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!

How Google+ Punk'd The Oatmeal

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-in-vanity-URLs dept.

Google 218

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."

cancel ×

218 comments

I still don't get it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990715)

What does "punk'd" mean?

Re:I still don't get it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990769)

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.

Re:I still don't get it (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#40990993)

Yeah.... Burn!!!!!

-- Signed, Kelso

Re:I still don't get it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992379)

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.

Still not punk'd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992167)

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?

Re:I still don't get it (4, Informative)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 2 years ago | (#40990771)

It means someone watches too much awful television and doesn't own a thesaurus.

Re:I still don't get it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990893)

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".

Re:I still don't get it (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#40990809)

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.

Re:I still don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991181)

So a ripoff of Candid Camera.

Re:I still don't get it (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 2 years ago | (#40991339)

I think it was actually a ripoff of Totally Hidden Video, which was a ripoff of Candid Camera...

Re:I still don't get it (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#40991559)

...which was a ripoff of the honeymooners.

because, well, it *was* the root device of all modern tv shows.

Re:I still don't get it (1)

carrier lost (222597) | about 2 years ago | (#40990855)

What does "punk'd" mean?

It means he has to put his hair in spikes and wear ripped jeans and lots of leather.

Re:I still don't get it (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#40991117)

It most definitely does not mean what Soulskill thinks it means.

Re:I still don't get it (0)

dgharmon (2564621) | about 2 years ago | (#40992685)

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.

OK !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990723)

No comment !!

The reality... (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 years ago | (#40990729)

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...

Re:The reality... (1)

darkfeline (1890882) | about 2 years ago | (#40990781)

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!

Re:The reality... (5, Funny)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#40990881)

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.

Re:The reality... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40991605)

Facebook doesn't make people stupid

So you say.

Re:The reality... (5, Insightful)

garyebickford (222422) | about 2 years ago | (#40992019)

So you're saying that each person that leaves Facebook and goes to Google+ reduces the mean IQ of both?

Re:The reality... (4, Informative)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#40990921)

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.

Re:The reality... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990971)

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.

Re:The reality... (5, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#40991169)

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...

Re:The reality... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992389)

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.

Re:The reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991209)

IQ as with most things, Population mean does not always equal the sample mean.

Re:The reality... (4, Informative)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#40991513)

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.

Re:The reality... (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40992351)

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.

Re:The reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991099)

Actually, the average IQ is constantly rising - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Re:The reality... (5, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#40991521)

Actually, the average IQ is constantly rising - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect [wikipedia.org]

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.

Re:The reality... (5, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#40991711)

Why? You summed it up nicely.

Re:The reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990811)

G+ is a vastly superior platform lacking the users to make it a superior social platform ????? Eh???

Re:The reality... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 years ago | (#40990863)

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.

Re:The reality... (2)

scot4875 (542869) | about 2 years ago | (#40991005)

...except it's a ghost town.

The hundreds of responses to each of The Oatmeal's G+ posts suggest otherwise.

--Jeremy

Re:The reality... (1)

Stiletto (12066) | about 2 years ago | (#40992609)

Facebook posts that receive 125,000+ likes and 11,000 comments [forbes.com] laugh at those hundreds of responses.

Re:The reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991071)

putting your social connections in groups, and being able to SHARE them - let alone selecting who sees what.

Facebook has that [facebook.com] and has had that since 2010. Welcome to the world of yesteryear.

Re:The reality... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#40991187)

Look at Inmans post about this.
Looks like a lot of people are participating.

Re:The reality... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40991649)

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.

Re:The reality... (4, Funny)

garyebickford (222422) | about 2 years ago | (#40992029)

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!

Re:The reality... (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#40991137)

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.

Re:The reality... (5, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | about 2 years ago | (#40991495)

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...)

Re:The reality... (4, Insightful)

rpresser (610529) | about 2 years ago | (#40992825)

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.

Re:The reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992941)

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.

Re:The reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40993235)

Why not just avoid all social media sites altogether?

Zero noise, great life.

Re:The reality... (3, Informative)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 2 years ago | (#40991549)

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 [google.com] or funny hats https://plus.google.com/s/funny%20hat [google.com] or many things in between https://plus.google.com/s/needlepoint [google.com] ... 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.

Re:The reality... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992393)

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.

Re:The reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992887)

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.

Google is like '90s Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990743)

...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.

Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#40991343)

...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.

Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40991625)

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.

Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#40991981)

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.

Re:Google is like '90s Microsoft... (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40992195)

Firefox; Linux; OpenOffice

Yeah, it's a real shame how Microsoft wiped those out and they disappeared.

Wow! That's almost hilarious! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990749)

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!"

Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990791)

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?

Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990795)

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.)

XKCD? (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40990835)

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.

Re:XKCD? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991083)

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.

Re:XKCD? (0)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about 2 years ago | (#40992321)

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.

Re:XKCD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991337)

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).

Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! (5, Funny)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 years ago | (#40991957)

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.

Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992115)

That's so ridiculous that it's funny. I don't know where this subjective "childish" nonsense comes from, though.

Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! (0, Flamebait)

kiwimate (458274) | about 2 years ago | (#40992391)

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+.

Re:Wow! That's almost hilarious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992927)

Mod parent up.

Congrats, Larry & Sergei & whatever-your-name-is-dude-who-runs-plus. You've just made Zuckerberg look mature.

ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990789)

I've read this three times and don't have a clue what happened. Can you please re-write this in English? Thanks!

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 years ago | (#40990829)

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.

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (5, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40990859)

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 [google.com] 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.

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990953)

You should beg for a sense of humor instead.

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (0)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40991147)

Sorry, been watching too much of the original Star Trek series recently. Spock is my favorite character, of course.

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (0)

FishOuttaWater (1163787) | about 2 years ago | (#40992099)

An imminently logical choice.

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (2)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#40993079)

An imminently logical choice.

Is that a choice that's just about to become logical?

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (4, Funny)

ThePeices (635180) | about 2 years ago | (#40990997)

I beg to differ.

Permission granted. You may now differ.

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (0)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40991053)

My thanks. I was concerned I wouldn't be granted permission there for a moment. :)

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992637)

Now sit! Roll over!

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (2)

sorak (246725) | about 2 years ago | (#40992823)

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.

Re:ummm....Punk Oatmeal? (1)

sootman (158191) | about 2 years ago | (#40992053)

> Google, feeling particularly clever...

sed s/clever/obvious/

Can I (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about 2 years ago | (#40990815)

Follow Slashdot on Google+

Way to go Google+ team! (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#40990837)

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?

Re:Way to go Google+ team! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991319)

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.

Re:Way to go Google+ team! (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#40991331)

Haters be hatin.

It is smart. Don't be up in arms because you couldn't exploit such an "obvious" marketing decision

Re:Way to go Google+ team! (1)

log0n (18224) | about 2 years ago | (#40991919)

+1

Sour grapes much? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990873)

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.

Re:Sour grapes much? (2, Insightful)

Legion303 (97901) | about 2 years ago | (#40991023)

Your sense-of-humor module seems to be broken, Aspiebot!

Re:Sour grapes much? (1)

not-my-real-name (193518) | about 2 years ago | (#40991211)

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).

Re:Sour grapes much? (3, Informative)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 2 years ago | (#40991619)

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.

Re:Sour grapes much? (1)

Soporific (595477) | about 2 years ago | (#40991253)

Who'd want to hear all the moronic comments via speech synthesis on YouTube? The 14 year old rabble dominates nearly every video.

~S

Re:Sour grapes much? (2)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | about 2 years ago | (#40991299)

The idea was that you listen to your own comment before you post it, so you know how much you sound like an asshole.

Re:Sour grapes much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991801)

That was literally the entire point of the joke.

Re:Sour grapes much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991349)

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!

Re:Sour grapes much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991487)

U mad?

Is this Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40990985)

Or Jezebel?

The verb "to punk the oatmeal" (2)

neminem (561346) | about 2 years ago | (#40991175)

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.

Re:The verb "to punk the oatmeal" (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 2 years ago | (#40992625)

Punk is a euphemism for rape.

I'm surprised they don't just goo.gl it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991195)

its not like google cant shorten URLs or provide a service that does..

google is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40991533)

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.

News for nerds, stuff that matters (1, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | about 2 years ago | (#40991607)

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")

Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters (1)

whoop (194) | about 2 years ago | (#40991965)

They're working [google.com] on it. Of course, 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.

Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about 2 years ago | (#40992569)

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.

Re:News for nerds, stuff that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992649)

> 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 (1)

RapidEye (322253) | about 2 years ago | (#40991943)

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.

Google Plus Absolutely Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40992253)

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. (1)

epp_b (944299) | about 2 years ago | (#40992581)

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.
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...