Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Larry Page Issues Public Update On Google Changes

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the trust-us-we're-not-evil dept.

Google 159

itwbennett writes "Larry Page just wants to be loved. Well, he wants 'Google to be a company that is deserving of great love,' Page wrote in a public letter. But he also wants to offer the kind of personalized service that the requires trampling on your privacy. 'The recent changes we made to our privacy policies generated a lot of interest. But they will enable us to create a much better, more intuitive experience across Google — our key focus for the year,' Page wrote." From the letter: "Think about basic actions like sharing or recommendations. When you find a great article, you want to share that knowledge with people who will find it interesting, too. If you see a great movie, you want to recommend it to friends. Google+ makes sharing super easy by creating a social layer across all our products so users connect with the people who matter to them." With all the claims of altruistic intent in the open letter, one might wonder why Google has to push their own social network instead of working on open protocols for sharing.

cancel ×

159 comments

More iffy Slashdot editorial (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39596983)

I'm not really a Google fan. I deleted quite a lot of my information when they announced the privacy policy change. I don't use Google+.

But, really, "why didn't Google work on Diaspora"? Give me a break.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597179)

FTS: "one might wonder why Google has to push their own social network instead of working on open protocols for sharing."

Right, like Facebook is gonna share with Google.

(And nobody else really matters...)

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (2)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597211)

Well, they aren't going to beat Facebook with + either. They need to band together with others in some sort of interoperable open social network if they are to have any hope at all. It worked for web standards vs. Microsoft. It can work for open social networking vs. Facebook.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597421)

Why would they need to band together with others, though? In the social networking space you have Facebook on top, Google a distance second, and nobody else even worth mentioning. If there were a lot of mid-sized players out there who combined could equal a significant fraction of Facebook's user base it would make sense, but there aren't.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (0)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597737)

Compare to IE with 90%+ for the browser market, but that was beaten with the standards-supporting strategy. And there are other mid-sized players out there--Twitter for example. Don't get me wrong, I don't think any strategy has much hope. I think they'd be better off thinking about what comes after "social". Perhaps Google would be better off going more platform-y, like Amazon seems to be doing.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (0)

SupportLine (2612189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598441)

IE wasn't really beaten with standards-supporting strategy, it was beaten with heavy marketing.

During Firefox days this was mostly done by fanboys. I'm sure you have seen those fanboys shouting out how great browser Firefox is (was) and even going out on their way to install it on all computers at their schools and other places, usually without permission. The most nerdy ones in my class did it too, and the whole internet was heavily spammed with "get firefox" shit back in 2005 or so.

Now during Chrome days, the marketing is handled by Google on their search engine, YouTube, ads on television and even billboards and newspapers, and by paying computer manufacturers and software authors to bundle it with their products. As most people are clueless this has greatly increased Chromes market share.

IE9 is also actually a really good browser. And, One of the largest research centers on Earth is Microsoft Research [microsoft.com] , and in my honest opinion they deserve some credit for that. No other company on the planet spends billions on R&D.

This lines well with Bill Gates support for helping the humankind. Did you know that Bill Gates has actually spend more on curing the world than U.S. spends on foreign aid? Since 2007 he has given out $28 BILLION for saving lives and improving actually necessary things [businessinsider.com] .

Even if you hate Microsoft and Bill Gates, you cannot ignore the fact that for once there's a billionaire who has actually used his cash reserves for great good. Compare this to the Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin who use their shady money got from selling your private information for buying 193-foot long yachts and marrying models (Lucinda Southworth) [dailymail.co.uk] , similar to what MPAA/RIAA/record label executives do.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598711)

I'm no MS fan boy, but you are 100% on about Microsoft Research. When I lived in the Seattle area, a friend of a friend got me on the focus testing list for MS Research and I got to go down to Redmond a few times to talk about the Xbox webpages and live.com.

It's an amazing place with extremely dedicated researchers.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (2)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598811)

IE9 the only relevant point in your post is not a really good browser. It is way better than its predecessors but is still well behind the field in every way.

IE10 may be better but will still be behind. It's not the browser it's the render engine and lack of pluggable architecture mixed with the fact that its render engine is not cross platform.

Chrome runs on all major OS distributions and WebKit is by far the top render engine on the desktop but especially on mobile.

All that other stuff is nice though.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39599049)

Even if you hate Microsoft and Bill Gates, you cannot ignore the fact that for once there's a billionaire who has actually used his cash reserves for great good. Compare this to the Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin who use their shady money got from selling your private information for buying 193-foot long yachts and marrying models (Lucinda Southworth) [dailymail.co.uk], similar to what MPAA/RIAA/record label executives do.

You obviously haven't seen Gates' yacht and primary residence.

I'm not saying he isn't "good guy Gates" for his contributions, just that maybe buying something extravagant doesn't preclude you from being a good, charitable person, too.

And let's not just completely ignore things like the Brin Wojcicki Foundation, et al.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597751)

Because, having one contributor to a standard is no better than having a private entity like Facebook. Unless it's community driven, it will always be suspect, and Google has already proven it can't be trusted with your data any more than any other company. Perhaps less so since it's profit is driven by the sale of such data.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598057)

Because, historically, closed communication systems, once they reach a certain critical mass, have only been displaced by more open systems. A new player can't compete easily an entrenched player because of network effects, but lots of new players can gain control of niches that the major player doesn't satisfy and if they all interoperate then between them they can become as large as the major player - then network effects work the other way.

Google realised this with Google Talk, which is a federated XMPP deployment. On its launch day, Google Talk users could talk with millions of existing XMPP users. The XMPP installed base was probably smaller than AIM or MSNM, but it was already fairly large.

If Google pushed an open standard (hopefully not Diaspora, but something actually designed via a process involving actual thought) then they'd get interoperability with the group of people who don't trust companies like Facebook and Google - probably by now the largest set of people who aren't already on Facebook - and with anyone else who wanted a small slice of this market. Instead, they pushed something that has more or less the same set of disadvantages as Facebook, but without the one real advantage that Facebook has: lots of existing users.

Also, misses the facts (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598163)

FTS: "one might wonder why Google has to push their own social network instead of working on open protocols for sharing."

Right, like Facebook is gonna share with Google.

Well, that, and the fact that google didn't push their own social network instead of working on open protocols for sharing.

Google has pushed a number of open standards for information exchange, both in general and in the social space specifically.

They also are pushing their own social network.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (2, Interesting)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597261)

Could not agree more. Agree with the direction or not, Google is trying to make the experience better (a social layer could have benefits), so that they can profit more. They are not interested in making the experience better if it will not lead to increased profits...why would they?! Most of us do not think G+ is implemented that well yet or that it is not worth the privacy tradeoffs, but they absolutely zero reason to try to use an open platform.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (5, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598297)

The fact that Google made it exceedingly easy for you to delete the information it has on you did not make you a fan?
And it was not an all or nothing thing either. I could choose what to delete and what to keep.

Re:More iffy Slashdot editorial (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39598373)

Larry and Sergey are engineers at heart with good intentions. The issue here is that, over the years, they have surrounded themselves with utter assholes like Vic Gundotra (the asshole behind the Real Names fiasco), Andy Rubin (the hypocrite who restricted access to Honeycomb), David Drummond (Chief Legal Asshole), and so on and so forth.

I think some of Google's products are fantastic. However the price to pay (your privacy) is too high. So I don't use any Google product, ever.

--
Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

here's an idea (4, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597015)

how about when searching via google you actually get links related to your search, instead of everything others have tagged their pages with?
Oh, but that is not something google can do.

Now everyone knows how to take down the usefulness of google, have at it...

Re:here's an idea (5, Interesting)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597067)

hell even G+ is forcing crap at us all the time. Larry, remember why Google became great in the first place - it had an unobtrusive search page that was not filled to bursting with flashing banners and adverts.

So why does Google+ homepage insist on sticking a "what's hot" crap across the stream of stuff I've decided I want to see? Why is there a 'best of' G+ banner that you can't turn off?

Tell you what Larry, turn on location services on your phone so we can all see exactly where you are all the time, and open your email so we can see everything you're doing. Even just show us the feed of 'personalisations' that Google is accumulating based on your browsing, email and G+ activities.

Then we can talk privacy.

Re:here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597163)

Yeah, I initially really liked G+, but that "what's hot" nonsense made me stop going. Well, that and everyone else that I talk to stayed on Facebook.

Re:here's an idea (5, Informative)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597371)

The "What's Hot" was initially annoying but once they added the "volume sliders" to it so that you could just drop the volume to 0 (which says "Show nothing from What's hot in your stream") the problem went away. They do still have a fairly rapid rate of change on G+.

If you haven't already set that slider, click the "What's Hot" link on the left panel of G+ below the "Stream" section. It will show a volume slider in the center area near the top. Slide that all the way to the left, then click back to your stream. Problem solved!

Re:here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597589)

The problem is that I haven't logged into it since before they added the "slider".

Now that I went over there and checked, nobody else in my circles has in like two months, either.

You don't get too many chances to make mistakes when you're trying to build a social network. G+ had momentum once, and it lost it. A pity, really; I much preferred their interface to what FB has been doing. But oh well, that's life.

Re:here's an idea (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597619)

Yep, another thread of poster whining about a non problem. You can turn all of that off. They would rather be haters then take 2 minute to figure out how to use the product they have.
IT's like listening to old people be angry because their VCR flashes 12.

Re:here's an idea (1)

SupportLine (2612189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597973)

Yep, another thread of poster whining about a non problem. You can turn all of that off. They would rather be haters then take 2 minute to figure out how to use the product they have.
IT's like listening to old people be angry because their VCR flashes 12.

This is quite true for all the complaints about Facebook, too.

Re:here's an idea (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598121)

IT's like listening to old people be angry because their VCR flashes 12.

Why not be angry about that? Adding a small rechargeable battery that keeps the clock powered when the mains goes out would add, maybe, 50 cents to the cost of production. Not doing it is just indicative of poor design and lack of attention to detail.

A large part of good UI design is having sane defaults. Saying 'no, it doesn't suck because you can log in and then click on the don't suck checkbox and then it's fine' does not actually make it a good UI.

Re:here's an idea (0)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597699)

I turned "What's Hot" off just fine. Click on "What's Hot" on the left bar and a helpful notice pops up on the new page telling you how to adjust its display on your main page.

Profit! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597017)

1) We need to know your friends, so we can help you share things.
2) We need to know what like, so we can offer you things.
3) We need to know what your thinking so we can sell it.
4) Profit!

Re:Profit! (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597621)

And more... I'll tell you a thing Larry. Stop trying to stick G+ up our ...

Yesterday I was checking my AdSense account. On the first page I got a "reminder" this BIG: Have you already gotten a G+ account? That will help you maximize your ads profits, blah blah... Yes Larry I already HAVE one G+ account (that I have used once or twice to just check it out and see what its greatness is). Didn't see the greatness anywhere.

Oh and stop bothering me with it on my Analytics account as well.

I stopped reading pretty quickly (3, Insightful)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597023)

The statements of the CEO are irrelevant. The actions of the company are relevant. Google's actions have crept closer and closer to "evil" since they went public. When this changes, i'll reevaluate.

Re:I stopped reading pretty quickly (5, Insightful)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597273)

Don't Look Evil

Eh, that's close enough.

Re:I stopped reading pretty quickly (1)

mikein08 (1722754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597599)

You are indeed correct. What Google is most interested in is selling advertising. Everything else is secondary.

Re:I stopped reading pretty quickly (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597847)

And when it doesn't change? You'll... use Bing? Use Facebook? Use Facebook enabled Bing? Use Siri?

Google really isn't in a position of worrying about "Are they now evil?" pundits. Because, quite bluntly, they're still least evil. And so long as that is true, there is no re-evaluation necessary.

Re:I stopped reading pretty quickly (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598177)

I've been using DuckDuckGo as my search engine for over a year now. It uses (among other things) Bing via Yahoo's BYOSS API, but it doesn't pass any information about me to them and it doesn't use tracking cookies and works via SSL by default. The search results are usually good enough, and the few times they haven't been I've tried Google and got equally bad results there. The only Google service that I do regularly use is YouTube (which ClickToPlugin makes vaguely useable), and that's hardly something I couldn't live without.

Re:I stopped reading pretty quickly (1)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597889)

This is the demographic he's interested in:

When you find a great article, you want to share that knowledge with people who will find it interesting, too. If you see a great movie, you want to recommend it to friends.

I don't want to necessarily share anything. I want to search, that's all. Now I've moved my 'business' to a company that focuses on Search and avoids the profiling and making assumptions about what I want to do with what I've found.

Re:I stopped reading pretty quickly (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598037)

At the risk of asking you to make a plug, which company might that be?

Re:I stopped reading pretty quickly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39598627)

Note that none of that is directly Larry's or Sergey's fault, but the fault of the huge assholes they decided to put in upper management (from big to small asshole order): Vic Gundotra, Eric Schmidt, Andy Rubin, David Drummond.

--
Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

Simple... (1)

atomicxblue (1077017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597035)

There's no profit in supporting the open platform versus G+.

Re:Simple... (5, Insightful)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597177)

Actually, I think there would be for Google. I'd argue that they should be concentrating on keeping the web from being swallowed up by huge sites like Facebook, which will develop their own advertising and revenue streams. If they supported an open platform for social networking, it's more likely that the landscape would comprise a bunch of smaller players--who would get their revenue through Google ads.

I think this is essentially their strategy with Android. It's a better strategy than going into direct competition with Facebook, which has got them--and will continue to get them--nowhere.

Re:Simple... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598323)

Actually, I think there would be for Google. I'd argue that they should be concentrating on keeping the web from being swallowed up by huge sites like Facebook, which will develop their own advertising and revenue streams.

They are. That's rather the point of Google own social networking efforts.

Pushing open standards without their own strong social networking system (as they have in the past) was a failure. Just as their fight to drive more general web standards the way they wanted led to building their own browser that directly competed with the existing dominant browsers, and their fight to avoid the mobile space from being locked up by a dominant vendor that wasn't Google that could lock Google out of revenues led to building their own mobile OS that competed directly with the existing dominant mobile OSs, so their fight to stop the web getting locked up by a single social networking vendor leads to building a social network that competes with Facebook.

I think this is essentially their strategy with Android. It's a better strategy than going into direct competition with Facebook

Their strategy with Android was going into direct competition with Apple for mobile OS's and linked services (they didn't compete with them as directly with handsets, but they aren't concerned with Apple-as-handset-manufacturer, they are concerned with Apple-as-mobile-OS-vendor.)

So, applying their strategy with Android to social networking would be "a better strategy than going into direct competition with Facebook", it would be exactly the strategy of going into direct competition with Facebook.

(And its a strategy that's worked with Chrome and Android, though in both cases early on people said that those efforts were doomed to have little benefit for Google given how well established the major competition was in each area, and that Google would be better off not going to toe-to-toe with them.)

It's obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597055)

"With all the claims of altruistic intent in the open letter, one might wonder why Google has to push their own social network instead of working on open protocols for sharing."

Because the open protocols are half-finished, and used by absolutely no-one? Anything Google makes will almost instantly have more users.

Re:It's obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39598141)

Since the protocols are free/open source, Google could easily get their engineers to work on them. A lot more people would begin to use them if Google promoted them. Think if, instead of Google+, Google had opened up their own Diaspora network. This would've been at least as popular as Plus...probably more, because it's much more of a paradigm break than creating an in-house Facebook/Diaspora clone. (That is, it's much easier to defend a project like that, than making yet another walled garden social network. After all, as many have pointed out, we already have Facebook for that.)

Yes, and you can do that with Twitter (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597057)

or any of about thirty different forums

Here, let me Google that for you: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597079)

"Buy 'open protocols for sharing' at Walmart!"

Intuitive = Intrusive (4, Insightful)

bogidu (300637) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597137)

Spin it any way you want, if your goal is to have a system that just 'feels like it knows me' then it HAS to collect data on you to personalize the experience.

Re:Intuitive = Intrusive (3, Insightful)

chronoglass (1353185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597487)

plus.. won
seriously, there is a give and take. I hadn't really connected the dots on what all of this info meant until I met with microsoft research.. some of the really cool stuff they are doing, they can only do because they have systems in place that will collect a STUPID amount of data. regardless of if it's immediately apparent that it'll be needed.

you just can't allow a computer to make correlation and causation decisions without having the massive amount of info available to it.. that we as humans (with our fancy sensor arrays) take for granted.

Re:Intuitive = Intrusive (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597827)

Why would I need a system to 'feel like it knows me'? I already know me. I don't need my computer to remind me what I like.

Hey larry (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597157)

Your changes all suck.

And google + is stupid. Go back to being a good little search engine company we can mostly trust and stop fucking things up because you're bored.

Here's a tip. (1, Flamebait)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597185)

Well, he wants 'Google to be a company that is deserving of great love

If you want to be loved? Do some loving.
I'm sorry, but lately Google has given reason after reason to hate, not love.
A.K.A.
YER DOIN' IT WRONG.

Re:Here's a tip. (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597603)

Ah, another post from some who has no idea why he hates google.

All the hate generate toward Google regarding there recent changes is bullshit. A bunch of whiner who don't even know what they are talking about. The changes made it better, gave the users more power, and made it easier to understand.

Re:Here's a tip. (4, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597801)

Yes, I totally don't know what I"m talking about.

The instant search on by default and having to turn it off every time I image a computer is awesome.
The annoying as shit "+you" button and increased social media results are awesome.
The increased ads on google itself are awesome.
Google's intrusive changes to it's privacy policy are awesome (this is one I've only heard about, I don't care myself, but a lot of people seem to)
The annoying as shit changes to iGoogle are awesome
The loss of functionality on youtube is awesome.
Dude, I could go on and fucking on, I think I do know why google's bugging the shit out of me.

Re:Here's a tip. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39598737)

The instant search on by default and having to turn it off every time I image a computer is awesome.

More people like that feature than not.

The annoying as shit "+you" button and increased social media results are awesome.

Google pretty much has to do this this to stay competitive with Facebook, big f-ing deal.

The increased ads on google itself are awesome.

Seriously? Hello, it's a FREE AD SUPPORTED SERVICE. Plus, it's still way below many sites (jesus, look at Yahoo these days), and have you ever heard of AdBlock? It even works in Chrome.

Google's intrusive changes to it's privacy policy are awesome (this is one I've only heard about, I don't care myself, but a lot of people seem to)

So don't list it.

The annoying as shit changes to iGoogle are awesome

And other people like them, big deal.

The loss of functionality on youtube is awesome.

The Youtube UI has always sucked. And that doesn't really have much to do with Google as a whole, they pretty much leave Youtube alone for a lot of that (kind of wish they didn't).

So, your reasons are mostly idiotic, but yes, you hate Google. Why the fuck do you still use it then?

Re:Here's a tip. (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39599127)

So, your reasons are mostly idiotic

Uh, no shit? There's a reason I chose my username.
I never said my reasons didn't suck, I simply stated that I had them, where as the person I was replying to said I had none.

Re:Here's a tip. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39598963)

Google fanboi much? Why don't start thinking for yourself for a change?

--
Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

Re:Here's a tip. (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598589)

No, you just don't get it. Most people don't. You see, Google's love is very different from that of a square. [youtube.com]

Open protocols won't help... (5, Interesting)

blue_adept (40915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597193)

Open protocols don't help when everyone stops making webpages and moves to Facebook, which isn't publicly crawlable. Remember when everyone wanted their OWN website, and websites linked meaningfully to other websites, and there was a whole ecosystem of small, independent webpages with information on a crazy number of niche topics, and everyone's webpage had links to other webpages that they thought were cool? That doesn't really exist anymore. THAT web is dead. If Wikipedia and Craigslist, and a dozen other silo-type sites are all that's left to crawl (if they decide to let Google do it), how important is Google, really? The web has changed, and Google had to change or die with it. Google+ is just Google's attempt at taking what's left of the public, open web and internalize it (and make it all 'social' content mostly not publicly crawlable, ironically). So yeah, the (open) web really is dead, or will be soon.

Re:Open protocols won't help... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597227)

No, that web still exists, and it's still about the same size it was. Which is pretty infuriating, compared to how many people and how much content is on the web in total, with the oldschool web thus an ever-diminishing percentage, but it's not quite as bad as you paint it.

Re:Open protocols won't help... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39598005)

It's because the old school web was/is largely built around old schools! Students and staff had access to Internet connected machines where they could plop random web pages and services that would be available 24x7. We continue to do that, now often hosting our own wikis where we used to have static web pages: for research groups, open source projects funded by research budgets, etc.

The modern expansion of the web has added very asymmetric users who have transient, NAT-hidden presence. Their default solution is to publish content is to use some intermediary like wikipedia or facebook to host the content for them. This has gone on long enough that it's changed the culture of the web. Most users don't even think about alternatives.

You see many companies falling somewhere in the middle. They can host content but it is often in a separate hosting facility, not quite the same as our universities (where every desktop has a public IPv4 address and essentially optional firewalls).

Parent right, and it get's worse for Instant Uploa (2)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597911)

Except that I'd add that Google+ pushes "Hey, why not make this public?" while still defaulting to private, for instant uploads for instance.

I'll be honest, this discussion is far better than listening people bitch about the privacy implications of instant upload, which is private and will always be private, unless you specifically set an upload to public.

Why do they bitch? ZOMG, It "Asked permission to upload!" FREAK OUT, RUN AWAY! HOW DARE THEY ASK! UNINSTALL!

Yeah. I can only take so much stupid before I bail out of such conversations.

Re:Open protocols won't help... (1)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598681)

Open protocols don't help when everyone stops making webpages and moves to Facebook, which isn't publicly crawlable. Remember when everyone wanted their OWN website, and websites linked meaningfully to other websites, and there was a whole ecosystem of small, independent webpages with information on a crazy number of niche topics, and everyone's webpage had links to other webpages that they thought were cool? That doesn't really exist anymore. THAT web is dead.

And once upon a time, there was this guy named Steve Case, who thought he owned the future of the internet. What the last 18 years have taught me is that as soon as someone thinks they've created the new standard, someone else decides to improve upon it and make theirs the new standard. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Re:Open protocols won't help... (2)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598985)

The fallacy there is assuming that Facebook is a universal constant. If there's anything that anyone who knows about the "old school" net is that you're never too big to fail and fail quickly. Facebook's IPO won't be good for it's users. When Facebook fails people will have the choice of jumping to another abusive service or using the next generation of tools to take personal ownership of their content. How many do the latter will depend on in what matter Facebook fails.

Google says they need to know all about you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597197)

Because that's how the their owners, the NSA, want it. Their proper name is NSA/Google. Now you know who they really answer to.

No company is deserving of "great love" (3, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597205)

I love people, I love freedom and some other abstract concepts, but there's absolutely no way no how that I will give love to a corporation.

A corporation is a social and legal arrangement that exists to make money for its shareholders. It does this by producing 1 or more products, selling them to customers, and paying a portion of their sales to their employees as wages, another portion to the suppliers, and giving the remainder to their shareholders. That's it. It's a purely economic affair, and thus any dealings I have with a corporation are a purely economic relationship.

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (3, Interesting)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597395)

Huh? While I agree that the "great love" stuff is nauseating hyperbole, characterising companies as "purely economic affair[s]" is just silly. Companies are made up of people, selected by the people already in the company (while hiring), and people who want to work there (by applying). So you end up with a bunch of people who are selected for a particular mindset. The result of this is that companies have all sorts of differing priorities, motives, directions and products. This is particularly noticeable in tech, where there are ideological divisions between competing companies.

Money, is of course one of the big concerns, but I would argue that it's not necessarily the biggest. Apple seems to be largely motivated to make products that are insanely focussed on a certain type of user experience. Google by large-scale information sorting and similar technological problems. This is what make people want to work at these places.

Respect for a company is no stranger that respect for any other group of people.

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (2)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597519)

While I agree that the "great love" stuff is nauseating hyperbole

Am I the only one who finds it flat out creepy? It has an evangelical taint to it.

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (1)

ZFox (860519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597685)

While I agree that the "great love" stuff is nauseating hyperbole Am I the only one who finds it flat out creepy? It has an evangelical taint to it.

Is it any different if you love a good restaurant or a fun bar? Is it only the fact that they are in love with an "evil corporation" or is the problem with the strength of the word, love?

While it does have an evangelical taint to it, it is at it's purest level: a consumer advocating a product they really love on their own volition. Granted, the cynic in me does often assume most to be astroturfers (which I don't find as creepy, as I do enraging). Although, this is nothing new (e.g. it always reminds me of the snake oil salesmen that had members of the audience that they have never met, before).

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597887)

Usually when you're in love with someone, they love you back. If they don't, you're just a stalker...

Now put that in context with google, that doesn't even know you exist, other than as 'data' to sell to the highest bidder.

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (3, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597535)

It's a mistake to think of your relationship with a company as anything other than economic. For instance:
Employee: You do work, they give you money. Either you or the employer can end the relationship at any time (well, in the US at least, the employer can at any time, whereas you are generally expected to work another 2 weeks), and the employer will probably not hesitate to do so if it's in their economic interest to do so.

Shareholder: You invest in the company and possibly vote on who you want on the board of directors, the company gives you money periodically as dividends or reinvests the profits so you can sell your stake for a higher price. Again, there's no emotional relationship in the least, and it's not totally uncommon for a CEO to rip off the company screwing the shareholders.

Customer: You give them money, they give you a product or service. Again, that's a 1-time economic deal, and they don't give a damn about you after you've given them money unless you're going to try to get the money back (demanding a refund, threatening a lawsuit, etc).

Supplier: They give you money, you give them a product or service. The only reason they might want to maintain a good relationship is if they want to have another round of trading.

Basically, once your particular economic transaction is over, the corporation doesn't give a rats behind about you. Which makes it absolutely stupid to love a corporation. That doesn't mean the people at that corporation are evil, just that they will do what's in their economic self-interest.

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (2)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597893)

Um, I didn't make any sort of argument that companies care about me personally, although I would argue that people within companies can and do care about their employees personally (within limits). My argument is that companies can carry philosophies, ideas, and organisational creativity which are not purely economic, and might be worthy of respect. Do you actually disagree with this?

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598105)

Both Apple and Google are experts in marketing. Apple's iXXX branding starting with the iPOD to the iPAD has left it's competitors temporarily behind but their market share will eventually be whittled down as the Android based devices stabilize. Just like the MS versus Apple PC battle the proprietary hardware and software approach was crushed by the MS commodity hardware support and emphasis on software development support approach. Since the mobile market has exploded it was easier for Apple to change direction than for MS. They already had their hardware manufacturing network in place. Although Apple almost blew it when they chose AT&T as the sole service carrier for the initial iPhone roll out.

Google has always been an advertising and marketing company that uses bleeding edge technology which hides the companies true motivation and revenue stream.

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598201)

While I disagree with just about everything you've just asserted (without backing arguments), I don't see what it has to do with my post. Why have you felt the need to share this blather with me?

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598575)

Cause I was not replying to you it was a reply to the post right above yours. And I am sorry if I used any big words that might have confused you but this whole fucking thread about Google, Facebook, Privacy, Corporate greed, blah, blah is just just another example of the decline of this site. Nobody pays or is forced to use any Google or Facebook services and it is entirely up to the individual on how much private information they post on the net so getting upset about someone invading your privacy after willing posting your life history online is bullshit. Sorry for confusing you but I bet you are use to hearing that a lot.

Re:No company is deserving of "great love" (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598875)

Wow, you're all over the place, aren't you? While you have the germs of some coherent ideas in in your last couple of posts, they are largely a mish-mash of barely-related talking points. Concentrate.

Dodd / Dud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597285)

Google will not be loved if it is, as alleged/alluded to by Chris Dodd (MPAA), involved in secret, back room meetings with said MPAA and the RIAA.

Larrry, please... (2)

bhlowe (1803290) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597295)

Bring back Google Code search.. http://www.google.com/codesearch [google.com]

That would be one huge way to make this developer happy.

Seems like a good way to target ads to specific programmers too..

Freedom of choice (2)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597297)

When you find a great article, you want to share that knowledge with people who will find it interesting

And if you do, just cut/paste the url and send it. There are a heap of ways doing this and most don't require me to convince my friends to join FB or G+ or other crap, bullshit sites.
What I really don't like about the way social media/networking sites are going is that they force you to do things the way they want you to. Often that is just inconvenient and loses the personal link you have with your friends. It's much more friendly sending an email or link than 'sharing it' with a myriad of batshit crazies or circles or whatever epithet some moronic social designer has made up.
It's just bullshit. Nothing more. And we as trendsetting individuals are supposed to follow the latest gimmick, get all edukated about it and be one with the in-crowd. Why? WTF?
Sure there's a place for it, but the shear drain on logging in and posting inane crap is just too much and too boring, wasted time and energy for nought.
FB and G+ only exists in my world for project status updates and contact details, nothing more.

Re:Freedom of choice (3, Funny)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597513)

Sure there's a place for it, but the shear drain on logging in and posting inane crap is just too much and too boring, wasted time and energy for nought.

posted on slashdot...

Re:Freedom of choice (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597581)

"And if you do, just cut/paste the url and send it"
That reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother about mail 17 years ago. Where my mother said:

"If you want to tell someone something, you just pick up the phone and call them."

Just thought I would share with you, grand pa.

Um, Google DID try open source first: OpenSocial (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597327)

Long before there was Google+, Google tried to standardize the web with an open social platform that anyone could use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSocial

  In the end, though, people didn't want to adopt it. The problem is that, like proprietary format wars, there's a lot to be gained by being the dominant player with a closed ecosystem. Facebook does not want to share its data or platform with other people.

Can't have it both ways (4, Insightful)

ErichTheRed (39327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597363)

The problem is that for all the cool stuff they build and make available, Google is an advertising agency. Their core job is to get advertisers to spend money on ads targeted at you. I'm a little bit older than the current "millenial" crowd who is supposed to be influencing the future of computing, and I find some of the stuff Facebook, Google and other advertisers do very creepy. Not in a tinfoil hat kind of way, but in a "I'm not totally comfortable with an advertising agency knowing everything I search for, every YouTube video I watch, every email I send if I use Gmail, who my acquaintances are and what I like if I use Google+ -- and then using that to build a package to sell to an advertiser."

Facebook and Google have done a very good job eradicating this creepy feeling from the younger set. They're very smart about it too -- Facebook is incredibly easy to use and fun for people to post pictures and share all their personal information. Google is incredibly useful -- I'd be lost without their search engine or mapping features embedded in the iPhone. When you grow up using a certain set of technology, and have been posting everything about yourself on Facebook since you were 7, I can see why a person might pull out the tinfoil hat designation on someone like me. Privacy policy change or not, people aren't going to stop using the service they love until something happens. I think what's going to happen eventually is that some people might realize they're sharing too much, not get a job because of their social media profile, or maybe just get the creepy feeling I was talking about. (Example: I went online to check airfare to a city I need to be in next month, and this morning, up pops a Delta ad offering low low fares to that city. It's not a big deal because I've never clicked on an advertisement or sponsored link in my life, so they don't directly make any money off me. It's just the feeling that another record got added to Google's database about my set of cookies.)

So yeah, it's not so much that they collect your data -- everyone knows that. It's the fact that your profile is readily accessible and way more plugged into your life than was previously possible. Before the current age of zero privacy, constructing a profile on someone meant digging through a lot of different sources of information, most of which were not accessible directly. It's the same argument that prevents national electronic health records from being implemented -- there's always the possibility that someone knowing what's in these can negatively affect you (medical/life insurance companies would love that kind of access, for example.) If Google and the like want to keep this kind of model going, I think they're going to have to be a little less overt about it.

Backwards (2)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597991)

You make great points, but you have one thing backwards.

Would it creep a female out to see an ad that apparently knows they are female?

Who knows you're femail? Google or the ad? The answer you seem to have is the ad. The real answer is Google.

It's like ads for the GAP. GAP doesn't know who a douche is. They just market to the douche segment. If they place such ads at douchy concerts, it's not because they had to survey the crowd. They just know where the big douche congregations are.

Same difference if you go on Google and search "vaginal cream". You're probably not a guy with that search.

The other way they know is informations you A) give to them or B) is found on the web. Can Rick Santorum scrub his results? No. Is this a privacy issue? For him, maybe. Problem is, if its online, it's public knowledge.

The EU would like to change that. Force companies to scrub the web. And frankly, that's just horseshit. That's modern day book burning and heretic scourging.

Re:Can't have it both ways (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598903)

I'm in full blown creepy-land too.

I recently took a trip to SF and booked a hotel from a particular chain. I found it via a google map search by searching for "hotel" in the vicinity of the event I was attending. The bubble that popped up had a reasonable price and a link to their site so I clicked it and booked a room. Ever since then, I see nothing but ads for this particular hotel chain on every website I visit. If there are spots for, say, 3 different ads on a website, all three of them will be advertising this same chain.

Seriously disturbing stuff...

Where it gets creepy (2)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 2 years ago | (#39599015)

I have no problem with context sensitive ads. Google displays ads for Chrome on OS X when I browse from a Mac and Chrome for Linux when I browse from a Linux box; that's fine with me. It's also more efficient than Microsoft displaying ads for IE9 when I'm browsing from a Linux box.

When I read an article about electric cars, an ad for a car would not be out of place. Of course that ad would be wasted if I don't want to drive a car, cannot afford a car or just bought a new car. So the car company would be willing to pay more to Google to show the ad only to people who are in the market for a new car. However, to deliver that service Google has to create a much larger context than what the HTTP request by itself provides. They could get that information by looking at which other pages I visited, what I searched for, what I wrote in e-mails, what items I bought. However, this is where it gets creepy: when they follow me around everywhere and build a profile of my entire life. When a person does that, we call it stalking.

Google could be satisfied with selling ads based on limited context information. It wouldn't be as profitable per ad, but with the huge volume they have it should be enough to keep the company afloat. Instead, they want to provide higher value ads, like Facebook can. But I don't think there is a way to be like Facebook without being creepy. The only thing they can do about it is being less overt, as you say, but faking lower targeting accuracy (such as Target putting lawn mowers next to diapers [nytimes.com] ) doesn't help if you want people to believe your "don't be evil" motto.

He isn't talking to his products... (1)

Sum0 (1245284) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597393)

He's talking to his customers, meaning the companies that advertise. The people that use Android smart phones, Gmail, Google search, Google Documents, etc. are the product.

Please no more articles about the RIAA/MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597503)

Those produce exactly the same discussion every time out, filled with adrenaline-fueled posts flaming "greedy coke-snorting dinosaurs clinging to obsolete business models trying to force crappy music like Britney Spears down our throats for $18.98". And those are the "Insightful" ones. The few that try to take the opposing view are modded into oblivion.

It's just repetitive and juvenile, does nothing to enhance the reputation of Slashdot as a site for thoughtful discussion.

Uh (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597509)

I was well connected to the people who matter to me before Google. I must be a wizard or something.

Citation needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597541)

"But he also wants to offer the kind of personalized service that the requires trampling on your privacy"

Wait. Personalized services must trample my privacy? This is news to me... sounds like the old "GMail is evil because the ignorable ads are more relevant" rant.

Call me up when Google actually starts selling my information to advertisers, rather than merely targeting ads.

He's right (1, Redundant)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597543)

When he says:

"When you find a great article, you want to share that knowledge with people who will find it interesting, too. If you see a great movie, you want to recommend it to friends. "

I want to share it. But I don't want you to know about it. If I like an article, I'll send the link or create a .PDF and send. If I see a great movie, I'll call them or send them an email.

Why won't you let me do it my way instead of yours? The internet has tools to do it without you knowing about it or trying to monetize it.

simple (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597557)

" one might wonder why Google has to push their own social network instead of working on open protocols for sharing."

Because getting involved in another persons project is a fucking nightmare.

Could you imagine if Google showed up and starting putting in changes? The open project would freak out about how Google is taking them over, and how they lost control.

Fuck G+ (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597613)

I am an early adopter of Google. I brought dozens of people to Google and Gmail because I am the guy people ask for technical advice.

I don't care if Google tries to emulate Facebook. It's pathetic but it doest need to concern me. but when G+ started to influence other services it became personal. I paid for Google Apps and now they hired an incompetent designer to fuck it all up. I don't need avatar in my business apps. I don't want the abortion that is the "new look" and I for sure don't want to be nagged about it every hour.

I have made it a mission for me to convince people to move away from Google and G+ in particular. Asshole Paige made a big mistake in pissing off his most loyal customers.

Please do not "share" (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597711)

"Think about basic actions like sharing or recommendations. When you find a great article, you want to share that knowledge with people who will find it interesting, too. If you see a great movie, you want to recommend it to friends..."

No, no I don't. I don't want to electronically recommend things to friends, because I hate it when my friends electronically recommend stuff to me. If it comes up in conversation, fine, but otherwise, I don't want to know about it.

Back when I was on facebook, I had a friend who seemed to want to share his entire internet experience. He posted about 20 to 30 times a day, and every post was some article that he read, which he felt was VITALLY IMPORTANT that all of his friends look at. I had to defriend him because my wall had become nothing but his stream-of-internet-conciousness posts.

I can only imagine the Babel-like cacophony that would result if ALL my friends shared everything.

Re:Please do not "share" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39598325)

FB always had a "hide this guy" option and these days you even have the option so simply say "more of this", "less of that". This is the correct way to deal with friends that post too much. You, Sir, are doing it wrong.

I'm OK with it. Here's why. (1)

vinn (4370) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597795)

Here's the thing - Google is a truly great company that thinks long-term outside their realm of expertise. There's not many of those left because everyone has caved in to the almighty greed of the $. Autonomous driving? That's a REALLY HARD problem with the potential to change the world. Renewable Energy? [google.com] That's a REALLY HARD problem with the potential to change the world. Sponsoring the Summer of Code program? Hey, that's really helped a lot of open source projects and brought some long-term developers into the fold.

When Larry say something like "Don't be evil". I actually believe him. I've been a Google user for how long.. 13? 14 years? In that time, how has any of the information I've provided Google impacted my life in a negative way? Um... it hasn't. However, it's had a dramatic impact on a lot of areas of my life. Work is A LOT easier now that I can just google an error code. Getting directions via Google Maps, and then being able to see the street view has saved me countless hours. My Android phone? Well, at least it's better than my Blackberry.

I really don't think there's any other corporation or company I could ever trust to that degree. Facebook? Well, for me that's a cute way to share pictures with friends or play a game here or there.

As far as privacy goes, it's the US government that scares me, not Google. It doesn't matter who hosts my email, they're always going to have access to it. The things I want to be private in my life are. They're the things that don't get broadcast over the Internet and that I talk about with close friends over a campfire.

Friends and non-friends (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39597903)

When you find a great article, you want to share that knowledge with people who will find it interesting, too.

Correct. Only with my friends.

If you see a great movie, you want to recommend it to friends.

Correct. With those friends who I think will like it.

Google+ makes sharing super easy by creating a social layer across all our products so users connect with the people who matter to them.

Wrong. Google+ is not my friend. Facebook is not my friend. I want to share things with my friends. I don't want to share things with some dude on the street. I don't want to share things with a crowd of anonymous shoulder-surfing leeches who run a "social networking service".

This whole business of personal search... (3, Interesting)

javascriptjunkie (2591449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39597985)

You know, I totally get why they want to do personal search like this, but I think that they're missing the bigger picture. On all but a very small subset of topics, I don't need or want something that's customized to me individually. The fact that it's there at all means that something I'm directing a client to look for is going to be harder for them to find, if we both have highly customized search enabled (?) when we visit the web search page.

I've also found that Google news has noticed that I don't like to read right wing political content. So they've been giving me less of it. That's another problem, as I never asked them to do it. Maybe the solution here is letting users sculpt their own experiences, based on what they actually tell Google they want? Automating this has the potential for being absolutely disastrous if they don't get it right.

So, what's the word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39598011)

for someone who wants to get up-close and personal with you when you really don't want them to, because they're convinced in their own mind that you really do, and that it's better for you?

Oh, yeah. "Stalker".

Meaning of privacy (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598029)

But he also wants to offer the kind of personalized service that the requires trampling on your privacy.

Using information voluntarily provided to provide services to the person providing information isn't "trampling on" the privacy of the person providing the information.

Sharing that information with third parties in a means beyond what that for which there is meaningful informed consent is.

Getting bent out of shape over things that don't impinge on privacy as if they did impedes efforts to focus attention on stopping actions that genuinely impinge on privacy.

they are beginning to piss me off (3, Insightful)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598215)

"It is far better to be feared than loved" -- Niccolo Machiavelli.

That is NOT to say that one should strive to be feared. Only that one's conduct should inspire awe.

And for all this emphasis on protocols, they forget the key ingredient to success in the business in which they now find themselves: tools win over developers. Developers will not flock to the best hypothetical outcome. They will flock to the best outcome in their circumstance. And the circumstances of developers are improved tremendously with improvement in tools.

Android has 50% of the phone market and less than 20% of the app market. Why? Because there is still no cloud server presence from Google (only cloud storage). And there is still no developer studio. As a result there is still no way to develop for Android as your first choice.

Google apps? Yeah, that's nice. That's effectively a bunch of libraries with some clever hacks. That's not gonna make me wanna develop for Android. They've hired thousands of highly competitive developers and they still haven't created an environment which enables developers outside the company in the way that MS did and in the way in which Apple did.

When you have clever workers and you don't produce a clever product, the problem is the management. Until I see the kinds of tools coming out of Google that would elicit spontaneous rants about "sexy", I don't give a hoot about a founder's fetish to press new shiny buttons.

Larry: want to be loved? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598469)

Stop fscking us in the rectum with your evil sales of our privacy.

Re:Larry: want to be loved? (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598805)

But information wants to be free man!!!

How did this happen (1)

pullathomas (899088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39598639)

I officially like Microsoft more than Google...wouldn't have said that 10 years ago, hell even 5 years ago

Has Google+ saved Facebook? (1)

noldrin (635339) | more than 2 years ago | (#39599009)

The problem people have with Facebook isn't that it wasn't creepy enough. What Google+ has mostly done is make Facebook not look that bad after all.

Google tries to become a "portal" (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39599031)

Google is a good search engine which is working hard to become a "portal". Look at the top line of a Google search result page now: "You+ Search Images Maps Play YouTube (not "video" now) News Gmail Documents Calendar More". 9 of the 11 lead to Google in-house services.

Yahoo and AOL were "portals". That didn't work out too well. Google seems to be trying hard to emulate them.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...