“Update” was probably too strong a word for it. Google and I have settled into a pattern.
- I submit an appeal to have my Google+ account unlocked with documentation that shows that I use this name all ’round the internet. I also include a text file with a request that, if my appeal is denied, please provide me with an explanation as to why it’s been denied and what I need to do to correct it.
- Anywhere from an hour to two weeks later, I receive a stock email informing me that my appeal has been denied because my name does not conform to Google’s names policy. The email informs me that I can appeal again, so I go back to #1.
I don’t have any great hope that my appeal will find favor with Google. I’m not terribly upset about it, but it’s annoying. I’m pretty sure I know why I’ll never win my appeal. Google is moving to phase two of their Google+ project, which is an attempt to monetize user reviews of businesses and services. I can see why they wouldn’t want “WTF Pancakes gives Elmore’s Roto-Dildoes 4 Stars!” They’d much rather it be an apparently-real person reviewing Elmore’s wares.
So it goes. I miss it, but it’s not exactly a dealbreaker.
Sure, it feels personal, and that’s why I keep harping on it. But Google’s names policy is absurd both in premise and practice, and as such, it deserves as much mockery as I can manage. Maybe, someday, the Eric Schmidts of the world will see the error of their ways and revise the policy to make it a little less “something you would expect Microsft to try.”