April 2014

S M T W T F S
  12345
67891011 12
1314 15 161718 19
20 21 22 23242526
27282930   

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Saturday, August 20th, 2011 08:32 pm
Your names policy is stupid and excludes my surname, which appears on my passport, driving licence, all my credit cards, and my employer's identity card.

For the record, my surname is "Coleman Finch". Two words, not hyphenated. The UK government is happy with this, as is every financial, commercial and third-sector organisation with which I deal. Except you.

I do not want to put any more effort into this service when I could lose it all at any moment if you decide to enforce your stupid and thoughtless "one word surname" policy on me.




Edited to add: My understanding of the surname policy comes from [personal profile] supermouse's report of what she's learned since being reported to G+ for having an "inappropriate username". As Google haven't made their names policy public for checking, I have the choice between trusting Google or trusting someone I've known on and off for over a decade.
Tags:
Saturday, August 20th, 2011 08:06 pm (UTC)
How incredibly asinine of them. I guess they don't want any Spanish-speaking or Vietnamese people to use their service, either.
(Anonymous)
Saturday, August 20th, 2011 08:09 pm (UTC)
This is just one reason amongst many why I've given up G+ as a bad job until they work out WTF they are doing. The myriad other reasons are well documented elsewhere but that currently dislike it more than FB (which may suck but at least it doesn't pretend to be other than it is) is quite an achievement considering I really wanted to like it and prefer the interface.
I wasn't thrilled either when R found herself being offered names which could only arise from data matching private address books not explicitly connected by their owners.
hypatia
Sunday, August 21st, 2011 02:25 am (UTC)
I wasn't thrilled either when R found herself being offered names which could only arise from data matching private address books not explicitly connected by their owners.

:-O

Wasn't that interested in G+ before, and that comment has just made it a guaranteed swerve!
(Anonymous)
Saturday, August 20th, 2011 09:06 pm (UTC)
Hm. My surname is also two words and I'm not getting any grief. (-- Tom)
Saturday, August 20th, 2011 09:40 pm (UTC)
I've only heard second hand, but the impression I get is that it's very much inconsistent. And that if there's a problem you probably but not certainly will be entitled to use your legal name if you jump through the hoop of providing them a photocopy of your passport or similar. But that there's still no way to guarantee you won't be randomly banned later for something superficial that wasn't made clear and someone just happened to think might be a problem later.
Saturday, August 20th, 2011 11:35 pm (UTC)
That's got to be wrong, hasn't it? Google couldn't possibly object to multi-word surnames. Surely someone in Google has heard of at least one of Vincent van Gogh, Leonardo da Vinci, Wernher von Braun, Dick Van Dyke, President Martin Van Buren…
[personal profile] j4
Sunday, August 21st, 2011 08:02 am (UTC)
If you do want more details about the G+ names policy, Skud has documented it in quite a lot of detail. I didn't realise two-part surnames fell foul of their ridiculous rules!