Don’t Be… What Was That Again? We Seem to Have Forgotten

Your post is incorrect. Wildly so. It seems based on a glaring inaccuracy, namely the assumption that a user’s subscriptions in Google Reader will be shown to their contacts or friends or their boss.

Except they’re not. They’re really, really not. Not at all. No items that the user has read have been shared without their consent. Ever. Ever, ever, ever. There’s a “share” button that exists in a tiny row beneath each item. A user has to click that to share an item they’re reading with their friends.

When looking at your own shared items, Google says they’ll be “publicly accessible” and gives out a URL that anyone can see. Anyone. But nothing exists there unless someone elected to click that share button on some item. The main controversy is about people who clicked “share” and instead used the publicly accessible shared items for private use and don’t like its new discoverability.

A nice thing to do would be to place a correction in your post. So people don’t get scared that suddenly all of their feeds can be seen by everyone. They can’t.

Full of lies? No. Did I delete too many instances of the word “shared” when editing? Yes.

Saying that this isn’t a privacy nightmare is ridiculous. There is a difference between sharing items with only those using Google Talk and every single person listed as a contact in Google Mail. You make it sound as if it’s a simple fix, which is patently false. For those who thought they were only sharing news items and feeds with spouses (like my husband, for whom I am his ONLY Google Talk “buddy”), suddenly every one of those posts is out there with no warning and no quick fix. There are people who have shared hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of posts, assuming that those would be a one-time or short-term share, and you find it reasonable to have to go in and click “unshare” on every single individual post, hopefully before the boss has said “Hey, let’s take a look at what so-and-so is reading?” In the interest of user goodwill and overall privacy concerns, would it have been so simple to have a cutoff date where all posts shared from X date would be shared? Or even assign contacts levels of sharing? By group? (Co-workers, friends, family… shoot, Flickr manages to do that!)

The common consensus among tech journals is that Google is taking their cues from Facebook, which isn’t necessarily the wisest move when it comes to user confidence. I haven’t used Google Reader in over six MONTHS and still had articles I’d shared with blog co-authors in the past that I had to click through individually to remove. I can’t imagine if I’d still been using it regularly.

This is horrible. I do not WANT to see everyone’s feeds every time I use Gmail, Calendar or Docs. Right now that is what is happening. ANNOYING as all get out. It is like being forced to watch those awful pop up ads all the time. I already deleted Google Reader and erased my own feeds so that I wouldn’t irritate others. Google needs to put up an opt-out of other’s feeds feature in addition to their flimsy and convoluted opt out feature they hastily added to the reader on the user end. Nothing will get me to stop using Calendar, Docs and Gmail faster than this continuing as is. Google: the new Microsuck.

This is the classic problem with Google products. Google products are designed for and by nerdy developers in Silicon Valley. They don’t understand users and won’t understand the problems with what they’ve done until someone complains. I’m a nerdy developer myself, and I do this too. Screw you all, build your own reader!

Seriously, the main problem here is that they had a feature that meant one thing, then they changed what it meant without telling anyone and without giving anyone the ability to get out of it before information got shot out into the tubes… You always have to do an impact analysis and see what your new feature is going to do to your users, but again, seeing as they didn’t understand how users were using the system, it didn’t happen.

The new Google strategy behind their Reader debacle…

First I thought this crisis was due to an arrogant intern or middle manager mistake. But it was so Google unlike it amazed me it could happen, or how long the violation has (still!) been unsolved.

But this article unveils…

Of course Google wants to get into social software. If they can’t buy Facebook, they want to replace Facebook. See also Knols/Wikipedia. The problem is that they seem to have no UI engineer who actually talks to people. See Grendel’s comment above. Look at the number of people jumping on the APML and OpenID bandwagon now and you’ll see that users want to control the data that they are sharing. The Beacon debacle was an example of that. I want to be able to pick and choose with whom I share my data feeds, and dumping it out to any person who’s in my Gmail or GTalk contacts doesn’t allow me to do that. I had someone in there that I STILL can’t recognize, and it’s an actual name, not a nickname!

Especially considering the amount of data that Google collects on its users, not having the ability to pick and choose parameters within which you are willing to share that data with other users definitely puts Google outside the “Don’t be evil” box. Leslie up there is willing to give up all the convenience of using Google services to protect her data. I think she won’t be the only one who feels that way unless Brin & Co. figure out that they need to give more power back to the people.

Google Reader’s poor decision making…

Google Reader’s blunder has been covered by The New York Times, The Guardian, and many other media around the world. The big backslash started when this post was featured on Slashdot’s front page. The……