Categories
Uncategorized

RSS feed reader blues? Get your feed in Microsoft Outlook and Office 365

ICYMI, Google Reader, Google Voice App for Blackberry, Google Cloud Connect, and Snapseed Desktop are shutting down. Hilarity ensued on the Internet with the melt down on social media over the change. As Danny Sullivan noted here, “Google should have done better by Google Reader & Google users than to bury its closure in a “spring cleaning” post.”

All the talk about RSS Readers reminded me of how important it is to listen and respond (this from 2011 via TechCrunch).

But I digress.

If you’re impacted by this announcement, have no fear: there are options, many great options.

First off, Good advice from Sara Hevans (@prsarahevans) on how to backup your Google Reader account http://aol.it/Wq3UkJ

Once you’ve backed up, you’ll need a new reader.

With all these options, you may already have an option on your desktop: you can also use Outlook in Microsoft Office to subscribe to an RSS feed as noted here.

So if you’re looking for RSS subscription and management? our own Office 365 Home Premium has that: http://help.outlook.com/en-us/140/cc511379.aspx

Quick links:

Tags: Microsoft, RSS, Outlook

Bookmark this on Delicious Bookmark and Share

Also available via https://aka.ms/RSSfeeds

Categories
Uncategorized

Six months and Google finally acknowledges I’m me: the troubles with “real” identities

(Written late last night, this addresses the long saga I’ve had with Google in confirming my name on their services.)

Busy week this, given we have so many great people in town for TechReady 14 in Seattle, but I’ll still try and find time to celebrate my eleventh anniversary at Microsoft. In my time here and in the industry, I’ve seen my share of interesting emails and headlines: last year at this time it was about the Transition to IPv6 and how it’s “not the End of the World”. (We’re still working hard on that transition, as are many of our customers, partners and much of the industry.) Today I reflected on another headline, especially poignant given some of the headlines we’re seeing today on our awareness campaign: “Google to give closed-door briefing on policy changes.”

Today’s interesting email comes from the oddest of places when you consider the topic…

Google.

If you’ve read some of my past posts, you know that it’s been several months since I first noted Google doesn’t believe I’m me, and the troubles with real identities. Back in August, I noted that Google’s new services had some trouble with my name and had suspended my profile (note that’s my emphasis in bold)as I violated the Google+ Names Policy.….

“It appears that the name you entered doesn’t comply with our Names Policy. The Names Policy requires that you use the name that you are commonly referred to in real life in your profile. Nicknames, maiden names, and so on, should be entered in the Other Names section of the profile. Profiles are currently limited to individuals; we will be launching a profile for businesses and other entities later this year.

“Your profile will be suspended until you do edit your name to comply with the Names Policy…”

Hmmm… I’ve heard something like that before: “You will comply. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.” Ah, okthxbai.

This was around the time that many folks were noting a heavy handed and less than level approach the company in Mountain View was applying, just as I encountered on Facebook. (But that was fixed… twice.)  I’ve been me longer than Google’s been Google (or perhaps their real name is actually “googool”? 😉 But I’ll let that slide for the moment. And I’ll pass on how less-than-NSFW spammers had better luck registering for Google’s service: see this post of “Google asleep at the switch” in ComputerWorld.

Columnist extraordinaire Violet Blue wrote last December in her post 2011: Nymwars Year Zero of how Google Plus with its “real names” policy ignited the Nymwars. She ran into the account suspensions buzz saw in Google+, running into a similar situation as I had, highlighting “Google Plus’ contradictory behavior: Google+ was simultaneously, blatantly allowing certain people to violate the policy.” (Vic, I wonder who they’re talking about?)  Liz Gannes wrote about this challenge in her article on how Google & Facebook want to unify our identities w/ single account (theirs). Mike Swift over at the San Jose Mercury News reported on the ‘Nymwars‘ debate over online identity, and just who decides how a person is known on the Internet. And several good folks noted the problem in Google + posts but to no avail, including this post on “Real unconventional names = bad. Fake ‘normal’ names = OK” from Mike Elgan, and this excerpt from an eloquent post by my friend, Jon Pincus…

“Dj ASHBA and Chamillionaire the Ceo are ok; Doc Popular, Technogran, and Kaliya IdentityWoman aren’t. 50 Cent and Jennifer 8. Lee are cool; M3 Sweatt isn’t.”  [ I hope that I’m still cool in some Circles. 😉 ]

A week ago, Violet Blue noted in her updated post how covered some of the new Google+ name policy changes, referencing Bradley Horowitz’s announcement in regard to the use of pseudonyms and nick names, and the need to allow these for many valid reasons. The new policy allows the addition of a nickname to a users’ pre-existing display name, and allows the use of pre-existing pseudonyms (with “a modicum of provable fame/notoriety). But I found little in the way of clarification or expedience on approving what they already outlined around “the name that you are commonly referred to in real life.” In his post, Mr. Horowitz continued their analysis of all name appeals on Google+, a majority wanted to add nicknames, about 20% were business names, and the last 20% would either prefer to use a pseudonym or another unconventional name. Which put me into that last bucket. What I found somewhat incredulous was this part of his post:

“Since launch we’ve listened closely to community feedback on our names policy, as well as reviewed our own data regarding signup completion. The vast majority of users sail through our signup process — in fact, only about 0.1% submit name appeals.”

Really? (/sethmeyers emphasis)  If you consider the “law of large numbers” and take the company’s membership numbers as gospel, you get figure of something like 90,000 appeals on the high side. Which makes me part of the 0.1%. 😉  More from Mr. Horowitz’s post:

“If we flag the name you intend to use, you can provide us with information to help confirm your established identity. This might include:
– References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc
– Scanned official documentation, such as a driver’s license
– Proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following”

Check, check and check: I’d provided all of these things in all prior attempts, just as I did with Facebook previously. I decided to submit my appeal one last time with the requested documentation, this time citing search engine results from Bing and Google… and one additional item: a list of names of folks I know at the company in Mountain View.

For some who found quick resolution, it took knowing the right person on the new social service, or getting through to Natalie Villalobos via Twitter. Others have had their requests languish for months, many ignored by what seems to be a less than optimal submission process that might get your name reviewed by a real person. I submitted information not once, twice, three times, but at least four. I even sent personal notes to old friends in Mountain View, including a couple to my former associate Vic Gundotra.

It’s taken me about six months since the Google robot reviewers adjudicated on my moniker. Today I found the following mail in my Inbox, the first email I’ve received from anyone at Google on the subject…

From: 111238458468081184848-noreply@google.com
To: M3 Sweatt
Subject: Your Google+ Appeal

Hello,
Thanks for sending us your appeal. You’re right: your name does comply with the Google+ Names Policy. Your name has been updated on your Google+ profile. If you submitted the appeal during sign up, your profile has now been restored. Log in to Google+.
Sorry for the inconvenience,
The Google+ team.
Log in to Google+. You can’t reply to this message.

Wow. Gee, kthxbai. I’m live on G+ here.

Actually, IIRC it does comply with the original Google+ Names Policy, but not the updated version of the policy that disallows the use of numbers, symbols, and obscure punctuation. The transliterated version of my name, 斯维特埃姆三, sailed through review, but I fear that folks like Bo3b Johnson will have a difficult time.

The last line in which I find indicative of this entire escapade: you can’t reply to this message. You may find it difficult to get a hold of a real person to review your real name (I’m not the only one getting a hold of customer support as noted here on theinquirer.net). I know how frustrating it is when you can’t reach a real person to resolve an issue with a big company, even at a company the size of Microsoft – hey, that’s one of the very things I spend my days working to improve across our product and services teams. We’re certainly not perfect, but we work really hard at improving our record.

Closing thoughts on all this? Unless you’re persistent, someone takes note of the issue, and have good support and documentation, you may have a long wait until someone agrees that you’re really you. Which frankly I don’t need Google to tell me that: Bing and other search engines help affirm what my friends, family and associates already know. In the end, Google still refers to me as a number (111238458468081184848), so it’s ironic numbers aren’t supported.

When a company asserts to manage my identity, they should work harder to correct their mistakes.

Tags: CPE, Microsoft, customer satisfaction, Social, Google

Bookmark and Share

Also available via http://bit.ly/Av3Wbg and on G+

Categories
Uncategorized

Bill Gross: Twenty Amazing Facts Learned at the 2012 World Economic Forum in Davos

Bill GrossBill Gross is founder of the technology incubator Idealab and more companies than I can count (he says “100 companies in last 30 years” so perhaps I can count that high). Mr. Gross tweeted “while on [his] quest for learning in life and at conferences.” (Follow him on Twitter as well as on his blog at http://www.BillGross.com.) 

So, a tip of the hat to you, sir: for me, the cost to attend WEF virtually and digest everything on the Davos stream in real time in my PJ’s: $0 (priceless 😉

With his coverage and that of the other quarter of attendees on Twitter, I was able to keep up in real time (which explains why I was cranky and tired this week) and almost felt as though I were in Davos. I appreciated the openess and how many people tweeted, published blog posts from the event, and the access the press had to attendees, with sessions live online in real-time (http://wef.ch/live).

But, sadly, without the incredible Swiss hospitality, food and snow. And the Occupy protesters!

So, from his tweets, here are Bill’s “Twenty Amazing Facts Learned at WEF 2012”

  1. There are only 52 companies on Earth worth more than Apple’s $97.6B hoard ofcash.
  2. Kodak invented the digital camera in 1975 & their board buried it b/c it looked too disruptive
  3. iTunes alone generated 50% more revenues than ALL of #Yahoo last year
  4. From Angela Merkel – “there are 23 million companies in the EU & there are 23 million jobless.”
  5. There were ~2,600 attendees & more than 5,000 Army members guarding #Davos – more than 2/attendee!
  6. There are 371,000 babies born each day. There are 377,900 iPhones sold each day.
  7. Annual growth in China 9%, India 8%, Africa 5.5%, Europe 0%.
  8. Over next several years world will need amount of food = to all produced in last 10,000 years!
  9. 89 percent of young people want a job that helps to change the world for the better.
  10. In a hyper connected world average is over as we all knew it – we are now competing with the whole planet.
  11. Spanish unemployment surges to 22.8%. Under 24 years old – 51.4%. Staggering.
  12. 1 in every 2 people in India is under 25 years old (and they want their piece of the pie).
  13. Because of corruption, U.S. investment in India went down from $24B in 2010 to $11B last year.
  14. The U.S. economy grew at its fastest pace in 1 and a half years in the 4th quarter of 2011.
  15. a: The poorest 2 billion people spend 40-60% of income on food & 15-20% on energy.  And 15 b: Each year of secondary school increases a girl’s future wages up to 20 percent.
  16. 47% of time spent using smartphones is spent on= Facebook.
  17. Apple’s cash reserve is enough to pay off the total public debt of 8 countries in the EU.
  18. New era of volatity – the S&P Index moved > 2% more than 60 days in 2011. In 2005 – Zero.
  19. Avg cost of attending Davos: Food ($2k) + Hotel ($3k) + Flights ($6k) + Transfers ($9k) + EntryFee ($20k) = $40,000
  20. On Hacking, the Intellectual Attacks come from China & the Financial Attacks come from Russia.

WRT number 19: $9K in transfers?!?

 

Tags: WEF, Davos, conferences, World Economic Forum, 2012.

Bookmark this on Delicious Bookmark and Share

Also available via http://bit.ly/yhVswI

Categories
Uncategorized

Six months and Google still doesn’t believe I’m me: the troubles with “real” identities

Remember when I noted that after three months, the nameless folks at Google insisted I wasn’t me ?

Well, I’ve been suspended by Google…

“Your profile has been suspended.

“It appears that the name you entered does not comply with the Google+ Names Policy.

“The Names Policy requires that you use the name that you are commonly referred to in real life in your profile. Nicknames, previous names, and so on, should be entered in the Other Names section of the profile. Profiles are limited to individuals; use Google+ Pages for businesses and other entities.”

In other words, I do not comply. 😉

After all these months, I’ve not been able to reach anyone in Google’s customer service department (do they have one?) or been contacted by the company for more information. I can’t even comment on the issue when raised on Google Plus, as raised by Mike Elgan.

Oh, well.

As I noted previously, perhaps Google should Bing it. Similar results on Google’s search site, too. To be frank, I was “M3” long before Google was, well Google,. And even then, I wonder if Google had tried to register their name, they’d be denied as it wasn’t their name wasn’t correct (see googol). And it’s been the subjuect of web humour and discussion as noted here and here. 

danah boyd wrote in her post about the the value of pseudonymity that “enforcing “real names” policies in online spaces is an abuse of power.” Since then, we have seen several high profile examples that have come to light, where both pseudonyms as well as real-life names were wantonly eradicated as Google enforced its “real names” policy.

As eloquently put by my friend, Jon Pincus,a few months ago when Plus was referred to a still being in the pilot phase…

“Meanwhile, back on the nymwars front, several of the people on the suggested users list have names that violate the guidelines.  It really highlights the inconsistency of Google’s policies: Dj ASHBA and Chamillionaire the Ceo are ok; Doc Popular, Technogran, and Kaliya IdentityWoman aren’t.  50 Cent and Jennifer 8. Lee are cool; M3 Sweatt isn’t. Once again, to quote Vic, there’s still a ways to go.”

True dat.
 
With a nod to my friend, Oliver, as I’m unable to get on + with the name that I am commonly referred to in real life, I transliterated it. Perhaps now someone at Google will approve it. 😉
 
More at https://plus.google.com/u/0/103606875168508866506
 
Given Vic Gundotra’s first name is Vivek, I wonder if his profile would’ve been denied? Or perhaps he’s leading the way on the use of ‘nyms, as they’re called. 😉 
 

Bookmark this on Delicious Bookmark and Share

Also available via http://bit.ly/zX4VcE
Categories
Uncategorized

Three months now and Google insists I’m not me. The troubles with “real” identities and the latest ‘nymwars’

Interesting article in today’s San Jose Mercury News: Who has the right to decide how you’re known on the Internet — you, or the online service you’re using?

‘Nymwars’ debate over online identity
explodes

Who has the right to decide how you’re known on the Internet
— you, or the online service you’re using? That simmering question, which
erupted with the launch of the new Google (GOOG)+ social network
this summer, rolled into a boil this week with two high-profile developments.

First, Facebook decided to enforce its “real names only” policy against internationally
known author Salman Rushdie, changing his page — without his consent — to the name
on his passport, Ahmed. Next, the Justice Department told Congress that it needs the ability to prosecute people who provide false information to websites with the intent to harm others, stirring fears across cyberspace that people might be busted for lying about their weight and age on Match.com.

It’s been three months: as noted in a prior post, Google doesn’t believe I’m me. This started in mid August when I found the following note from Google on my profile…

“After reviewing your profile, we determined that the name provided violates the Google+ Names Policy.”

Really?

This from Google’s policy…

“Your common name is the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, any of these would be acceptable.”

Maybe Google should Bing it. Similar results on Google’s search site, too.

At least Facebook has a customer service group of sorts to resolve these types of issues (although it took some time as I noted here).
Friends have still managed to find me on their network.
And an interesting side note: Given Vic Gundotra’s first name is Vivek, I wonder if his profile would’ve been denied? Or perhaps he’s leading the way on the use of ‘nyms, as they’re called. 😉

Tags: Social, Google

Bookmark this on Delicious Bookmark and Share

Also available via http://bit.ly/toUl0g