn't make them a bigger privacy breach, it only means they have more data to work from. IMHO the bigger breach is sharing privacy data with third parties, without consent.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
If you look at cgeys' past, he/she has a history of posting inflammatory responses filled with Google hate. I have to ask who's paying them and how much. This is rediculous...
I see two clear differences between Facebook and Google+ that I think reduce the privacy issues.
1. Google has made a clear commitment to making sure you can export your data from all of their services, while Facebook is particularly shameless about lock-in. This makes the cost of shifting to a different service much lower if they start acting more evil.
2. The Circles feature makes it much easier to maintain privacy, not from Google, but from each other. By making different classes of friends/acquaintances core features of the system instead of Facebook's tacked-on Groups feature, it forces a user to consider whether they really need to share something with everyone. That's definitely a good thing.
Of course the fundamental issue that you can hide your information from Google or anyone that has a special arrangement with them is quite obviously still there. But I can't help but feel Google+ mitigates the issues much better.
Hi there. I live in Norway, which is a democracy where we've had a strong government and mostly no capitalism (what you would call socialism) for the last century. We have the highest standard of living in the world and a "Savings account" of more than 100% GDP. Contrast this with America's "Debt" of above 100% GDP. So I guess we can conclude that your claim, "Democracy requires capitalism", is patently false.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
One day soon, our best and brightest scientists will create a way to alert operations staff about discs reaching 90% capacity so action can be taken before they reach 100%. In that utopia, this sort of thing won't happen.
Democracy requires capitalism? Not in any definition of "democracy" or "capitalism" which I've read. Nor, I suspect in any definitions which I'm willing to accept. All that "democracy" means, is that the members all have an equal voice in policy. On the other hand, "capitalism" is an economic machine - a tool. One does not have to subscribe to an economic philosophy to subscribe to a political philosophy. Or, vice versa. One might as well say that to be a good Christian, one must be agrarian. Or, to be a good steelworker, one must be a Republican. Or, how about, you can't be German or Bavarian if you don't love the smell and taste of vinegar?
We could go on all day with equally preposterous statements.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
good luck trying to make that abstraction count for anything in the real world.
Just look at any number of deals involving selling marketing data, user data, usage data (the list goes on). It's not an abstract value if there's real world money being passed back and forth in exchange for information. However, don't be surprised when you find out the actual market value for your information somewhere around 25 to 50 cents.
What he's saying is that they cite its so-called prerelease status as justification for the existence of such mistakes.
And what GP was saying is that "it is, in fact, pre-release, not the fake pre-release google often does, so it's actually justified."
I personally feel that those who criticise privacy advocates are secretly ashamed of not being interesting and can't bear that there are many people out there doing things where adequate anonymity is the difference between success and detainment. There's also a bit of languor in there: "I'm so lazy I need targeted adverts to choose what I want."
That being said, they have benefited from an illegal monopoly
What monopoly exactly? Seriously, someone please tell me which of the google services constitute a monopoly?
Search engine? There are like a dozen of them. Yahoo still technically exists. I hear there are people who actually use Bing. Why? I don't know. Are there any browsers that have google as the only search engine you can use? Even with Chrome, you can change the search engine.
Gmail? Again, plenty of e-mail services exist.
Google maps? No, mapquest still seems to be around.
Google+? Chrome? Don't be ridiculous.
Youtube? Maybe, but last I heard, that wasn't really "benefiting" them, it was costing them money, and there are other video sharing services.
Why couldn't they just name it Google Spot, you know G-Spot for short. That's hip and trendy.
In fact, facebook has bigger privacy problems than google+. Here are a few examples:
Facebook thinks they own your friends list, and actively try to block you from downloading it: http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-blocks-friend-exporter-plugin-053907002.html. Google+, on the other hand, has a "data liberation" tool that lets you download all of your infromation in a few clicks.
Facebook does not let you prevent people from tagging you in photos. You can remove the tags, but not stop them from appearing in the first place. Google+ lets you configure this, and I have set it so all tags of myself have to be vetted by me.
Facebook is run by someone who calls his customers "dumb fucks" for being so stupid to give him their data.
I see you saw Google Buzz. :)
It seems more of my friends are trying out Google+ than Google Buzz, but for the most part it's had a "ok, so what now" reaction.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
[Google +] lacks a "killer feature" though that would make anyone use it over FB. Unless it gets something that will make people use it over using FB, it will probably languish, then die like Wave, Google Health, etc.
* Hangouts (up to 10 people in a video chat room)
* Circles (a method for fine-tuning whose posts appear in your stream and who can see your posts)
* Absence of FarmVille etc.
Those are killer features for me.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.