Show HN: The day SEO types and babbling idiots took over HN
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5438797Top comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5439191I blame Matt Cutt's occasional cameos here for attracting this sort.
capo
Re:Google Talk now archiving all messages
on Monday May 20, 2013 @09:25AM (#5737562)
The feature is no longer available by client, it's available via web: https://mail.google.com/mail/#chats
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-interface-for-g...
Re:What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
on Thursday May 16, 2013 @09:29AM (#5718496)
I've addressed the "facts".
Re:What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
on Thursday May 16, 2013 @09:28AM (#5718492)
I think I've attacked both.
Re:What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
on Thursday May 16, 2013 @09:24AM (#5718472)
http://readwrite.com/2013/05/09/microsoft-youtube-app-rule-b...
They built an unauthorized app and now they are complaining that the app is unauthorized.
Re:What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
on Thursday May 16, 2013 @09:14AM (#5718426)
There is no "discussion" going on, you are just repeating fact-free Microsoft press statements.
If you're not getting paid you should be.
Re:What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
on Thursday May 16, 2013 @09:06AM (#5718393)
Nope. You just joined to ask me that?
Re:What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
on Thursday May 16, 2013 @09:06AM (#5718391)
You don't think it's relevant? Microsoft is paying millions to run anti-Google attack ads and smear campaigns everywhere, it's not unthinkable that they would hire astroturf to roam sites like HN, so for the sake of the health of this community they ought to be pointed out.
Re:What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
on Thursday May 16, 2013 @08:54AM (#5718346)
GTalk is still as is.
As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone.
Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undocumented APIs and stripped ads from YouTube and now they have the audacity to say that they would have complied by the TOS if it suited them better.
Please take your anti-Google (probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf) elsewhere:
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=recoiledsnake
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=recoiledsnake
These submission are a honeypot for your sort.
Re:Google Talk Chat History can no longer be turned off by default
on Wednesday May 15, 2013 @04:57PM (#5714848)
It's probably due to the new Hangouts history search feature touted today.
Re:Dumped by Google
on Monday April 22, 2013 @04:42PM (#5591651)
Same as every other “cloud provider”, yet somehow Google is the one subjected to these overwritten accounts and the almost mandatory pseudo law/policy musings that follow.
You might want to take a look at some policies from others in the industry to get a more accurate picture of this landscape.
These policies are constructed as such to mitigate litigation, which the author concedes. Regardless I'm glad this instance had a happy ending.
It’s also worth mentioning the the paid tier of Google Apps operates under completely different TOS: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/premier_terms.html
Re:So I hit "TAB" and Google mail sends the partially composed message?
on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @09:26AM (#5524955)
I was honestly just trying to help. I tested the only way I know how, via my own Gmail account.
Re:So I hit "TAB" and Google mail sends the partially composed message?
on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @08:14AM (#5524586)
It does not do that, I just double checked, even when the focus is on the "Send" button a dialog box pops with "Send (Ctrl-Enter)" and no sending happens. Maybe what you encountered was the work of a browser extension or a labs feature left enabled, or most likely you just tapped return at the wrong moment.
Re:The Nokia Patents and VP8 – Prior Art Hunting Time
on Thursday March 28, 2013 @01:11PM (#5456148)
You shouldn't throw stones, one clould as easily accuse you of shilling: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ecopoesis
Re:How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads
on Monday March 25, 2013 @09:10PM (#5440788)
So HN has to be the consumer service?! that's not what this place is about.
Re:How Google Sliced Away Our Knife Ads
on Monday March 25, 2013 @07:48PM (#5440461)
Why is this sort of post even on HN, not to mention the front page? and why is this thread dominated by idiotic language about "evil" and "kings" and incoherent babbling about politics and democratic representation?! and suddenly everyone is a law scholar.
I blame Matt Cutts' occasional appearances for the subsequent flocking of SEO sorts here. This post doesn't belong on HN, certainly not on the front page.
Re:Google Drive Realtime API
on Tuesday March 19, 2013 @05:14PM (#5403687)
I doubt anything will change your opinions about Google:
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=anon1385
https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=anon1385
Carry on, I guess.
Re:Build collaborative apps with Google Drive Realtime API
on Tuesday March 19, 2013 @04:15PM (#5403328)
Careful, you might mistakenly be accused of being an "astroturfer": https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=andyl
Re:Android SDK is now proprietary
on Friday January 04, 2013 @10:31AM (#5008004)
Google's blogpost about vendor compatability: http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-benefits-imp...
Re:There's no avoiding Google+
on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @06:23PM (#4999994)
Yeah, no shit! I’m not quite sure what is the point of that article, because it’s fairly obvious that the main reason for which Plus was conceived is to be the uniform identity provider for commenting, reviewing, and overall communicating throughout Google’s services.
At the time Google lacked the pictured user profiles that every other app seemed to have and so Google Plus was born.
I think that the discrete social network is secondary and the competition with Facebook is constantly being overplayed by the media as the reason for this social play.
The author just seems oddly surprised that G+ is doing what it’s supposed to do.
Re:Gmail just logged me in as someone else
on Monday December 24, 2012 @10:46AM (#4963123)
mailto:[email protected]
Re:End-to-End Encrypted GMail? Not So Easy
on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @06:51PM (#4940381)
"Filtering spam for us and showing ads for them" doesn't quite sum all the benefits of a parse-able inbox, what about when Google Now notifies you about flight and delivery updates by scanning your inbox, and stuff like this: https://www.google.com/experimental/gmailfieldtrial
End-to-end encryption could be offered as a premium feature though.
Re:An Evaluation of the Application Verification Service in Android 4.2
on Monday December 10, 2012 @10:54AM (#4899536)
OP ought to restore the original title because it better represents the content of that study seeing as it's clearly about the mechanism for verifying side-loaded apps (introduced in 4.2) and not the Play store bouncer.
Re:Google wreaks havoc on our company’s calendars: lost data and secur...
on Monday December 10, 2012 @06:41AM (#4898578)
So it's being dealt with then. Not sure when wording an attention seeking post and submitting it to HN became standard operating procedure in these situations. Patience remains a virtue when this stuff happens.
Re:Google Apps stops accepting free sign-ups
on Thursday December 06, 2012 @08:26PM (#4884978)
Yeah that's what I mean by the "free tier".
Re:Google Apps stops accepting free sign-ups
on Thursday December 06, 2012 @08:20PM (#4884958)
That's a bit of an overreaction. Unless I'm reading the post incorrectly there aren't any bad news in it really: existing accounts stay free, now you have two tiers, paid and free, and with the paid you get real support for the money (and custom email etc).
Re:An open letter to Google: Unplug Google Plus from the Play App Store
on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @08:31PM (#4874396)
My guess is that after it's rolled fully they will log interactions and iterate accordingly. And I'm sure they care about the health of their ecosystem at least as much as you do. Remember that creating a Google account now also creates a G+ profile, account and profile go in tandem now.
Re:An open letter to Google: Unplug Google Plus from the Play App Store
on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @07:38PM (#4874222)
It’s kinda silly asking them not to use their identity system that was meant precisely for this sort of thing. A user doesn't have to “use” g+ to have a g+ account, and the review process is straightforward when you already have a profile set up on the account you're using to access the Play store with. Perhaps some refinements are in order but as mentioned it doesn't seem to be fully rolled out yet.
And reviews have somewhat more authoritative looking profiles behind them now, for example: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.etsy.andro...
Also I'm not sure that the boilerplate G+ bashing is necessary.
Re:The Gmail app for iPhone and iPad: version 2.0
on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @01:18PM (#4872337)
If the update hasn't propagated your way still and you're getting an error try deleting it then reinstall using this link: https://itunes.apple.com/app/gmail/id422689480?mt=8
Re:Google Apps Disabled My Domain
on Saturday November 24, 2012 @04:30PM (#4826511)
To recap: In order to receive support from a human being for Google Apps the account holder needs her account associated PIN, but since this guy was locked out of his account he didn't have it available to take advantage of the phone support. So after a week and by using some trickery he got hold of someone on the phone and the issue was resolved.
I’d argues that Google Apps has reasonable support (bigger accounts, I assume, have direct support lines) and these occurrences are relatively rare considering the user base, but they get amplified rather loudly, especially when there are plenty of cloud haters, and Google haters (and competitors) ready to pounce.
There might be some risks or trade-offs involved but they’re much less pronounced than some of the comments on any “Google support sux” thread lead you to believe. I haven't had an issue with my personal Apps account but my case is statistically insignificant, same as the case discussed here.