Please tell us why you're leaving Google Plus

[rmc28]

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 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.

Comments

[khalinche]

How incredibly asinine of them. I guess they don't want any Spanish-speaking or Vietnamese people to use their service, either.

[(Anonymous)]

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

[hobnobs]

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)]

Hm. My surname is also two words and I'm not getting any grief. (-- Tom)

[rmc28]

It might be that Supermouse has misunderstood; or maybe it only gets enforced when someone complains about your name, or only by certain enforcers. Anyway, the uncertainty is enough to put me off entirely for now.

I can always rejoin later, if/when all this stuff gets straightened out, but it's not like I have a lack of exciting internet socialising to keep up with.

[jack]

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.

[rmc28]

Exactly; and it would be far more upsetting to get all stuck in and then get randomly banned. I've left now while I don't care very much.

[gerald_duck]

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…

[rmc28]

It's what my friend reports ... whether it's universal or just the enforcement she's getting isn't clear. If anything the uncertainty makes me want to get out more.

[j4]

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!

[rmc28]

From that link, one of the things that triggers the automatic flagging system is "Spaces in either part of your name, for instance “Marie Claire” as a first name."

I am just not prepared to invest my time and effort into something with such uncertainty about whether I can use it, and which is excluding friends of mine.