Google Reader needs GPC

December 26, 2007 By

Oh, man, is the Google Reader team under attack for its new social networking features.

There’s a few ways I could take this.

1. I could call people idiots for not understanding the meaning of the word “public.”
2. I could call the Google Reader team idiots for not putting GPC into its social networking and sharing features.
3. I could call the media idiots for not explaining these features better and for even making it sound like stuff that isn’t shared at all is being shared (which absolutely isn’t true).

I’m going to take #2: that the Google Reader team screwed up here and needs to implement GPC as soon as possible. What’s GPC? Granular Privacy Controls.

Here’s how Google screwed up: Google didn’t understand that some users thought that their shared items feeds were private and didn’t know that they were going to be turned totally public. The users who are complaining about this feature assumed that since their feed had a weird URL (here’s mine so you can see that the URL isn’t easy to figure out the way other URLs are) that their feed couldn’t be found by search engines or by people who they didn’t explicitly give the URL to, etc. In other words, that their feed and page would, really, be private, even though it was shared in a public way without a password required or anything like that.

Now, I almost took the stance that the users are wrong. Except, well, in this case they aren’t and the Google Reader team should change the way this feature works.

Here’s how.

When you share a feed item you should have a choice about whether it is made really public (like my feeds are) or whether you keep them for just certain friends to view. Google needs to look to Facebook for leadership here.

If I don’t want you to see some content on Facebook I can lock you out while letting other friends see it. That’s “GPC.”

Facebook has GPC. Google Reader does not.

Social networking services that don’t have GPC will increasingly piss off users and chase them away to competitors that DO have GPC. Look at why SmugMug is so popular (and why its users PAY for the service!) A big part of it is GPC.

But, to the users you still are idiots for not understanding that when Google says “public” Google MEANS public. I’m not sure how much clearer Google could have made it, other than to maybe put a disclaimer that says something like “this feed might look sorta private right now, but we reserve the right to put this feed into public view at anytime for any reason. If you don’t want your shared items to be seen by everyone, please don’t share them.

I think the Google Reader team knew that it was going to have a problem here, though, because they gave its users the ability to delete all items in their shared item feed. Scary feature, too. I’ve spent thousands of hours building up that database and I almost used it by accident cause it sounded like a good feature to try. Yikes, glad I thought a little bit more than I usually do that night.

Anyway, Google Reader team: please enable GPC. Your users will keep yelling and screaming until you do. I know, cause a few of them have yelled and screamed at me about this feature.

UPDATE: I just signed in and there are 444 items shared with me from my friends. That’s not even counting the feed items that come to me just because of my almost 800 feeds. Yikes! Demonstrates that even Christmas can’t stop the information glut we’re seeing.

Filed Under: Google Calendar, Recruiting, Russia

Pingback: The Social Web Walks a Fine Line - Covering All That's Social All the Web
http://www.douglaskarr.com/ Douglas Karr

Is there a meteor storm in your page?
http://www.douglaskarr.com Douglas Karr

Is there a meteor storm in your page?
Pingback: Techy News » Comment on Google Reader needs GPC by StuFF mc
http://blog.arhg.net/ Andrew Girdwood

It has to be option (1) – doesn’t it?

Otherwise we’re asking Google to find the lowest common denominator of its user base and go at that speed only.
http://blog.arhg.net/ Andrew Girdwood

It has to be option (1) – doesn’t it?

Otherwise we’re asking Google to find the lowest common denominator of its user base and go at that speed only.
http://blog.arhg.net Andrew Girdwood

It has to be option (1) – doesn’t it?

Otherwise we’re asking Google to find the lowest common denominator of its user base and go at that speed only.
Pingback: What part of ‘public’ don’t they understand? | /dev/random
Pingback: Google Reader, Scoble’s a hablado | Francisco Vargas
armin

So here is a question…

the “shared” items, which you choose to share is only shared with people on you google TALK and not necessarily with everyone you have in your email contacts correct?

so if you have a problem sharing things with a certain individual why not, uhhhh, remove them from your google TALK contacts (not block, but just remove them).

If you care about your privacy that much in respect to a particular individual or a group of people not finding out the articles in which you are SHARING, you probably don’t want them chatting with you anyway, so just remove them.

uhhhh I believe that is their GPC, you just remove them from you chat list. you can still have them in your email list….

I think people, just like to have drama in their lives, this is a non issue, and definitely not a issue to ruin anyones Christmas, thats just childish people.

Kudos for google not giving in… there is always bloglines for the people who are whining.
armin

So here is a question…

the “shared” items, which you choose to share is only shared with people on you google TALK and not necessarily with everyone you have in your email contacts correct?

so if you have a problem sharing things with a certain individual why not, uhhhh, remove them from your google TALK contacts (not block, but just remove them).

If you care about your privacy that much in respect to a particular individual or a group of people not finding out the articles in which you are SHARING, you probably don’t want them chatting with you anyway, so just remove them.

uhhhh I believe that is their GPC, you just remove them from you chat list. you can still have them in your email list….

I think people, just like to have drama in their lives, this is a non issue, and definitely not a issue to ruin anyones Christmas, thats just childish people.

Kudos for google not giving in… there is always bloglines for the people who are whining.
http://blog.maniacd.net/ ManiacD

Robert
Another option people can do is to create a new label and set that up as being a shared feed then all they need to do is to add that label to the items that they want to share to be included in that shared label feed.

I’m pretty sure that these items won’t show up in the shared friend feeds as google would only be sharing the actually “Shared Feed Items” and not any others.

I did a blog post back in June on how to set this up you can check it out here http://blog.maniacd.net/2007/06/17/using-google-reader-to-create-multiple-shared-feeds/
http://blog.maniacd.net ManiacD

Robert
Another option people can do is to create a new label and set that up as being a shared feed then all they need to do is to add that label to the items that they want to share to be included in that shared label feed.

I’m pretty sure that these items won’t show up in the shared friend feeds as google would only be sharing the actually “Shared Feed Items” and not any others.

I did a blog post back in June on how to set this up you can check it out here http://blog.maniacd.net/2007/06/17/using-google-reader-to-create-multiple-shared-feeds/
http://nottoogeeky.com/ Tyme White

To confirm, I logged into Reader, looked at how Google describes the Shared feature:

“This page is accessible to anyone who knows its address, so all that’s left to do is to let your friends know about it.”

Then there is a URL that the person can share with their friends. There is a “find out more about sharing” link, I clicked on it, and it describes the public PAGE.

I don’t see anything about my friends on GTalk getting those feeds automatically. I don’t see anything about my friends using Reader automatically getting the updates. It specifically states it will go on a PAGE.

Robert, I’m confused on how users “assumed” something wrong. Google did not do their job by stating specifically on Reader what Shared items would do/does. The user shouldn’t have to hunt around for it and if they implemented a new feature the user should have been notified of it when they logged in. Instead of giving me a Tips/Tricks on the Home page give me “We made a major change, this is what this change means to you…”.
http://nottoogeeky.com/ Tyme White

To confirm, I logged into Reader, looked at how Google describes the Shared feature:

“This page is accessible to anyone who knows its address, so all that’s left to do is to let your friends know about it.”

Then there is a URL that the person can share with their friends. There is a “find out more about sharing” link, I clicked on it, and it describes the public PAGE.

I don’t see anything about my friends on GTalk getting those feeds automatically. I don’t see anything about my friends using Reader automatically getting the updates. It specifically states it will go on a PAGE.

Robert, I’m confused on how users “assumed” something wrong. Google did not do their job by stating specifically on Reader what Shared items would do/does. The user shouldn’t have to hunt around for it and if they implemented a new feature the user should have been notified of it when they logged in. Instead of giving me a Tips/Tricks on the Home page give me “We made a major change, this is what this change means to you…”.
http://nottoogeeky.com Tyme White

To confirm, I logged into Reader, looked at how Google describes the Shared feature:

“This page is accessible to anyone who knows its address, so all that’s left to do is to let your friends know about it.”

Then there is a URL that the person can share with their friends. There is a “find out more about sharing” link, I clicked on it, and it describes the public PAGE.

I don’t see anything about my friends on GTalk getting those feeds automatically. I don’t see anything about my friends using Reader automatically getting the updates. It specifically states it will go on a PAGE.

Robert, I’m confused on how users “assumed” something wrong. Google did not do their job by stating specifically on Reader what Shared items would do/does. The user shouldn’t have to hunt around for it and if they implemented a new feature the user should have been notified of it when they logged in. Instead of giving me a Tips/Tricks on the Home page give me “We made a major change, this is what this change means to you…”.
Pingback: More on Shared Items | Library Stuff
http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

I turned off the snow, cause I was getting complaints about it.
http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

I turned off the snow, cause I was getting complaints about it.
Roy

I’ve never thought of Shared Feeds not also being Public Feeds. If it can be Indexed then of course all feeds with become public to some extent.
The interweb is the epitome of transparency and if you don’t want it for all to see then don’t post it!

Quite simple when you break it down!
Roy

I’ve never thought of Shared Feeds not also being Public Feeds. If it can be Indexed then of course all feeds with become public to some extent.
The interweb is the epitome of transparency and if you don’t want it for all to see then don’t post it!

Quite simple when you break it down!
http://www..arbiummoney.com/bankruptcy/bankruptcyservices/ Roy

I’ve never thought of Shared Feeds not also being Public Feeds. If it can be Indexed then of course all feeds with become public to some extent.
The interweb is the epitome of transparency and if you don’t want it for all to see then don’t post it!

Quite simple when you break it down!
TK

I’m one of those pissed off Reader users. Reader’s previous sharing system was EXPLICIT in telling users that although their shares were on a publicly visible page that the URL was obfuscated and they could expect reasonable privacy if they were careful about who they shared it with.

In my case I used this feature to share with a handful of trusted colleagues market research and information that was directly relevant to current projects. To suddenly discover months of market research and revealing info about our future initiatives broadcast to competitors in my address book was a shock. Initially the only options were to delete all shares (effectively erasing 700+ items of research) or delete people from gmail’s contacts. They’ve since wisely implemented a feature to allow us to migrate our existing shares to new tags. Admittedly an edge case situation, but judging by the thread on googles help page there are many of those.

This new feature and its clumsy notion of my social graph wouldn’t have been such a nuisance if it had been rolled out with some regard for legacy users.

What seems to be lost in all the noise, hyperbole and half-informed opinion on this “controversy” is the more interesting revelation: the gmail address book and users email behaviors seem to be being mined to bootstrap a new social network platform that has no opt-out. The “open-social” future is becoming a ride we’re all being herded in line for, like it or not.
TK

I’m one of those pissed off Reader users. Reader’s previous sharing system was EXPLICIT in telling users that although their shares were on a publicly visible page that the URL was obfuscated and they could expect reasonable privacy if they were careful about who they shared it with.

In my case I used this feature to share with a handful of trusted colleagues market research and information that was directly relevant to current projects. To suddenly discover months of market research and revealing info about our future initiatives broadcast to competitors in my address book was a shock. Initially the only options were to delete all shares (effectively erasing 700+ items of research) or delete people from gmail’s contacts. They’ve since wisely implemented a feature to allow us to migrate our existing shares to new tags. Admittedly an edge case situation, but judging by the thread on googles help page there are many of those.

This new feature and its clumsy notion of my social graph wouldn’t have been such a nuisance if it had been rolled out with some regard for legacy users.

What seems to be lost in all the noise, hyperbole and half-informed opinion on this “controversy” is the more interesting revelation: the gmail address book and users email behaviors seem to be being mined to bootstrap a new social network platform that has no opt-out. The “open-social” future is becoming a ride we’re all being herded in line for, like it or not.
http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/ Mister Snitch!

A verdict worthy of Solomon, Robert.
http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/ Mister Snitch!

A verdict worthy of Solomon, Robert.
http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/ Mister Snitch!

A verdict worthy of Solomon, Robert.
http://www.douglaskarr.com/ Douglas Karr

I wasn’t complaining, Robert… razzing a little… but not complaining .
http://www.douglaskarr.com/ Douglas Karr

I wasn’t complaining, Robert… razzing a little… but not complaining .
http://www.douglaskarr.com Douglas Karr

I wasn’t complaining, Robert… razzing a little… but not complaining .
Pingback: Between the Lines mobile edition
TK

fwiw, the original FAQ for google reader sharing (not yet updated to reflect the new feature) makes it plain that only those to whom you provided the obfuscated URL could view your shares. This was a very useful, well implemented feature for many of us at the time.
http://www.google.com/help/reader/sharing.html
TK

fwiw, the original FAQ for google reader sharing (not yet updated to reflect the new feature) makes it plain that only those to whom you provided the obfuscated URL could view your shares. This was a very useful, well implemented feature for many of us at the time.
http://www.google.com/help/reader/sharing.html
TK

fwiw, the original FAQ for google reader sharing (not yet updated to reflect the new feature) makes it plain that only those to whom you provided the obfuscated URL could view your shares. This was a very useful, well implemented feature for many of us at the time.
http://www.google.com/help/reader/sharing.html
Pingback: that canadian girl » Blog Archive » Google Reader Shared Items: And what about the usability?
HexToInt

@TX You’re wrong about Google explicitly telling people that obfuscation meant privacy. DEAD wrong. That help page and that banner that appears within Reader DO NOT SAY that people could expect “reasonable privacy if they were careful about who they shared it with”. At worst, they mention explicit visibility to people who “know its address” but they DON’T GUARANTEE PRIVACY in any manner whatsoever.

Why are so many people are making up stuff that doesn’t exist with regards to Google’s sharing feature. To believe that “publicness” means “private enough” takes a leap of logic that seems pretty bizarre.

I kind of like this controversy however, since I think it’s past time we had a community involvement in what these terms mean with regards to the biggest services that will be using and interpreting them.

What does “share” or “public” mean? It’s clear that it’s far from unanimously decided.
HexToInt

@TX You’re wrong about Google explicitly telling people that obfuscation meant privacy. DEAD wrong. That help page and that banner that appears within Reader DO NOT SAY that people could expect “reasonable privacy if they were careful about who they shared it with”. At worst, they mention explicit visibility to people who “know its address” but they DON’T GUARANTEE PRIVACY in any manner whatsoever.

Why are so many people are making up stuff that doesn’t exist with regards to Google’s sharing feature. To believe that “publicness” means “private enough” takes a leap of logic that seems pretty bizarre.

I kind of like this controversy however, since I think it’s past time we had a community involvement in what these terms mean with regards to the biggest services that will be using and interpreting them.

What does “share” or “public” mean? It’s clear that it’s far from unanimously decided.
HexToInt

@TX You’re wrong about Google explicitly telling people that obfuscation meant privacy. DEAD wrong. That help page and that banner that appears within Reader DO NOT SAY that people could expect “reasonable privacy if they were careful about who they shared it with”. At worst, they mention explicit visibility to people who “know its address” but they DON’T GUARANTEE PRIVACY in any manner whatsoever.

Why are so many people are making up stuff that doesn’t exist with regards to Google’s sharing feature. To believe that “publicness” means “private enough” takes a leap of logic that seems pretty bizarre.

I kind of like this controversy however, since I think it’s past time we had a community involvement in what these terms mean with regards to the biggest services that will be using and interpreting them.

What does “share” or “public” mean? It’s clear that it’s far from unanimously decided.
Laura

My issue with it wasn’t that I was bothered by what I was sharing. I was using shared items like miketheactuary, as a back-log of items I wanted to look at a little more closely, while starred items went to my blog.

My issue was that several people got my shared items feed added to their daily list without any warning. Suddenly a new feed appears that they never subscribed to. When they figured out it was from me, they blamed ME for junking up their feed lists.

My friends tend to be light feed readers. Having a bunch of feeds added without any warning and without subscribing annoyed them. It annoyed me, too. Especially since most of the folks that got my feeds were people I’d never chatted with, contrary to what Google later told us.

I deleted all my contacts then deleted all the feeds in my shared items just for good measure.

I don’t mind the “feature”. What I mind is the bone-headed way in which it was forced on every user of the Reader. If it had been opt-in, no problem. But not only was it not opt-in, there was no real way to turn it off without disrupting possibly useful OTHER functions. That’s bone-headed.

And worse, Google still hasn’t fixed it. Utterly bone-headed.
Laura

My issue with it wasn’t that I was bothered by what I was sharing. I was using shared items like miketheactuary, as a back-log of items I wanted to look at a little more closely, while starred items went to my blog.

My issue was that several people got my shared items feed added to their daily list without any warning. Suddenly a new feed appears that they never subscribed to. When they figured out it was from me, they blamed ME for junking up their feed lists.

My friends tend to be light feed readers. Having a bunch of feeds added without any warning and without subscribing annoyed them. It annoyed me, too. Especially since most of the folks that got my feeds were people I’d never chatted with, contrary to what Google later told us.

I deleted all my contacts then deleted all the feeds in my shared items just for good measure.

I don’t mind the “feature”. What I mind is the bone-headed way in which it was forced on every user of the Reader. If it had been opt-in, no problem. But not only was it not opt-in, there was no real way to turn it off without disrupting possibly useful OTHER functions. That’s bone-headed.

And worse, Google still hasn’t fixed it. Utterly bone-headed.
Laura

My issue with it wasn’t that I was bothered by what I was sharing. I was using shared items like miketheactuary, as a back-log of items I wanted to look at a little more closely, while starred items went to my blog.

My issue was that several people got my shared items feed added to their daily list without any warning. Suddenly a new feed appears that they never subscribed to. When they figured out it was from me, they blamed ME for junking up their feed lists.

My friends tend to be light feed readers. Having a bunch of feeds added without any warning and without subscribing annoyed them. It annoyed me, too. Especially since most of the folks that got my feeds were people I’d never chatted with, contrary to what Google later told us.

I deleted all my contacts then deleted all the feeds in my shared items just for good measure.

I don’t mind the “feature”. What I mind is the bone-headed way in which it was forced on every user of the Reader. If it had been opt-in, no problem. But not only was it not opt-in, there was no real way to turn it off without disrupting possibly useful OTHER functions. That’s bone-headed.

And worse, Google still hasn’t fixed it. Utterly bone-headed.
Pingback: links for 2007-12-27 | Team Kane Street : Alex Rainert and Karen Bonna Rainert
Pingback: did you myth me? | moonbatwingnut.com
Pingback: Google Thinks It Knows Your Friends - EMBASSY NEWSPAPER
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ Matt Cutts

If you’re interested in this subject, Chrix on the Reader team did a post on the Google Reader blog: http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2007/12/managing-your-shared-items.html
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ Matt Cutts

If you’re interested in this subject, Chrix on the Reader team did a post on the Google Reader blog: http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2007/12/managing-your-shared-items.html
Modulo Noh

Yes, those shared feeds before this change sure were public. I often expect people to be able to guess which one of the 99.9 QUINTILLION obfuscated urls my shared items are randomly located at. By all means, feel free to email me the title of one of my shared items from my own email account, after all, if you are able to guess which one of those urls is mine, then by George, guessing my email address and password should be weak sauce by comparison. So, can we now please put to rest the idea that our shared items were previously, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination what any person of any intelligence would consider easily accessible to the public?

As for the shared tags being an adequate replacement, I think that that is a perfect workaround, for someone that uses Google Reader on a regular basis, or who has an average to more than average amount of experience with computers. I’m not concerned about this for myself, I’m concerned about this for people like my grandmother or my sister or my mother, who while able to use the computer, oddly enough, even after fully reading Google’s explanation of the change, might somehow not fully understand the implications thereof. But I guess, what, those n00bs deserve what they get? Right, nerds? Right?! It’s THEIR fault for having social lives and other interests that prevented them from chewing themselves into the technoflesh of the internet like a maggot with Asperger’s. Right?
Modulo Noh

Yes, those shared feeds before this change sure were public. I often expect people to be able to guess which one of the 99.9 QUINTILLION obfuscated urls my shared items are randomly located at. By all means, feel free to email me the title of one of my shared items from my own email account, after all, if you are able to guess which one of those urls is mine, then by George, guessing my email address and password should be weak sauce by comparison. So, can we now please put to rest the idea that our shared items were previously, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination what any person of any intelligence would consider easily accessible to the public?

As for the shared tags being an adequate replacement, I think that that is a perfect workaround, for someone that uses Google Reader on a regular basis, or who has an average to more than average amount of experience with computers. I’m not concerned about this for myself, I’m concerned about this for people like my grandmother or my sister or my mother, who while able to use the computer, oddly enough, even after fully reading Google’s explanation of the change, might somehow not fully understand the implications thereof. But I guess, what, those n00bs deserve what they get? Right, nerds? Right?! It’s THEIR fault for having social lives and other interests that prevented them from chewing themselves into the technoflesh of the internet like a maggot with Asperger’s. Right?
http://www.chaikastudios.com/ Tristan Chaika

All Google Reader says about shared links when you sign up is:
“This page is accessible to anyone who knows its address, so all that’s left to do is to let your friends know about it.”

I can see where the confusion is. They specifically say in this statement, that it is up to you to let your friends know what your feed URL is. They say absolutely nothing about Google intentionally sharing your feed link with everyone in your contacts. I don’t know about you all, but some people in my contacts are closer than others. Some are friends, some are business relationships. Some contacts I just emailed once and don’t really know. I can definitley picture situations where this could upset people, especially in an election year.
http://www.chaikastudios.com Tristan Chaika

All Google Reader says about shared links when you sign up is:
“This page is accessible to anyone who knows its address, so all that’s left to do is to let your friends know about it.”

I can see where the confusion is. They specifically say in this statement, that it is up to you to let your friends know what your feed URL is. They say absolutely nothing about Google intentionally sharing your feed link with everyone in your contacts. I don’t know about you all, but some people in my contacts are closer than others. Some are friends, some are business relationships. Some contacts I just emailed once and don’t really know. I can definitley picture situations where this could upset people, especially in an election year.

Google Reader needs GPC

Archives

About Robert