Unusually apathetic response from Google to 'sharing' complaints
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published December 26, 2007, 11:25 AM
An experiment started two weeks ago by Google to leverage its Talk application as a way of sharing news feeds from Google Reader, has been met with some derision. What may be more surprising, though, is the company's response.
On the surface, it might seem pretty straightforward: If you've opted to share portions of your Google Reader feeds list with selected friends, then friends on your Google Talk and Gmail chat will be able to receive what you're sharing. That was the intention of the company's introduction on December 14 of an interoperability feature that links shared friends on one Google application to shared friends on another.
"One of my favorite uses for Reader is to share interesting stuff with my friends," explained Google's Chrix Finne at the time. "I click 'Share' whenever I find an interesting item, be it hilarious or serious. This way, all my friends can subscribe to my shared items (and I to theirs), and we can easily see if a friend has found something interesting. This can be inconvenient, as I have to distribute my shared items link to my friends and vice-versa."
So to eliminate the inconvenience of distributing lists manually, Finne explained, the feature would enable those lists to appear in one tier of the Google Talk window.
But in the wake of Facebook's now-infamous Beacon debacle, many users saw the feature as a misappropriation of their personal data. Over the past few weeks, Google's discussion thread for its Reader app has been buzzing with what hundreds of comments, a great many of them angry complaints.
One critical problem, it appears, is that while some people are often treated as "friends" for sharing purposes, a subset of that list may actually be friends...especially in the case where Google Talk is used to chat with one's boss.
"I want this turned off and like, now. Now my business associates, my family, my parents can all see my shared feeds and I have no control over that at all," wrote one user. "I was using the shared feed for myself as a way to backup important RSS feeds, not to share with people I hardly know who happen to be in my address book. This is an awful, awful feature, an invasion of privacy and a feature that no one wanted in the first place. If we did, we'd share the link!"
"There are degrees of privacy (or lack thereof)," another user responded in agreement, "and Google jumped about 30 notches in one swoop."
Not all comments were negative. One user wrote, "I absolutely love you for finally making this real! I've been waiting for this for more than a year now. This is just plain great!"
But immediately below that was this comment: "This is hands-down the worst feature I've ever encountered, and if it isn't removed or amended soon, I'll have no choice but to delete everything from Google Reader and never use it again, which is really unfortunate. I have parents, relatives, business associates, all who use Gmail, in my contact list, and the only way to not share with them is to remove the contact? That's insane."
While Google has yet to be tempted by the lure of being completely unresponsive to its user community, a response from a product representative on December 17 is being treated as unsympathetic. Not everyone sees the lists you've opted to share, it explains, just those people with whom you've actually conducted chats on Google Talk who also happen to be Google Reader users.
"The 'share' feature was always intended to imply some amount of publicity," reads the response from the person whom the group's profile describes as merely "Graham." "That's why we used the term 'share' and had shared items marked as public by default on the Settings > Tags page."
The response to Google's response was intense, including this: "Wow. This is a politician's answer...i.e., answers that don't address our specific questions/complaints."
"Sharing is great, but not when you have no control over who you are sharing with," another user wrote. "The old system was very simple to use, adding a button to share with Google Talk contacts faster might have been nice. But total broadcasting whether you want to or not...that's just wrong."
On December 18, Google's Graham announced it had implemented a way for users to stop sharing their lists with everyone. But it involved clearing out those lists entirely, and starting to build a new one that uses special tags.
"I never want to share items with everyone in my contact list," responded one user to this added feature. "I only want to share them with the friends who I sent my shared feed URL to. You are making it more difficult to do the thing that I want to do all the time and easier to do the thing that I never want to do."
As of this morning, much of the Google Reader user community's response was characterized by this: "Had you let us chose to turn this on, and who to share what with, it could have been a great idea. But by simply opening the doors we thought we had locked, to let anyone see everything that we read and consume, you've violated a great deal of trust that we as your customers have."
I don't understand this appeal to sharing/group/social crap. I have very specific requirements for how I share information with the hundreds of people I know and there isn't one method ANY of these companies can meet that requirement list at.... so why even bother?
When in doubt: Opt in is always best. Need we drill it into these companies any more than we should?
OPT-IN!
OPT-IN!
OPT-IN!
Score: 0
|I see Google's point completely, although they could stand to address the concerns and tweak the feature. It points out something that most people SHOULD know, and if they didn't before, they should now ... if you assume you have privacy in something you mark to "share", you are hopelessly naive!
This is completely different from the Beacon thing in the sense that you consciously have to mark something to share. Beacon (while I do not mind it) is worrisome in the sense that it posts information that you did not mark or intend to have on your site, like a video game purchase.
Everyone is quick to blame the provider for their own misassumptions in privacy, but in this case, while I think Google CAN do more, I do not think this is on them. It's a wake up call. If you want something to be private, use common sense before marking it in something that is a public feed!
Score: 0
|"I was using the shared feed for myself as a way to backup important RSS feeds, not to share..."
I don't use it myself, but it sure is interesting seeing the hornets buzzing all around! Sounds like there is a big desire for bookmarking some RSS feeds, with limited sharing.
Score: 0
|It is said that evil is the lack of empathy. There appears very little empathy in Google's replies to users' concerns. Or, have some of the brightest people supposedly on this planet shown just how clueless they can be?
Your call, Google. This "feature" was implemented by a company either stupid or evil. Which do you choose to be? It's one or the other.
Score: 0
|It's a good idea, just not very well thought out...obviously. Give people the option to share or not to share. If they choose to share give them the option of who to share it with. Do those 2 things and I'm sure people will like it.
Score: 0
|The point is, they already COULD share before, but it was more difficult to do so. All this update did was remove the ability to NOT share out your stuff to everyone... :)
Score: 0
|I never really liked Gmail in the first place. I really don't see what's so special about it. At first the only thing going for it was how much space you get, but that's not the case anymore. I use Inbox.com; 5gb's of space for free (or 30gb if you want to pay), built in storage (for any kind of files, like mp3's or pictures), no ad's (that I see) and a pretty nice interface. I like the Spam filter too; it goes to your spam folder unless you say it's not spam (and adds that email to the approved list).
/end of advertisement
Score: 0
|What do you expect with a room full of academics with limited social skills? They don't have friends they are NOT geeky to... another classic move by a socially-inept company.
Score: 0
|Point made. Hope Google makes an about turn. If not, i may just stop using any of their services. After all, who knows what they'll do next.
Score: 0
|who use the stupid feed readers anyway
Score: 0
|Well, not Google, but RSS Feeds rock!
Score: 0
|Google is evil!!!
Score: 0
|...with a motto of "don't do evil"! lol
Score: 0
|I agree...it's too much sharing. :)
Score: 0
|I think they'll fix this... They just shot back a response too quickly without thinking. Which politicians also get in trouble for doing.
I wouldn't hold their feet to the fire for it.
Score: 0
|I wouldn't hold their feet to the fire for it.
I would!
Score: 0
|Me too, but only because it's fun! :)
Score: 0
|