> Call verification is used by many services to establish ownership of an account, and to provide a fallback mechanism that automates the recovery of an account. Google likes to automate the shit out of things. This is no different.

I've been using the internet for well over a decade now. The number of services I've signed up for must be in the hundreds.

I've never had to verify my identity unless a monetary transaction has been carried out, and then it's to my bank rather than the merchant.

Nothing I get from Google+ needs any confirmation of my real identity.

> Nothing I get from Google+ needs any confirmation of my real identity.

Now we're getting to the nut of the real argument.

I think the problem comes from the fact of treating Google+ like any other social network like Facebook. Google+ is supposed to be an identity layer for all of Google. The fact that they have status update posting, etc is secondary.

Google would like to assign a face, name and phone number to every Google account. And why is that? For various reasons. A face and a name is very valuable for targeted ads. And a phone number associated with every Google account will help Hangouts. Maybe it will enable sending SMS from the web to any phone and also Voice users can cal from the web from their Google account. Thus, Google achieves their aim of disrupting the carriers and making the phone number irrelevant.

That's just the way I see it anyway.

If that's the case, why not be up front about it?

Because saying you're the next OpenID won't allow you to be the next social network sensation à la Facebook.

Except that OpenID is a distributed protocol, which the Internet should so obviously use for authentication, not FB/G+.

Has Google ever gotten marketing right?

Seriously. About all they do is branding.

Google does not get the credit for making the Internet searchable; there were some pretty decent search engines, like AltaVista, before Google came along. Google made an incremental improvement in search algorithms and figured out how to make search very profitable.

I think you're wrong there. I remember using the web back then. Search sucked before Google. Altavista was a bit better than what came before it, but Google really was the first search engine that was any bloody good at all. The PageRank algorithm basically cracked the search problem.

Making money actually came years later. Google used the method of "get a zillion users and we'll figure out money later."

>Google really was the first search engine that was any bloody good at all.

This is not even vaguely true. Google's algorithm was a bit better, their page was cleaner, and they weren't trying to push you into other services or wall you into any weirdness.

If google had pulled the shit they pull now back then, I never would have switched to it. I switched to google because they convinced me that their simple, honest strategy was based on some sort of a company value rather than just a strategy of leaving profit on the table until they could drive all competition out of business and ask for your firstborn. Corporate values? That's what I get for believing in science fiction.

The algorithm was better, but it wasn't revolutionary. The main point was it specifically ignored the page titles and meta tags that got all the keyword stuffing at the time.

The biggest advantage Google had was their listings were all search results, whereas most competitors had paid listings included in the results, but at the top of course.

It was revolutionary better. Non-techie friends were saying to me out of the blue "have you tried Google?"

But that was, you know, over 15 years ago.

If I remember correctly, AltaVista had a pretty sophisticated advanced search mode where you could string together search terms with Boolean operators (and/or/not). And I'm sure that AltaVista had some kind of metric of "site quality" before PageRank came along. For example, you could judge how "important" a site is by how often people click on a search result to go there, or how big they are (number of URLs from that site in your search index). You can also rank the relevance of a search result by how closely the search terms match the text on the site.

Also, as the web and search evolved, people who ran web sites figured out what they'd need to do to get found more easily by search engines. It's possible that the rise of SEO was more responsible for a better search experience than improved site ranking algorithms.

I was also using AltaVista back in early 2000. Their advanced search method you mention is the perfect example of complicated UI that fails to function properly, putting the blame on the user. I switched to Google after being frustrated that I wasn't finding something while at an Internet Cafe, I then saw Google's logo on somebody else's screen and gave it a try. Google was better by an order of magnitude. Your reasoning about SEO is bulshit.

... and now we have completely useless and inaccurate results from google just about every time you search.

There isn't an hour that goes by that I don't search for a few keywords ... like ... freebsd openvpn push ... and guess what ? Results 1 and 3 for that query do not contain the word push.

Every day I am running into this and every day I miss altavista.

Try verbatim mode:

https://www.google.com/search?q=freebsd+openvpn+push&tbs=li:...

:-D

Is there a way to switch this on permanently?

I vaguely recall something like a Boolean search functionality on AV, yeah. I think HotBot had one too, though they were using some other sucky algorithmic innovation that didn't actually crack the search problem.

I don't think SEO really started happening until Google outlined the basic idea of PageRank - until there was something to plausibly target. At which point 1999-2000 were the years of hideous link farms. I sure remember those.

No, it was happening way before Google, every page's meta tags would have "anna kournikova nekkid", even if you were selling lawnmowers.

I was an avid user of AltaVista back in the day but what killed it, and why I jumped on Google as soon as it was available was back then, it was simply less polluted.

I don't think PageRank made any difference at all. Its the other thing you mentioned - the zillions of users.

A huge data set mapping the search terms -> clicks is what made all the difference IMO.

Setting aside your hysterical NSA invocation. Once I give Google my phone number, it is yet another (and wholly unnecessary) place where I have to keep my phone number updated.

Moreover, in the event that it changes, I have a Google verification problem.

So the fact that I don't trust Google not to leak it somehow is by the by, although that is why I also disabled their "web history" tracking service. No, what really annoys me is that they, and every other service that overcollects, are creating future data management debt for me to deal with. Like I don't have enough already.

I just give them my Google Voice number. Then I don't have an "additional number to track."

Not that phone numbers need to change any more anyway. With universal portability, unless you move outside of the country, you can keep your phone # with you.

Sometimes you want to change your phone number.

Call verification alone is pretty vulnerable. For a social network login, it might be OK. For access to all your information (which is what Google is heading towards, and is already for some people) it's not great. If someone steals your phone number, it's game over. (AFAIK if you verify via phone you can bypass 2FA, right?)