When Google + opened, from fierce criticism came to the system for a design flaw tied to registration to the service. The social network of Mountain View, in fact, it allowed the use of pseudonyms behind which hide their identities, forcing users to upload content countersigned. A few months after the onset reaches the first partial correction, which in many ways smells like forced step backwards.

The critical design choice Google had the precise basis: those who may want to upload sensitive material (political opinions, for example) could not pursue a position as the anonymous system makes clear the name without the possibility of remaining anonymous. The choice today is to allow the hand ‘addition of a traditional nickname registration, thus making it possible to hide behind a pseudonym under which to act publicly. But it is not in the eyes of Google.

As explained by Bradley Horowitz +, the majority of users (60%) wanted to solve the issue by simply adding your name to a nickname, and 20% of members is composed of companies that have opened up a profile instead of a page, and 20 % remainder is made up of users who want to completely hide behind a pseudonym or use unconventional names. The remedy chosen was therefore that of a additional module in the profile settings, A space with which to enrich their own identity with a new label:

As explained by Bradley Horowitz +, the majority of users (60%) wanted to solve the issue by simply adding your name to a nickname and 20% of members is composed of companies that have opened up a profile instead of a page and 20 % remainder is made up of users who want to completely hide behind a pseudonym or use unconventional names. The remedy chosen was therefore that of a additional module in the profile settings, a space with which to enrich their own identity with a new label:

Google also says that the real name of the rule had been never until now stiff as you would imply. Some algorithms simply verify that the name was “likely” in an attempt to cut off those that were obvious nickname (not without false positives). Opening today is also sense: who would be able to prove to Google that name locked by the system is a real name (by sending a test directly in Mountain View, such as a digital copy of a document), will restore your right to use your real name on the side of the nick.

From ZDNet arrives, however, an immediate critique: Although Bradley Horowitz talking about in your post “pseudonyms” actually Google has introduced something different and identifiable as “nickname”. The difference is substantial: while a pseudonym can replace a name, a nickname can only assist. According to the indictment by Violet Blue in this discrepancy there is a strong meaning: Google +, which from the beginning made clear its desire to follow the way of the user’s identification and deletion of anonymity continues on its way by preventing in fact inscriptions under pseudonym. Who enrolls, in short, simply needs to know what goes towards in order to fully understand the terms of your account.

The new function will be made available to the entire community within the next 48 hours. Google also recalls how, being now the unified login system on their services, changing its name with a pseudonym will have value not only on Google +, but on the whole range of services in the group.

Any further detail is contained in + Google names policy, where the characters are listed is not awarded, prohibited practices and specific information about the identity of the individual and the social network will go to record.