How Google+ Punk'd The Oatmeal

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Google+ Punk'd The Oatmeal

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @10:33AM from the revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-in-vanity-URLs dept.

ryzvonusef tips this quote from TechCrunch about a tit-for-tat exchange between Google+ and the creator of The Oatmeal webcomic: "This summer, the artist (Matthew Inman) wrote that Google+ comment threads sound like *crickets*, poking fun at the social network's lack of engagement. He also criticized not being able to 'set up a fancy profile URL so I don't have to link people to http://plus.google.com/blergasdf1234thimbleturdorgasm99meatpoopypoopxv9donkeypie ' — a made-up, ridiculously long string of random characters. ... In retaliation, the Google+ team didn't cite its user growth stats or give an excuse for why there are no custom profile URLs. ... Instead, they just redirected the vanity URL back to The Oatmeal author Matthew Inman's Google+ profile. Congrats, Matt, you've now got 'donkey pie' at the end of your own special Google+ vanity URL."

218 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:37 · Score: 5, Funny

What does "punk'd" mean?
1. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What does "punk'd" mean?
  It's a reference to a TV show from a few years ago where Ashton Kutcher would play pranks on-
  Oh. I see.
  Well played.
2. Re:I still don't get it by Farmer+Tim · 2012-08-14 10:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It means someone watches too much awful television and doesn't own a thesaurus.
  
  --
  Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
3. Re:I still don't get it by SomePgmr · 2012-08-14 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  It was a TV show, approximately 283 years ago iirc, where Ashton Kutcher would have something awful/irritating happen to another famous person and secretly record them.
4. Re:I still don't get it by carrier+lost · 2012-08-14 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  What does "punk'd" mean?
  It means he has to put his hair in spikes and wear ripped jeans and lots of leather.
  
  --
  XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
5. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Okay, I think I've got it. So the heading should be "How Google+ watches too much awful television and doesn't own a thesaurus The Oatmeal".
6. Re:I still don't get it by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-08-14 11:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yeah.... Burn!!!!!
  -- Signed, Kelso
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
7. Re:I still don't get it by Dahamma · 2012-08-14 11:14 · Score: 2
  
  It most definitely does not mean what Soulskill thinks it means.
8. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  So a ripoff of Candid Camera.
9. Re:I still don't get it by zippthorne · 2012-08-14 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think it was actually a ripoff of Totally Hidden Video, which was a ripoff of Candid Camera...
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
10. Re:I still don't get it by TheGratefulNet · 2012-08-14 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  ...which was a ripoff of the honeymooners.
  because, well, it *was* the root device of all modern tv shows.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
11. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 13:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  TFS actually highlights what I consider to be Google's biggest problem: they don't listen.
  They don't listen when we tell them about faults with search.
  They don't listen when we tell them about faults with gmail.
  They don't listen when we tell them about faults with google shopping.
  They don't listen when we tell them about faults with Google+.
  They don't listen when we tell them we've come to depend on service X, and please don't discontinue it.
  And so, eventually, we wander away, and this is when the crickets come into play.
12. Re:I still don't get it by dgharmon · 2012-08-14 14:20 · Score: 0
  
  Punk: An ineffectual criminal ..
  Punk: Movie Quote .. "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
  Punk Rock: A fictious music genre invented up by Malcolm McLaren in the 1970 to sell clothing by Vivienne Westwood ..
  Punk: On the receiving end of a practical joke ..
  Punk'd: A victim of a prank on the US candid camera style show of the same name.
  
  --
  AccountKiller
13. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 15:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not trying to be an asshole, but they don't listen because they still have a shitload of users / information generators despite not listening. They don't -have- to listen.
14. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  Punk Rock: A fictious music genre invented up by Malcolm McLaren in the 1970 to sell clothing by Vivienne Westwood ..
  You have got to be kidding me. All those years in the early 80's I thought I was being rebellious / cool / emo / " fuck 'the man' " (figuratively).... and now I learn that I was just a capitalist tool. Or maybe just a tool. TANJ
15. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh...and, why should anyone listen to you.
16. Re:I still don't get it by tangent3 · 2012-08-14 17:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think you need to look up the difference between "I" and "we"
17. Re:I still don't get it by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-14 18:32 · Score: 2
  
  Are you claiming google listens to others, or that nobody is complaining about these things?
  If you think you have a point, make it. Don't mumble around the bush.
18. Re:I still don't get it by aaronb1138 · 2012-08-14 19:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You don't seem to understand that in most fields, crowdsourcing from the general public works really badly. Just look at the results of any given election. Consider GeoCities and MySpace were the result of letting everyone have input.
  On the other hand, crowdsourcing can be really effective when the source group are experts and learned enthusiasts.
  So, no, unless you have years of experience doing graduate level research in search, e-mail, or social networking, you should probably stop speaking with entitlement that Google should listen to you. If you have such experience, go get a job with them or build something better.
19. Re:I still don't get it by ApplePy · 2012-08-14 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Who's Ashton whatsiswhoever?
  
  --
  That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
20. Re:I still don't get it by brokeninside · 2012-08-14 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  "we" don't seem to be wandering away.
21. Re:I still don't get it by asdf7890 · 2012-08-14 21:57 · Score: 2
  
  The implication is that they are not listening to people in general about issues that affect people in general when using their products, i.e. implying that there is a groundswell of opinion on some of the matters (so there are general problems rather than it just being a few fussy/opinionated/entitled individuals moaning) which they are ignoring.
  
  Of course just moaning on random unrelated forums is not going to help, slashdot is not the right place for instance, people won't be heard if they don't speak in the right direction. Of course finding the right place to comment could be difficult for a large organisation like Google. TheOatmeal wasn't trying to be heard really (well, not specifically heard by Google), he was just making a passing reference to the sate of affairs for comic value, though he has managed what it would seem many have not and got the attention of someone who is in a relevant team at the company.
22. Re:I still don't get it by RPD9803 · 2012-08-14 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try, Google. Also, poster fails to realize there's a difference between listening to customers and crowdsourcing, namely, most times, people at least want acknowledgement they've given feedback, and sometimes would like an explanation as to why something works the way it does. It's almost impossible to get it out of Google, but it's possible to get it out of a great majority of companies one does business with.
  
  --
  Culture + Technology
23. Re:I still don't get it by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-14 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  "eventually".
  I know that I stay away from google stuff. I use the search, I test in chrome, that's it. I put my heart and soul elsewhere, but not into google products. They asked for that, they got it. So that already makes two people; hence "we" :P
24. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  I travel extensively for work, and use Google Maps for my intermodal route planning (mass transit and/or driving and/or walking). I have corrected two significant errors in their transit planning. First, their algorithm calculated that it would take either 3 or 33 minutes to cross the street after getting off a bus to catch a train, depending on which carrier you were using. Commuters taking Amtrak don't walk THAT much slower! Second, they had a light rail stop that connected with the PATH at Exchange Place clear on the other side of town vs. 100 feet from the entrance.
  Maybe it was your attitude or approach.
25. Re:I still don't get it by geminidomino · 2012-08-14 23:57 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Because unlike some other Robin hoods, I can speak with an English accent!
26. Re:I still don't get it by geminidomino · 2012-08-14 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, a metric fuckton of "us" never wandered TO them in the first place, so wandering "away" wasn't really an option.
  Not that I give an airborne copulation targeting a ventrally ambulating toroid about the "Social Networking Wars" but G+ didn't do particularly well at gathering users in the firstplace (thus, the commonly cited "crickets" issue)
27. Re:I still don't get it by rkroetch · 2012-08-15 01:32 · Score: 2
  
  TFS actually highlights what I consider to be Google's biggest problem: they don't listen.
  Actually, they did listen to what the Oatmeal told them. https://plus.google.com/u/0/101560853443212199687/posts/L2K5K1GzaSh#101560853443212199687/posts/L2K5K1GzaSh
  
  --
  Potty Humor!
28. Re:I still don't get it by mcgrew · 2012-08-15 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why I don't understand is why anyone would need to contract the word "punked", since the contractione sounds exactly like the word that's contracted, and contains as many characters; they merely replaced the e with an apostrophe.
  Seems silly to me.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
29. Re:I still don't get it by Yvan256 · 2012-08-15 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it's similar to being Nook'ed.
30. Re:I still don't get it by ReverendLoki · 2012-08-15 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have to listen. They already have your data. They ALREADY KNOW...
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
31. Re:I still don't get it by ReverendLoki · 2012-08-15 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Did you pay for the service? No? Then you aren't the customer. The customers are the ad agencies and those who pay to get their sites in front of your eyes. Instead, you are the product.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
32. Re:I still don't get it by Aighearach · 2012-08-15 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Are you claiming google listens to others, or that nobody is complaining about these things?
  I'll step right up and say that yes, they listen to me. I submit maps corrections to bicycle routing, and it takes a month or so but they listen and fix my issues and tell me they did so. Maps no longer tries to route me out onto the expressway on my bike, for example. :) Their other services are working great for me. Although, if I wanted a vanity URL I would probably make one at one of my own domains instead of telling google to make me one at their's.
33. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  There's no such thing as an "English accent". Unless you're actually speaking French. But then it would be an "accent anglais".
  Anyway, my point is that there's "English" and then there's a bunch of accents. Northern, estuary, American, etc. Accents are, like subcultures, fractal.
34. Re:I still don't get it by Agent0013 · 2012-08-15 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  What does "punk'd" mean?
  It's a reference to a TV show from a few years ago where Ashton Kutcher would play pranks on-
  Oh. I see.
  Well played.
  Did someone post both of these AC posts so they could get their joke setup?
  I see what you did there! Nice!
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
35. Re:I still don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  I can't speak for tangent3, but when I saw your first post, I thought the same thing that tangent3 wrote. Give up the royal "we." If you think that YOU have a point, then YOU make it. Not everyone feels the way that you do about some or all of Google's products. I know I don't, and if they manage to piss me off in the future, I will make sure to only speak from my own point of view instead of assuming there are a legion of other users who agree with my complaint.
36. Re:I still don't get it by Grishnakh · 2012-08-15 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  This is exactly right. For how many years were people telling them that Google Maps wasn't showing Louisville, Kentucky and various other "lost cities"? It took them years to fix these problems.
37. Re:I still don't get it by Grishnakh · 2012-08-15 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  He's an actor who got famous starring in some crappy show about the 70s for a while, then gained notoriety when he married Demi Moore who was over a decade older than him, but she still looked amazingly young, but then he cheated on her with some much younger girl and they broke up and suddenly her magic spell of anti-aging was broken and she now looks like death incarnate.
38. Re:I still don't get it by Grishnakh · 2012-08-15 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  It is silly, but you're talking about a lame show on that crappy cable channel "MTV", which doesn't really have any kind of mission since the "M" stands for "music" yet they never actually play any music or music videos.
39. Re:I still don't get it by Vreejack · 2012-08-15 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the original Robin Hood would have spoken Norman French and Middle English, the latter of which sounds more like American English than RP English.
  
  --
  "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
40. Re:I still don't get it by ruemere · 2012-08-15 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely... as in "precisely why I do not need to use their service". If you do not care about customers of your service, be it free or paid, they will wander away.
  Disclaimer: I may be biased I really wanted to like and use Google+ service. Since they could accept my preference to use a well-established nick instead of my real name, I've quit. Almost a year later, my profile is still suspended. I still cannot set my status in GoogleTalk.
  I wish I could raise this with some support service, but... it's not really there. Google's motto should probably change to something like Don't be evil -- disclaimer: we don't give a damn .
  Regards,
  Ruemere
41. Re:I still don't get it by ruemere · 2012-08-15 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  (corrected version follows)
  Disclaimer: I may be biased since I really wanted to like and to use Google+ service. Since they could not accept my preference to use a well-established nick instead of my real name, I've quit. Almost a year later, my profile is still suspended. I still cannot set my status in GoogleTalk.
  I wish I could raise this with some support service, but... it's not really there. Google's motto should probably change to something like Don't be evil -- disclaimer: we don't give a damn.
  (apologies for errors)
42. Re:I still don't get it by geminidomino · 2012-08-15 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Your Mel Brooks awareness is seriously lacking.
  I recommend an immediate dosage of "Young Frankenstein" and "Spaceballs," with weekly injections to follow.
43. Re:I still don't get it by Meski · 2012-08-15 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  British accent, perhaps, if you want to be general. But you can fairly easily pick small regions within Britain by their accent/dialect, whatever. Same here in Australia.
44. Re:I still don't get it by Branciforte · 2012-08-15 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  No, they don't listen to *you*. They do listen to the general public which makes up 99.44% of their user base.
  For instance, *you* probably think Google Search should just be the world's most expensive grep, while the other 99.44% want it to figure out what they mean, without them having to spell out every little keyword.
45. Re:I still don't get it by ApplePy · 2012-08-15 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, actors. Tell me again why we're supposed to care about them? As I understand it, these are low-to-midgrade morons who pretend to be something they're not and get paid metric fucktons of money for it? At least that one Charlie Sheen guy has the decency to act like his job is bullshit.
  
  --
  That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
46. Re:I still don't get it by Grishnakh · 2012-08-15 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be so smug. Acting like someone with a totally different personality takes real talent. There's a reason actors like Marlon Brando are so well-remembered; he could play all kinds of different people. I'm sure I could never pull that job off in a believable manner.
  Now, of course, this doesn't mean all actors are highly talented. A lot of them are "character actors"; essentially, they play the exact same character (usually someone just like themselves) over and over, just with a different name and situation. The really good ones who can play different people aren't so common. And as Tom Cruise has shown, the most talented ones are sometimes also quite loony. (I would also mention Sheen here, except that he's never struck me as all that talented.) Angelina Jolie is another one who's also very talented, but again, rather loony.
  But calling them "morons" is just dumb. The guy who works at 7-11 is a low-to-midgrade moron (or worse). You don't hold down a job as an A-list actor if you're a complete moron; you don't have to be a genius of course, but a moron wouldn't make it. For an example of a moron who had a little (very little) bit of acting talent but was too dumb to make a lasting career out of it, check out Lindsey Lohan. No one will hire her any more despite her name recognition because she's such a goofball and can't show up on time for filming shoots.
47. Re:I still don't get it by ApplePy · 2012-08-15 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  Don't conflate artistic talent with intellect. Some of the talent is great. Kevin Spacey, for example. I went an entire movie without realizing that a character was Spacey.
  But have you ever heard some of those people try to talk about serious subjects? Alec Baldwin or Whoopi Goldberg on politics, for example. Sure, some are good at what they do, as you'll find in any trade, and yes, they're entitled to their own opinions. It's the whole celebrity culture built up around Hollywood that irritates me. Awards shows. TV channels with 24/7 coverage of who's shagging who. One can simply ignore it on a personal level, as I do, but co-workers, friends... it's a cancer on society.
  We're given Stallone and Elway and Obama and Kardashians for heroes, instead of Tesla and Semmelweis and Shockley and Torvalds. Entertainment is a part of a society, to be sure, but a wise people do not run their country on the whim of the court jester.
  
  --
  That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
48. Re:I still don't get it by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-15 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone feels the way that you do about some or all of Google's products.
  Who said everybody does?
  
  if they manage to piss me off in the future, I will make sure to only speak from my own point of view instead of assuming there are a legion of other users who agree with my complaint.
  Blah blah blah strawman strawman strawman.
  We -- the people that applies to -- exist. So what's the point of acting dumb? Unless you're shilling for us, and trying to paint people who don't mind Google's shennanigans as stupid ^_^
49. Re:I still don't get it by geminidomino · 2012-08-16 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  You too? Jesus, you guys must be a riot at parties...
50. Re:I still don't get it by mcgrew · 2012-08-16 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  You have it wrong. MTV is txtspk for "empty-V". Thay used to actually be a music channel, although they were crappy back then, too.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
51. Re:I still don't get it by Grishnakh · 2012-08-16 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Entertainment is a part of a society, to be sure, but a wise people do not run their country on the whim of the court jester.
  Since when was any general populace of a country "wise"?
52. Re:I still don't get it by Meski · 2012-08-16 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Irony now? I'm saddened. :^)
OK !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:38 · Score: 0

No comment !!
The reality... by mythosaz · 2012-08-14 10:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

G+, a vastly superior platform.... ....except that there's nobody on it, which is what makes a social platform superior.
Unless your preferred social experience is finding new social groups, you're pretty much boned.
I participate in the Dragon Age Legends community when it was live, but when that closed, I wandered away...
1. Re:The reality... by darkfeline · 2012-08-14 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Unless your preferred social experience is finding new social groups, you're pretty much boned.
  That doesn't sound half-bad, actually. If more people did this, I'd wager the average IQ may actually rise this year!
2. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  G+ is a vastly superior platform lacking the users to make it a superior social platform ????? Eh???
3. Re:The reality... by mythosaz · 2012-08-14 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  G+ has several features which absolutely stomp on Facebook. [e.g. Hangouts with game integration and YouTube streaming, putting your social connections in groups, and being able to SHARE them - let alone selecting who sees what.] ...except it's a ghost town.
4. Re:The reality... by SomePgmr · 2012-08-14 10:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Facebook doesn't make people stupid so much as us stupid people like using it. Subtle difference. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go windex my window screens.
5. Re:The reality... by History's+Coming+To · 2012-08-14 10:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The average IQ is 100 by definition, it can't go up and down.
  
  I know what you mean though, the average internet chatter does make me wonder.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
6. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The average IQ is 100 by definition, it can't go up and down.
  So I can actually increase my IQ by simply killing people who are smarter than me. Something to think about.
7. Re:The reality... by scot4875 · 2012-08-14 11:03 · Score: 2
  
  ...except it's a ghost town.
  The hundreds of responses to each of The Oatmeal's G+ posts suggest otherwise.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
8. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  putting your social connections in groups, and being able to SHARE them - let alone selecting who sees what.
  Facebook has that and has had that since 2010. Welcome to the world of yesteryear.
9. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the average IQ is constantly rising - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
10. Re:The reality... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-08-14 11:16 · Score: 2
  
  Circular logic is the best kind of logic because it has no corners, so logic with corners will really suck because they aren't circular enough.
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
11. Re:The reality... by History's+Coming+To · 2012-08-14 11:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yes, precisely. I'd never actually considered that, I like it. You're obviously smarter than me...
  
  And thus began the IQ wars, and a species' return to the trees...
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
12. Re:The reality... by Dishevel · 2012-08-14 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Look at Inmans post about this.
  Looks like a lot of people are participating.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
13. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  IQ as with most things, Population mean does not always equal the sample mean.
14. Re:The reality... by Local+ID10T · 2012-08-14 11:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The signal (# of users) on G+ is moderate. The noise (# of junk posts forced upon you) on G+ is extremely low.
  Thus, the S/N ratio on G+ is very good.
  All of this is by comparison to FB.
  (The best thing about G+ is that it is not FB...)
  
  --
  "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
15. Re:The reality... by History's+Coming+To · 2012-08-14 11:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  An IQ of 100 is defined as the sample mean. It doesn't matter whether you mean the IQ of everyone on the planet, all Ugandans, everybody with brown eyes or all Slashdot readers, 100 is the sample mean of that group.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
16. Re:The reality... by tuppe666 · 2012-08-14 11:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually, the average IQ is constantly rising - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
  After reading the very long and very boring Wikipedia page which contained lots of reasons why over a hundred years, Peoples *results* from IQ tests have been higher...everything from Genetics; Good Eating; Learning Stuff. You get to the end...And their is a rather large section titled "Possible end of progression" which basically states that the the Flynn Effect was over as much as 37 years ago, and shows many results showing no change, marginal increases, or a deterioration in IQ scores.
  You should really have read the link before posting it.
17. Re:The reality... by MikeBabcock · 2012-08-14 12:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually there's a lot of people on it. I'm not particularly special and I have over 1000 followers myself, with many of my posts generating two or three comments and plusses. That's quite good considering none of these people know me at all.
  When I tell people how to use G+, I tell them to use the search bar. People aren't accustomed to being able to Google social interactions, but you can on G+ (so long as they're not private).
  So if you're into cars https://plus.google.com/s/cars or funny hats https://plus.google.com/s/funny%20hat or many things in between https://plus.google.com/s/needlepoint ... you can find discussions about those topics, join in, and add the people who are interesting *to you* to your circles for those topics. If they find you interesting back, they may even circle you in return.
  You can build great relationships with complete strangers (a lot like on isolated subject forums) and choose what to share with each group, or share publicly for everyone to enjoy.
  If I want tor each the average person I went to highschool with, there's still Facebook.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
18. Re:The reality... by PopeRatzo · 2012-08-14 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook doesn't make people stupid
  So you say.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
19. Re:The reality... by PopeRatzo · 2012-08-14 12:15 · Score: 2
  
  except it's a ghost town.
  Strange, the other day I was thinking that Facebook wouldn't be so bad if you got rid of all those people.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
20. Re:The reality... by NatasRevol · 2012-08-14 12:22 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Why? You summed it up nicely.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
21. Re:The reality... by garyebickford · 2012-08-14 12:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So you're saying that each person that leaves Facebook and goes to Google+ reduces the mean IQ of both?
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
22. Re:The reality... by garyebickford · 2012-08-14 12:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Strange, the other day I was thinking that Facebook wouldn't be so bad if you got rid of all those people.
  Kinda like California!
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
23. Re:The reality... by sjames · 2012-08-14 13:33 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it was standardized to 100 at the time, but there is nothing to say the average today will be 100 (and it isn't, in fact) unless it is re-standardized.
24. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations, you just figured out what just about every sociopath figures out in middle school. The next step is figuring out how to block people behind you from getting ahead of you while making it look like they are the dicks.
25. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  There's also a bunch of thing that annoy people who are on it. For example, try to change your email address. Oh that's right, it's permanently tied to a Google Account which is permanently tied to the one unchangeable Gmail address.
  Sucks if you've ever changed you name or want to move to a different Google Apps domain.
  The same thing takes about 30 seconds to do on Facebook.
26. Re:The reality... by Stiletto · 2012-08-14 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook posts that receive 125,000+ likes and 11,000 comments laugh at those hundreds of responses.
27. Re:The reality... by rpresser · 2012-08-14 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And my brand new social network Rossy, not yet released, containing at present exactly one post which is not junk, has a S/N ratio of infinity.
  So much for S/N as a metric.
28. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 14:47 · Score: 0
  
  I met a very interesting guy from Memphis, but from the way his posts seemed to spiral into chaos and meningless rants, I assume his meds were withdrawn and he was sent back to the home. Too bad.
29. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  You mean 100% (one non-junk post out of a total of 1 posts). If you meant 1 signal to 0 noise your S/N ratio is undefined, not infinite.
30. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 15:41 · Score: 0
  
  Why not just avoid all social media sites altogether?
  Zero noise, great life.
31. Re:The reality... by jbov · 2012-08-14 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  There's also a bunch of thing that annoy people who are on it. For example, try to change your email address. Oh that's right, it's permanently tied to a Google Account which is permanently tied to the one unchangeable Gmail address.
  Don't use a Gmail account as your username and this problem doesn't exist. You do not need a Gmail account to create a Google account. If you use another e-mail address, you can change the e-mail address associated with your account at any time. If you already have a Gmail account registered as your username, you can still create another Gmail account and link this one to the account. Source: Google > Help Home > Editing your Account
32. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  ...who are smarter than me.
  ...smarter than *I*, dimwit. Please kill yourself.
33. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  So yeah, still waaaaaay more complicated than the same process on FaceBook. Google screwed up by linking these things together in the way they did.
  Lots of people already had Gmail accounts before using G+.
  Lots of those people got married and changed their names and Gmail addresses now they can't change what address their G+ notifications go to. So they never see them.
  30 seconds to change your address on FaceBook. Impossible to ever change it on Google+.
34. Re:The reality... by MagusSlurpy · 2012-08-14 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  If the majority of people were worth knowing, finding new social groups might be worth my time. When four out of five people live for nothing but American Idol, NASCAR, and football on Sundays, it's hard to expand your horizons.
  And yes, I know I could learn Portuguese and mingle with Brazilians, but somehow I suspect that people living for South American Idol and futbol on Saturdays and the Monaco Grand Prix aren't really going to be that different.
  
  --
  My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
35. Re:The reality... by MagusSlurpy · 2012-08-14 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  The other side of it: those of us with higher IQs could off those of lesser, and then redefine IQ to be an absolute instead of relative scale.
  
  --
  My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
36. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  Apple made the same mistake, sort of. If you ever used MobileMe or .Mac even if it was only for a trial then you can never change your AppleID again ever.
  Pain in the ass.
37. Re:The reality... by kiddygrinder · 2012-08-14 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  if people start linking up their android phones with each other more it will catch on quickly (random guess), they probably need to link it closer to google talk though. i'm reserving judgement for a couple of years.
  
  --
  This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
38. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 20:56 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the average IQ is always 100, by definition...
39. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 21:48 · Score: 0
  
  nope. 100 was the mean of some testgroup at a university in the usa. this is the reference value, which DOES NOT change every day.
  And because it was at a university, the average iq is below 100.
40. Re:The reality... by jeremyp · 2012-08-14 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Check out his Facebook page for comparison.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
41. Re:The reality... by tolan-b · 2012-08-14 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  I really hope that was a joke...
  She is smarter than *me*.
  *I* am smarter than her.
  She is smarter than *I* *am*.
  *I* *am* smarter than she is.
  Dimwit.
42. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 23:00 · Score: 0
  
  Huh, how's that informative? That's wrong. Using that reasoning, that would mean the average IQ of a group of geniuses would be 100. Same for a group of retards.
  
  100 is the mean of a larger group, preferably a very large group (e.g. estimated average of all humans currently, or since IQ tests were first started, etc). So the average IQ of a smaller group could be higher or lower than 100.
43. Re:The reality... by Simon+Brooke · 2012-08-14 23:14 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  G+, a vastly superior platform.... ....except that there's nobody on it, which is what makes a social platform superior.
  Actually the vastly superior platform is Diaspora... which no-one is using either.
  
  --
  I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
44. Re:The reality... by Neil+Boekend · 2012-08-14 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  woosh. Miscorrecting is a sign of low IQ, thus he excludes himself from the killing spree.
  
  Damn, now I may have made myself a target. That was quite stupid of me.
  
  Hey that may save me.
  
  Repeat until insane.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
45. Re:The reality... by gl4ss · 2012-08-14 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Huh, how's that informative? That's wrong. Using that reasoning, that would mean the average IQ of a group of geniuses would be 100. Same for a group of retards.
  it's not wrong, if your tested base included only geniuses then that's what you would end up with. how would you know they're geniuses if you were comparing them to geniuses anyways?
  if you're just taking a subset of people who are being compared, then you're working with a subset. but the mean is supposed to be 100 with a large enough test base.
  it's not an official metric in any way anyhow, it's just something test makers pull out of their ass but usually the aim is that the mean score is 100 for a large enough test base or it isn't an iq test.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
46. Re:The reality... by History's+Coming+To · 2012-08-15 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, IQ is a lousy way to measure "intelligence" anyway. There's a common statistic quoted by various numpties which "shows that black people are less intelligent" - they're quoting results where Western IQ tests including questions like "which King of Britain suffered lead poisoning" were given to people from a completely different culture. Westerners score equally badly of tests aimed at African or Asian cultures.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
47. Re:The reality... by History's+Coming+To · 2012-08-15 00:04 · Score: 2
  
  That's a myth, the Earth was known (or strongly suspected) to be round as far back as Ancient Greece. Sailors were familiar with the way a ship disappeared over the horizon, and even the Qu'ran contains a chapter explaining that the Earth is round due to the shape of the shadow cast during a lunar eclipse.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
48. Re:The reality... by mcvos · 2012-08-15 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Who wants to read 11,000 comments?
  G+ isn't superior to Facebook because it has more people, because it doesn't. It's superior because it has less stupid people.
49. Re:The reality... by mcvos · 2012-08-15 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  So he posts his ads to Facebook and his interesting stuff to G+.
50. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  Never mind the mode IQ, which I half suspect is somewhere in the high 80s.
51. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  What IQ tests have you taken that had trivia questions? Quizilla? Most actual IQ tests check math skills, vocabulary, memory and spatial reasoning. They're still shenanigans because they're a lousy, one-dimension measure of one kind of intelligence, but they're not cultural trivia quizes.
52. Re:The reality... by CyberKnet · 2012-08-15 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Careful buddy. Apple has a design patent on logic with rounded (aka "circular") corners.
  You're moving into dangerous territory!
  
  --
  Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
53. Re:The reality... by ThatOtherGuy435 · 2012-08-15 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, here's the thing: They are updated. The WISC was introduced in 1949 and updated in '74, '91, and '03. The Stanford-Binet first edition was in 1906, followed by updates in 1937, 1973, 1986 and 2003. These are easily the two most common IQ tests.
  This is to compensate for the well-known Flynn effect - check the wikipedia article for a fairly good summary. Make sure you read the whole thing, and don't just stop at THE TESTS ARE FLAWED TROLOLOLOL.
54. Re:The reality... by tibman · 2012-08-15 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  lol, good argument. But i'd say that for a post to qualify as signal there has to be someone to receive it.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
55. Re:The reality... by tibman · 2012-08-15 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  A G+ post cannot have more than 500 comments.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
56. Re:The reality... by morari · 2012-08-15 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  There can be only one!
  
  --
  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
57. Re:The reality... by sjames · 2012-08-15 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they are updated, but that's considerably different than the claim that the average will be 100 by definition (which would necessarily imply grading on a curve). Were the average 100 by definition, the Flynn effect could never be seen.
58. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  If they find you interesting back, they may even circle you in return.
  That sounds rather dirty...
59. Re:The reality... by VortexCortex · 2012-08-15 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  And my brand new social network Rossy, not yet released, containing at present exactly one post which is not junk, has a S/N ratio of infinity.
  So much for S/N as a metric.
  No it does not. Signal to Noise of 1 / 0 is a division by zero error, not infinity.
60. Re:The reality... by Grishnakh · 2012-08-15 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Even better, the ancient Greeks actually calculated the circumference of the Earth to a shockingly accurate degree (less than 2% error), as well as the tilt of the Earth's axis, and its distance to the Sun.
61. Re:The reality... by jonadab · 2012-08-15 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  > Circular logic is the best kind of logic because it has no corners, so
  > logic with corners will really suck because they aren't circular enough.
  
  I prefer spherical logic.
  
  Circular logic is topologically equivalent to square logic, but spherical logic is topologically equivalent to planar logic augmented with one extra point at infinity.
  
  Also, I think this analogy is now just about as blue and snippid as I can make it.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
62. Re:The reality... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  1/0 = infinity..
  The closer you are to 0 as noise the larger the SNR value is and when reaching 0 the SNR will be infinity.. Some do define infinity as undefined, depending on the scenario, but saying you have an infinite SNR does not make it invalid.
  Do read a few scientific publications that include some SNR calculations and you will see references to infinity there.
63. Re:The reality... by History's+Coming+To · 2012-08-15 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Can't mod you up (funny) because of posts, but please help yourself to one of mine.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
64. Re:The reality... by Branciforte · 2012-08-15 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, a ton of people use it. It's just that everything is private by default, so it can look empty to a newcomer.
  I think a lot of people are coming over from Facebook, because I see more and more stupid shit every day.
65. Re:The reality... by Branciforte · 2012-08-15 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  I thought that the limit of (S/N) as N approaches 0 goes to infinity, but N/0 itself is undefined (Infinity is not in the set itself. It is a cardinality.). At least, that's what I remember from my graduate class in Rings, Groups, and Modules. But that was a long time ago.
Google is like '90s Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:40 · Score: 0

...used only because all the alternatives are shit.
(Well, TBH, Microsoft had a greater range of successful products than Google.)
Who cares what they try to launch? When duckduckgo doesn't deliver, use Google search with ads blocked. Move on when something better comes along. They're nothing special or unique - just another business in the right place at the right time.
1. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by tuppe666 · 2012-08-14 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  ...used only because all the alternatives are shit.
  (Well, TBH, Microsoft had a greater range of successful products than Google.)
  Who cares what they try to launch? When duckduckgo doesn't deliver, use Google search with ads blocked. Move on when something better comes along. They're nothing special or unique - just another business in the right place at the right time.
  Beneath all that love of Apple [don't clutch that iPad too tightly], with the confusion of Why Microsoft succeeded in the 90's [No it wasn't because they weren't attractive alternatives around], Wrapped up in an off-topic post.
  You get it...Why I have a Nexus 7 tablet!? Why I use Google!? and Why I use Gmail!? Because they are better than the alternatives, significantly so. The whole point of the article is Google have launched a new social media service, and its better than Facebook!
  Ironically [and the reason for the original Oatmeal joke] Google are suffering the problem every company had going up against Microsoft in 90's [there are countless examples] with a better product, trying to enter a market against a monopoly product with customer lock-in is tricky.
2. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by PopeRatzo · 2012-08-14 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  suffering the problem every company had going up against Microsoft in 90's [there are countless examples] with a better product
  "Countless"? Can you give me three?
  That's as high as I can count.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
3. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by tuppe666 · 2012-08-14 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  suffering the problem every company had going up against Microsoft in 90's [there are countless examples] with a better product
  "Countless"? Can you give me three?
  That's as high as I can count.
  Firefox; Linux; OpenOffice. Ironically in this Context Google is doing awfully well with Chrome; Android and Docs.
4. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by PopeRatzo · 2012-08-14 13:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Firefox; Linux; OpenOffice
  Yeah, it's a real shame how Microsoft wiped those out and they disappeared.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
5. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by MagusSlurpy · 2012-08-14 18:48 · Score: 2
  
  Firefox and OpenOffice didn't exist in the '90s.
  
  --
  My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
6. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by jeremyp · 2012-08-14 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox; Linux; OpenOffice. Ironically in this Context Google is doing awfully well with Chrome; Android and Docs.
  None of those are companies and, of them, only Linux really existed in the 90's.
  I can think of plenty of examples of companies failing against Microsoft in the 90's but most of them failed because their product wasn't better than Microsoft's. The dominant word processor vendor of the early 90's (Word Perfect Corporation) failed because they didn't embrace Windows (3.x) whereas Microsoft did. The dominant spreadsheet vendor of the mid 90's (Lotus corporation) failed against Microsoft because they didn't embrace Win32 and Microsoft did.
  The only example I can think of where somebody lost out to Microsoft with a technically superior product would be IBM with OS/2.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
7. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  I can give you one off of the top of my head. WordPerfect...
  I know there's more but I'll be damned if I can remember any after having just woke up...
8. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by tuppe666 · 2012-08-14 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox and OpenOffice didn't exist in the '90s.
  Firefox(2003) is an an experimental branch created by the Mozilla Project(1998) In fact the Mozilla (1998) project is actually named after the mascot from Netscape Navigator (2002) which it is an open source version of. Although the browser itself is based on Mosaic(1993).
  Really I should name OpenOffice.org(2002), LibreOffice(2011) or Apache OpenOffice (2011), It existed as StarOffice in 1984!?
9. Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... by tuppe666 · 2012-08-14 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox; Linux; OpenOffice
  Yeah, it's a real shame how Microsoft wiped those out and they disappeared.
  They have survived to today through there open source dominance, if they had been proprietary products they would have disappeared.
Wow! That's almost hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

So now a joke about how awful the URLs are links to the oatmeal's page...
That's... funny? I guess? This doesn't seem like he's really being "punk'd" so much as an engineer going "tee-hee look I can make a joke!"
1. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  This doesn't seem like he's really being "punk'd" so much as an engineer going "tee-hee look I can make a joke!"
  So what does being "punk'd" mean? Best I can tell from Google it's a US TV show of the secretly filmed you being made a fool of, now laugh about it or look even worse! ha ha! variety. Is that it?
2. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:44 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  It's the kind of childish joke I'd expect from an xkcd fan.
  It's been a while since Google hired on merit rather than "fit". (And no, I've never failed a Google interview - I've never wanted to work there. But I have worked with some former Googlers and they lamented a change of culture since the IPO.)
3. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by rahvin112 · 2012-08-14 12:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Childish?
  Childish would be receiving a lawsuit threat and settlement request for $20,000 from a lawyer, drawing a comic about said lawyers mother being humped by bears, then creating a charity drive called bears good, cancer bad to collect money for two very worthwhile charities. Then collecting nearly $200,000 in contributions for the charity drive, collecting the money as cash, arranging said cash into the words Fuck You, taking a picture of said arrangement and sending the photo to the lawyer.
  That might be considered childish. The author of the Oatmeal comic did that.
4. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  That's so ridiculous that it's funny. I don't know where this subjective "childish" nonsense comes from, though.
5. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by kiwimate · 2012-08-14 13:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Apparently this is considered very amusing and quite clever by the sort of people who run Google+ and the sort of people who hang out on Google+.
  I see that as yet another extremely good reason for me to vehemently avoid Google+.
6. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up.
  Congrats, Larry & Sergei & whatever-your-name-is-dude-who-runs-plus. You've just made Zuckerberg look mature.
7. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by inject_hotmail.com · 2012-08-14 19:25 · Score: 2
  
  So who lost on that deal, exactly? That wasn't childish, that was tactical.
8. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by omnichad · 2012-08-15 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well put. And really, the Google joke is in the same vein. Taking something meant to embarrass you and then turn it around on them.
9. Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! by Branciforte · 2012-08-15 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's been a while since Google hired on merit rather than "fit".
  With 2,000,000 resumes coming in a year, they hire on merit as well as fit. In fact, the people who interview you really don't care what's on your resume. It's all based on what happens in the interview room. And yes, that involves communication skills and cultural fit, but no one ever got hired on those things alone.
ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:44 · Score: 1

I've read this three times and don't have a clue what happened. Can you please re-write this in English? Thanks!
1. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by mythosaz · 2012-08-14 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  I hate responding to AC's but this story, unlike many previous "Oatmeal" stories, actually does things like explain to us that The Oatmeal is a web-comic.
2. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by Anubis+IV · 2012-08-14 10:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Basically, a webcomic called The Oatmeal made fun of G+, claiming that it was impossible to make short URLs on G+, and they cited the aforementioned http://plus.google.com/blergasdf1234thimbleturdorgasm99meatpoopypoopxv9donkeypie as a fictional example of this problem. Google, feeling particularly clever, decided to redirect the up-until-then fictional URL to point directly to The Oatmeal's G+ page.
  This is allegedly humorous enough that it warranted being posted here. I beg to differ.
3. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You should beg for a sense of humor instead.
4. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by ThePeices · 2012-08-14 11:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I beg to differ.
  Permission granted. You may now differ.
5. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by Anubis+IV · 2012-08-14 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  My thanks. I was concerned I wouldn't be granted permission there for a moment. :)
6. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by Anubis+IV · 2012-08-14 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, been watching too much of the original Star Trek series recently. Spock is my favorite character, of course.
7. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by sootman · 2012-08-14 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  > Google, feeling particularly clever...
  sed s/clever/obvious/
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
8. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by FishOuttaWater · 2012-08-14 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  An imminently logical choice.
9. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 14:14 · Score: 0
  
  Now sit! Roll over!
10. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by sorak · 2012-08-14 14:38 · Score: 2
  
  I beg to differ.
  Permission granted. You may now differ.
  You saw a request and made it happen. If you worked for Google, we might be using G+ by now.
11. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by swillden · 2012-08-14 15:15 · Score: 2
  
  An imminently logical choice.
  Is that a choice that's just about to become logical?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
12. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by FishOuttaWater · 2012-08-14 16:16 · Score: 2
  
  Any minute now...
13. Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? by Grishnakh · 2012-08-15 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  What's really funny is that the Google's G+ team had no trouble making this fictional URL real in a very short time for a completely whimsical reason, but it took the Google Maps team years to figure out how to make Louisville, Kentucky actually show the name "Louisville" on their map even though tons of people were complaining about it, along with many other "lost cities".
Can I by ozduo · 2012-08-14 10:46 · Score: 0

Follow Slashdot on Google+

--
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
XKCD? by SuperKendall · 2012-08-14 10:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's the kind of childish joke I'd expect from an xkcd fan.
XKCD is about the least childish comic you can find, web or otherwise. Not sure where that came from..
It's been a while since Google hired on merit rather than "fit".
Did they stop the quest for people with PHD's or abnormally high grades? I hadn't heard that.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:XKCD? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  XKCD is about the least childish comic you can find, web or otherwise.
  It's the most childish comic directed at a high school reading level I've ever found.
  
  Did they stop the quest for people with PHD's or abnormally high grades? I hadn't heard that.
  Lots of people are PhDs or have excellent grades - this certainly applies to everyone in my team.
  The question is how you select from within that group.
2. Re:XKCD? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  The least childish comic you can find? I doubt it. During its early run it was aimed at University students and as time went on the average age bracket drifted downward so there's lots of high-school level (and you can observe this on the xkcd forums with the users' state ages), which is fair and to be expected as the author graduates and is no longer immersed in acedemia. The new what-if series is using high-school level mathematics and accessible descriptions, but to be fair the thinking behind some of this is University-level -- matter of fact, they'd make good test questions where the scenario is outlined on the test and the student has to calculate the result.
  There are plenty of comics that are far less childish. Certainly there are many comics that are more childish too. Childish isn't a bad thing. But being interested in science and technology isn't non-childish.
  (I've heard several acquaintances over the past 5 years or so complain that they were rejected by Google after final interviews, for the stated reason that they were a poor "fit" rather than merit, but I'm not convinced that it isn't just sugar-coating on some other problem in at least some instances).
3. Re:XKCD? by Tr3vin · 2012-08-14 13:31 · Score: 0
  
  It's the most childish comic directed at a high school reading level I've ever found.
  Pssh, I know. It hardly ever talks about Mondays.
  
  Lots of people are PhDs or have excellent grades - this certainly applies to everyone in my team.
  The question is how you select from within that group.
  Certainly you wouldn't want them to "fit" into your existing team.
4. Re:XKCD? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-08-14 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Pssh, I know. It hardly ever talks about Mondays.
  It has always observed life with the sophistication of a high schooler, but once occasionally spouted undergrad trivia. Today the author seems to have forgotten even that.
  Perhaps you're confusing "childish" and "childlike". Calvin&Hobbes has a childlike attitude but is far from childish.
  
  Certainly you wouldn't want them to "fit" into your existing team.
  To avoid stagnation, I would only want them to fit so far into my existing team. That's how groups evolve: they don't kill off the kids who don't quite fit in.
5. Re:XKCD? by jeremyp · 2012-08-14 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  but I'm not convinced that it isn't just sugar-coating on some other problem in at least some instances).
  "You're too stupid to work here".
  "I'm sorry but it would be a poor fit"
  A "bad fit" covers a multitude of reasons without denting the ego too much.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
6. Re:XKCD? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-08-15 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Except that "You're too stupid to work here" would say more about the employer. Interviewing and testing are statistical exercises - based on your past experience, you make an educated guess on who you feel is likely to be most suitable. A good employer knows this, and understands that he isn't making a general judgment on intelligence.
  Fair reasons include "you haven't sufficiently demonstrated the talents we require" or "you would be a poor fit for our culture".
7. Re:XKCD? by Branciforte · 2012-08-15 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Did they stop the quest for people with PHD's or abnormally high grades? I hadn't heard that.
  They don't care about your grades, unless you are fresh out of college and have nothing on your resume, and no special projects.
  They don't care about what degree you have, unless you did something special in the process of getting your degree.
  Maybe it was different in the old days, but there are plenty of old timers at Google with no special degrees. Some don't even have undergraduate degrees. I myself had a 2.2 GPA. They never even asked for it.
  I think the degree/GPA thing was just an excuse people used when they didn't get an offer.
Way to go Google+ team! by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-08-14 10:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

You've pretty much proved the guy's point! All right!
On the plus side, by astroturfing this on Slashdot you'll almost certainly show a huge blip in traffic to that link - which you can turn around and use in your end-of-month report to show even more phenomenal Google+ growth!
Wait, that was probably your whole idea from the get-go, wasn't it?

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:Way to go Google+ team! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  On the plus side, by astroturfing this on Slashdot you'll almost certainly show a huge blip in traffic to that link - which you can turn around and use in your end-of-month report to show even more phenomenal Google+ growth!
  Wait, that was probably your whole idea from the get-go, wasn't it?
  Yes, you could certainly say that promoting growth is on the Plus side.
2. Re:Way to go Google+ team! by TheRealMindChild · 2012-08-14 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Haters be hatin.
  
  It is smart. Don't be up in arms because you couldn't exploit such an "obvious" marketing decision
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
3. Re:Way to go Google+ team! by log0n · 2012-08-14 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  +1
4. Re:Way to go Google+ team! by nobodyman · 2012-08-14 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Astroturfing? Please explain how ryzvonusef is a google+ astroturf account, despite his slashdot registration predating google+ by a couple years.
  Or maybe he thought this story was interesting and you are kinda being a dick?
5. Re:Way to go Google+ team! by complete+loony · 2012-08-15 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they have started adding custom url's.
  
  --
  09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
6. Re:Way to go Google+ team! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  wow ...
Sour grapes much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 10:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Occasionally, Google does something cool (like the speech-synthesis YouTube comment feature they added after and xkcd comic) but this just reeks of sour grapes from the Google plus team. It comes off as immature and petty.
1. Re:Sour grapes much? by Legion303 · 2012-08-14 11:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your sense-of-humor module seems to be broken, Aspiebot!
2. Re:Sour grapes much? by not-my-real-name · 2012-08-14 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  You think so? I think that this is a much better response than the whole FunnyJunk saga with Charles Carrion (or whatever that lawyer's name was).
  
  --
  un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
3. Re:Sour grapes much? by Soporific · 2012-08-14 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Who'd want to hear all the moronic comments via speech synthesis on YouTube? The 14 year old rabble dominates nearly every video.
  ~S
4. Re:Sour grapes much? by The+Dancing+Panda · 2012-08-14 11:32 · Score: 2
  
  The idea was that you listen to your own comment before you post it, so you know how much you sound like an asshole.
5. Re:Sour grapes much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Occasionally, Google does something cool (like the speech-synthesis YouTube comment feature they added after and xkcd comic) but this just reeks of sour grapes from the Google plus team. It comes off as immature and petty.
  First, until I hear something from someone at Google saying this was a specific dig at Innis, I'm assuming this wasn't meant as an insult. Really, look at that URL and the result and just try and honestly tell me that can't just be a silly Easter Egg that someone at TechCrunch is blowing way the hell out of proportion. Seriously, it looks like just a harmless joke to me.
  Second, frankly, Innis is an asshole, and pretty well-known for being an asshole. He got his start as an SEO, he's a part of the "self-absorbed smug asshole" breed of modern webcomic artists, and though he's given talks on how to make a profitable webcomic, he's yet to say word one on how to make a good webcomic. Take of that what you will, but if Google were to actually want to insult this punk, I'd wish they'd go a bit more insulting than THAT.
  Third, though, the little asshole DOES have a point. I know Google's got this borderline fetishistic love of being able to theoretically find anything via search algorithms, and in a way, that's understandable in a "when all you have is a hammer" sense, in this case, it's patently absurd that G+ still doesn't have a SANE URL scheme. Frankly, any URL to a G+ profile is just as ridiculous as the one Innis put up. This is in a world where you can trivially get a sane link to any Facebook or Twitter user that DOESN'T involve inputting the output of a fucking hash function into the URL bar. You know, where you can get a URL that can be SPOKEN, or perhaps REMEMBERED. Is it REALLY that hard to come up with some scheme like "Oh, yeah, my G+ page is plus dot google dot com slash users slash binky", rather than "Oh yeah, my G+ page is plus dot google dot com slash one eight a four b zero zero e d a f seven nine eight f d five b..."?
  Then again, with recent reports that Google is primarily only hiring hotshot coding competition programmers, they probably don't WANT to solve the boring problems like the user experience. No, not when they can throw a bunch of fucking hex digits at something! I mean, then it's all in a nice 128-bit hash function, and that's SO much more easy to code around, and you're all just going to have to DEAL with it, because they work for GOOGLE!
6. Re:Sour grapes much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  U mad?
7. Re:Sour grapes much? by MikeBabcock · 2012-08-14 12:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Ironically Google+ also announced shortened URL availability for verified accounts, which I'm sure the Oatmeal would qualify for.
  In the mean time, they did this redirect, and it is quite funny.
  
  --
  - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
8. Re:Sour grapes much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  That was literally the entire point of the joke.
9. Re:Sour grapes much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 19:47 · Score: 0
  
  Oh give me a break. Why do people on Slashdot go so far out of their way to trash programming contest winners? It's BS. You win programming contests by (a) loving programming, and (b) being willing to spend the hundreds of hours required to become the best. Turns out love of programming and perseverance transfer pretty damn well to the real world. With few exceptions, your strawmen who are too high-and-mighty to do their real-world job were also too high-and-mighty to persevere past above average skill in contests. This is why the companies who actually are familiar with top contest people continue to hire them.
  Signed, a Google employee and contest veteran.
  PS: As a rule, it's not programmers who decide what the user experience should be at Google.
10. Re:Sour grapes much? by squiggleslash · 2012-08-15 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm, if they can get the actor who voices Comic Store Guy to provide the speech synthesizer audio base...
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Is this Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:01 · Score: 0

Or Jezebel?
The verb "to punk the oatmeal" by neminem · 2012-08-14 11:20 · Score: 2

Really sounds like a euphemism for something. I was extremely curious what it was a euphemism for (my guess was "puking"), so I had to click on this thread. I was then let down horribly.
1. Re:The verb "to punk the oatmeal" by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-08-14 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  Punk is a euphemism for rape.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
2. Re:The verb "to punk the oatmeal" by eddy+the+lip · 2012-08-15 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Look, this is slashdot. Anyone here can be expected to know who Ashton Kucher is, and the meaning of common pop phrases like "punk'd". We don't need to clutter every summary with explanations for these. The occasional story that talks about kernel "headers", GCC (wtf is that?) or EFF (double wtf), yeah, those should be linked.
  Honestly, I think you might be on the wrong site.
  
  --
  This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
I'm surprised they don't just goo.gl it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:23 · Score: 0

its not like google cant shorten URLs or provide a service that does..
google is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 11:57 · Score: 0

an asshat now and I think it's well known.
Boycott google! at the very least start weaning yourself away from them.
Now I won't even buy a motorola.
1. Re:google is by Aighearach · 2012-08-15 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Your asshat is leaking all over the floor. Whoops, must be time to wean you!
News for nerds, stuff that matters by Swampash · 2012-08-14 12:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

For very large values of "matters".
So what this has proved is that Google *can* set up human-readable Google+ addresses, it just won't. Unless it's some socially-inept programmer on the G+ team who has taken offense at something you've done and wants to make a point.
GOOGLE, WE GET SOCIAL!
(For very large values of "get")
1. Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters by whoop · 2012-08-14 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  They're working on it. Of course, you can use one of the URL shortening sites, like gplsu.to for a simple URL to link them to your GPlus page.
2. Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters by Swampash · 2012-08-14 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  you can use one of the URL shortening sites, like gplsu.to [gplus.to] for a simple URL to link them to your GPlus page
  I love the thought of pushing all my personal social media activity through a redirection service, I bet they won't record, datamine, and sell my info AT ALL.
3. Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  > Unless it's some socially-inept programmer on the G+ team who has taken offense at something you've done and wants to make a point.
  What makes you think somebody on the G+ team took offense? The URL redirect is a joke.
Not Really Punked, but still funny by RapidEye · 2012-08-14 12:47 · Score: 1

I wouldn't call it something to the level of getting punked, but it is worth a chuckle.
Glad to see someone over at the Googleverse has a sense of humor and knows how to use it in a funny way without being too dickish.
Being a long time reader of the Oatmeal - I'm sure Inman also got a chuckle out of it and will probably respond in the next few weeks in an equally funny way.

--
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
Still not punk'd by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 13:12 · Score: 0

Yeah except how is this getting punked? Punking is where someone sets up something elaborate to make someone else believe that something is true when it isn't.
So... Google took a joke URL and implemented it.
That's er.... convenient?
Google Plus Absolutely Sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 13:23 · Score: 0

Okay, so The Oatmeal is absolutely right. Nobody uses Google+. From the clunky interface to the complete absence of real, living, breathing, spontaneous people, it's just a wasteland of self-promotion and advertising. It's almost as bad as Facebook.
Y'know what? Awesome. by epp_b · 2012-08-14 14:05 · Score: 1

Lesser companies would have thrown a lawsuit at him. At least Google is mature enough just to have some fun with it and not be a total dick.
They *do* listen by pamar · 2012-08-14 17:54 · Score: 3, Informative

I suppose that the original post should have included at least two things:
a) Apart from the harmless prank, Google is actually moving towards sane aliases for G+ profiles: http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/13/google-plus-custom-url/
b) For the impatients, there is a sort of "url shortener" providing the service now: http://iplus.im/
Apologies if someone else mentioned this already and I missed it in the discussion.
The real reality by jbov · 2012-08-14 18:01 · Score: 2

So yeah, still waaaaaay more complicated than the same process on FaceBook.
Either you never tried it, didn't bother to read the link I posted, or you need someone to help you use a computer. Maybe your just an anonymous Facebook shill?

Google screwed up by linking these things together in the way they did.
No, you screwed things up by linking these things together the way you did. You used your Gmail e-mail address for your Google+ account. While you cannot change your Gmail username. You can certainly update the e-mail linked to your Google+ account.
To change notification settings and destinations:
1. Log into your account.
2. Go to your Google+ account settings.
3. Scroll to "Notification Delivery".
4. Click "Add e-mail address"
5. Enter new e-mail address and submit form.
6. Click verification link in your e-mail.
7. Return to your account settings and choose which e-mail you wish to use for notifications.
To add another e-mail to your account, which may be used to log in.
1. Go to your Google account settings
2. Scroll to "E-mail addresses and usernames"
3. Click "edit"
4. Click on "Add new alternate e-mail address".
5. Enter the e-mail address and submit.
6. Click verification link in your e-mail.
Your welcome.
1. Re:The real reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  Go ahead and try what you just suggested. If both accounts are existing Gmail addresses you can't add one to the other. It's an even worse mess if one of the addresses is on a Google Apps domain. I know this is an issue because I have this exact problem and so does my wife. I still bother checking my old address so I see when people do stuff on Google+. My wife has simply abandoned it along with the old address.
  They at least have a tool for moving your "circles" between accounts now but it orphans all your content.
  And good job on blaming the user. You might have the luxury of pissing users off but Google don't really. You know what happens when you tell people it's all their fault that they can't use your service? They go elsewhere.
  My reason for pointing out that this is easy on FaceBook is not because they are paying me (I wish!). It's because this is not an uncommon occurrence and blaming the user when your biggest competitor gets it right is fruitless.
  Wil Wheaton had the same problem: https://plus.google.com/108176814619778619437/posts/Mm1ppkUz5zu
  How many people have to run into it before you'd agree its a usability issue and stop blaming the user?
2. Re:The real reality by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  Rule #1 of UI design:
  The user did not make a mistake. You did.
  (With 'you' being the designer.)
3. Re:The real reality by jbov · 2012-08-14 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Go ahead and try what you just suggested.
  I had completed both of the items in the instructions I posted prior to commenting. It took less than 30 seconds to do each.
  
  If both accounts are existing Gmail addresses you can't add one to the other.
  I had not tried adding a secondary Gmail address. I only had one Gmail address. I'll try it now though. Alright, I created another Gmail account and added it to my Google+ account and selected this account for notifications.
  You cannot link a Gmail account to a Gmail account. You can link one or more Gmail accounts to your Google+ account.
  So, if I understand you correctly, the problem is that you still have to log in and out of both accounts, since one has your new Gmail e-mails, and the other is the sign-in for your Google+ account? To correct this, log into your new Google+ account. Click on the drop down box next to your photo at the top right, and click "Add account". You will be asked to log in. Log into your old account. Now both accounts will be linked. You can click the photo or drop down at the top right to switch between Gmail or Google+ profile views. There is no reason to log in and out of both accounts constantly.
  I hope this works for you.
4. Re:The real reality by Aighearach · 2012-08-15 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is optimized for when the google apps domain is a work account. That is the normal and intended use of it. So yeah, you really _should_ just abandon whichever one you're not using, instead of having two personal emails where one of them is a faux business account and then wanting them to work as a single login.
5. Re:The real reality by Branciforte · 2012-08-15 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your content is not orphaned. Just use Google Takeout to download your data, then import it into your new account.
6. Re:The real reality by Oscar_Wilde · 2012-08-16 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  Many people use Google Apps for their personal email address because they have a personal website but don't want to administer an email server. Also, this doesn't help at all with the changed her name when they got married problem his wife has.
7. Re:The real reality by Oscar_Wilde · 2012-08-16 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's hardly ideal. Now you're keeping around an extra Gmail account only to be able to log into Google+. How long would people bother with that? Not long, is my bet. They'll just forget about it eventually.
  "What was my other account's password?... Ah bugger it, I don't really need Google+ anyway!"
8. Re:The real reality by Oscar_Wilde · 2012-08-16 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that it requires this much explanation just for the workaround shows how badly the user interface experience has been screwed up. I'm surprised at the amount of defence Google's poor design is getting. If Apple or Microsoft had done the same thing they'd be dragged over coals.
Redundant Circular Recursion by ApplePy · 2012-08-14 19:50 · Score: 1

Actually whole thing kinda reminds me of the time I saw that xkcd comic and then typed "import antigravity" into my Python shell.

--
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Ooold by Briareos · 2012-08-14 22:50 · Score: 1

So it has been like that since the 24th of May (about a month after the original post, see the comment by Google employee Allan Cross at the bottom), and that's now being touted as news?
Ouch.
np: Future Sound Of London - Museum (From The Archives Vol. 2)

--
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
Don't beg by Y2KDragon · 2012-08-14 22:52 · Score: 1

It's not becoming. Meanwhile, I'm laughing over here at how this really is funny, and how Google won the day by not only having a sense of humor, but using that instead of lawyers. This could have been ignored. This could have been answered by a terse e-mail about how inaccurate Inman's portrayal of G+ is compared to actual numbers. But no, the brains at Google decided to just prove the guy wrong, at least in his own case, and everyone involved has a good-natured laugh. I think, instead of suits, lawyers should have to dress up as clowns to go to court. If we all laughed a little more, society would be a better place.
1. Re:Don't beg by omnichad · 2012-08-15 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't prove him wrong. They made his exaggerated claim actually correct.
  The average URL for Google+ profiles is something like http://plus.google.com/u/0/101560853443212199687/ instead of plus.google.com/shortname
  He made an exaggeration with his long ridiculous example, and then Google made it true. It seems to have coincided with an announcement that Google is introducing vanity URL's.
Random? by RivenAleem · 2012-08-14 23:16 · Score: 2

Should I get myself checked out if I'm seeing certain words in that apparently random string of characters?
something that doesn't fit this context by gl4ss · 2012-08-14 23:41 · Score: 1

google+ is still lacking the ability for normal people to have sane user urls, so goog+ is still the one getting baited, punkd doesn't really fit at all.
he criticism still stands.. of course it's even worse than that since google is giving special treatment to special people who they decide are special people, the guy could write a comic about a guy who becomes the next teen sensation just to get his own short url.
but it's great advertisement for oatmeal now.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Where's the real article? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-14 23:47 · Score: 0

Your search - site:theoatmeal.com whore - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.
Click the Donkey Pie URL... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 02:45 · Score: 0

Click the Donkey Pie URL and find out!
Definitely NSFW!
I call bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-15 04:57 · Score: 0

I've searched for "5 Ways To Fight A Crack Whore" and haven't found a thing. What's going on?
Well.. by Cuddlah · 2012-08-16 00:34 · Score: 1

What if Inman's goal was to get Google+ to give him his very own, goofy URL pointer? Who punked who then?
Reversal is true, too by DrYak · 2012-08-16 00:43 · Score: 1

If you do not care about customers of your service, be it free or paid, they will wander away.
The reverse is also true:
- if you still have a big number of users continuing to use your service, that means that you already care enough about them.
(even if some loud netizens complain about not being listened to).
That still requires a few pre-conditions. Like absence of vendor lock-ins, or existence of compelling alternatives (i would have linked Bing as an example, if I didn't personally think it's worthless).
But nobody is forcing you to use Google services if you don't like them (and you indeed don't). That's why diversity is still good, no matter what supporter of the "paradox of choice" whine about.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]