Google's Communication Problems Continue: Blogger Can't Get His Blog Turned Back On After Six Months

from the not-cool dept

For the last few months, we've been seeing more and more stories about Google's communication problems with users. This has always been something of an issue with Google -- which seems to prefer algorithms to humans whenever possible -- but we're seeing it so often, that I'm really beginning to wonder if this is a serious problem (or potential Achilles heel) for the company. It seems like Google could take some serious lessons from a company like Zappos that treats everyone like a human and goes to amazing lengths to resolve any problems. Instead, too often dealing with Google feels like tossing a request into a giant shiny white box where you may or may not ever hear back -- and, if you do hear back, it's unlikely to be particularly helpful.

For example, we've already talked about the problems many suddenly banned advertisers have had in getting any kind of explanation from Google (let alone any recourse). On top of that, there was the situation with users being locked out of their Google docs, with little communication from Google available. This is really potentially quite damaging. It gives the impression of a giant white wall between users and the company in an age where having some sort of human connection to a company is increasingly important. I recognize that Google has it in their DNA to be afraid of people gaming the system, but in shutting itself off from the world, it may be creating more problems for itself.

The latest example is instructive. Jack Yan alerts us to his own writeup of the struggle he's gone through to try to get Google to reinstate a blog it incorrectly deleted back in July. You can read the forum exchange that began in November (after many months of going through the regular official channels and being told to "wait 2 days" over and over again with nothing coming of it). Jack summarizes the forum exchange this way, with Google's explanation first, and his response in parentheses:

1. You probably didn't follow the suggestions. (Yes, I did.)
2. You didn't do it at the right time. (Yes, I did.)
3. Wait two days. (Waited, nothing happened.)
4. Wait till this afternoon. (Waited, nothing happened.)
5. There's no cache of it. (Yes, there is.)
6. You're not the owner of the site. (Owner steps in and says I am allowed to follow this up for him.)
7. There's no cache of it. (Yes, there is.)
8. I'll ignore the main link you give and focus on a second one that is less useful. (Look at the first one then.)
9. There's no cache of it. (Yes, there is.)
10. There's no cache of it. (Yes, there is.)
11. Your search term is not relevant to this. (But it shows you a cache of it.)

The exchange is incredibly frustrating to read, and I'm amazed that Jack remained as calm as he did through it all. In fact, he notes that Google itself had a cache of the site for a long time -- including when he kept submitting for reinstatement and getting told to wait two days. But now Google's own cache is gone, so he's pointing the Google folks to Yahoo's cache to prove the blog is not a spam blog. And Google's response appears to be nitpicking over the search term, rather than the cache itself, or looking for ways to get the blog back. I know plenty of folks who work at Google and care deeply about their products and how they're perceived, but I'm amazed at how badly the company seems to handle basic customer service issues like this one.

Filed Under: blogs, communications
Companies: google

Is Google Going Too Far In Latest Advertising Bans?

from the a-little-explanation-would-be-nice dept

We've been talking a bit about some of the communications problem Google seems to have at times, often not doing a very good job communicating with the public on things that may impact them greatly. Here's yet another example, sent in by Ryan, who notes that many people have recently been kicked out of Google's AdWord program with no recourse or explanation.

Now, it seems pretty clear that Google is trying to block "bad" advertisers who are somehow lying or cheating the system -- and that's a good thing. But these sweeping bans seem to be catching plenty of legitimate advertisers, and even more frustrating than the "ban" itself is the fact that as many times as you attempt to get them to explain why you were banned or ask for your case to be reconsidered, the company's response is, effectively, to tell people: "You were banned for being bad, and you will never advertise with us again. Goodbye." While I'm sure plenty of the banned accounts were banned for nefarious activity, it seems ridiculous to do a permanent and total ban with no explanation whatsoever. Google has been known to do this before (certainly many folks who use AdSense have received similar notices with the same lack of info or recourse). It's just a shame, because it's the sort of thing that Google could do right, and seems to have chosen not to.

Filed Under: ads, bans, communications
Companies: google

Is Google Banning AdSense On Sites It Thinks Have Infringing Content?

from the oddities dept

Thomas O'Toole points us to yet another issue with Google customer service, where an author who holds the copyright on his own books published them online but was denied the ability to put AdSense on the site, after Google told him it had found "it contains copyrighted material." Of course, this makes no sense. Nearly every website "contains copyrighted material," because any new creative content placed in a fixed form -- such as a website -- is automatically covered by copyright. What I'm guessing Google meant (even though it got it wrong) was that it thought the site contained infringing or unauthorized copyrighted content -- though, if that's the case, that's what it should have said.

And, once again highlighting Google's communication problem, the rejection came from an email address called "noreply," making it difficult for the author to get clarification. He did eventually get Google to "resolve" the issue, but Google's overall policy on the matter is not explained at all. Does Google have an official policy where its AdSense team tries to determine if content on a website is infringing? If so, do they have an official dispute process? Does the AdSense team take into account fair use? Google has, generally speaking, been very good on issues of copyright and fair use, but this particular policy seems rather strange.

Filed Under: adwords, communications, copyright, infringing
Companies: google

Google Bug On Document Sharing Highlights Communication Problems

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Hopefully this is just a big mistake, but Slashdot points us to a bunch of Google Docs users complaining that Google is blocking them from sharing their documents claiming "inappropriate content," even in cases where the content is clearly fine, such as college class notes and homework assignments. Even assuming this is just some sort of bug, the bigger issue seems to be Google's lack of response, despite the issue cropping up weeks ago. This charge has been raised about Google in the past, and it's only going to become more important. As more and more people rely on Google for services, the company is going to need to improve its handling of customer service issues and communication.

Filed Under: cloud computing, communications, google docs, inappropriate content, sharing
Companies: google

The Web Is More About Free Communication Than Transactions

from the pay-attention dept

Pistol points us to the news that a study out of the UK shows that the popularity of free online content and communication continues to grow, while transactional sites are losing marketshare. Now... the story is pitched a bit as "free beats paid," but I'll be the first to say that's a bit unfair. First, we're talking about marketshare here, not absolute numbers. Also, it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison to lump content and communication into one bucket and put it up against e-commerce related sites. So I don't necessarily think this particular study is all that instructive in the whole "free" vs. "paid" debate.

However, what it does highlight is the fact that people still do view the web as a communication and conversational platform. This is a point that is important. The internet was always intended and used as a communication platform. Then, suddenly, there was a burst of latecomers in the 90's who thought it was actually a marketplace platform. And in the last few years, there are many who believe it's a broadcast platform. The neat thing is that, as a communications platform it can handle and allow those other things to take place (flexibility is great), but the core purpose of the internet has always been as a communications platform. Other stuff will happen and live on it, but pretending that it's not a communication platform, and working to limit the ability to communicate online will always backfire.

Filed Under: business models, communications, internet, transaction

White House Bans Twitter?

from the communication? dept

Well this is odd. Twitter was one of the many tools that President Obama used to help build up a strong base of supporters, and the White House has its own Twitter feed that is quite popular. Yet, reader Ben points out that White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has now admitted that Twitter is blocked from White House computers. Wonder who's updating the official feed, then... Apparently this isn't actually a new thing. A couple months ago, it came up in another press conference, and it came out that only a small number of "new media" folks are allowed to have access to Twitter from the White House. Someone ought to let the White House IT staff know that it's easy to update Twitter via SMS from your phone... Either way, makes you wonder if only the media communications people in the White House are allowed to use telephones, too.

Filed Under: communications, robert gibbs, twitter, white house

Is Voicemail The Next Thing To Fade Away?

from the moving-forward dept

I've noticed something recently: I rarely listen to voicemails anymore. If I know who called, I can simply call them back, or get in touch with them through other means. The whole process of calling in to my phone and actually listening to the voicemail is quite a pain -- and I've actually found myself annoyed when I felt the need to actually listen to voicemail. Apparently, I'm not alone. The NY Times is noting that many people are tiring of voicemail, noting that other options are a lot more efficient and effective for leaving messages for people. And it's not just anecdotal. The NY Times report above quotes a study that found over 30% of voicemails "linger unheard for three days or longer." Of course, some of that annoyance may be the user interface for traditional voicemail -- dialing in, listening to each message, remembering which button to press to delete... Newer visual voicemail solutions, like those found on the iPhone, may alleviate some of the pain. In fact, in a separate study that basically states the obvious, most people preferred visual voicemail over traditional voicemail.

Filed Under: communications, voicemail

Shocking News: Communication Tools Don't Discriminate

from the who-knew? dept

In response to an article about how "Web 2.0 gives new tools to hate groups" I was tempted to write an entire post, mimicking the original, except changing every instance of "hate" to something positive. Yes, blogs and social networks can and are being used by hate groups. But they're also being used to combat ignorance and hate. They're just communication tools, and the fact that hate groups use them (as well as anti-ignorance groups) is hardly surprising. But rather than creating some moral panic about hate groups using these tools, why not encourage more people to use such tools to combat ignorance and hate? Instead, we get a bunch of supposed "experts" talking about how these uses need to be shut down. That does nothing productive. It just makes the hate group members feel even more angry and persecuted, which just fuels the hate. The solution is to educate -- and (oh, look at that!) web 2.0 provides some pretty good tools for spreading knowledge and fighting ignorance.

Filed Under: communications, hate groups, web 2.0

Copyright And Its Harm On Culture

from the understanding-culture dept

A bunch of folks have sent in Cory Doctorow's essay on why he considers himself a "copyfighter," noting that sharing content is what creates culture -- and the attempts by Big Content to block sharing of content are effectively an attempt to stomp out culture, such that only they can determine what is culture (or so they believe).

Content isn't king: culture is. The reason we go to the movies is to have something to talk about. If I sent you to a desert island and told you to choose between your records and your friends, you'd be a sociopath if you chose the music.

Culture's imperative is to share information: culture is shared information. Science fiction readers know this: the guy across from you on the subway with a gaudy SF novel in his hands is part of your group. You two have almost certainly read some of the same books, you've got some shared cultural referents, some things to talk about.

When you hear a song you love, you play it for the people in your tribe. When you read a book you love, you shove it into the hands of your friends to encourage them to read it too. When you see a great show, you get your friends to watch it too -- or you seek out the people who've already watched it and strike up a conversation with them.

I would go even further than Doctorow does. I'm less concerned about the impact on culture, as I am on the impact on communication itself. Communication is at the heart of pretty much all economic activity -- and thanks to technology, these days, pretty much all communication involves some sort of "copying." Yet, because a rather recent industry was built up on the idea that "copying" was rare and was only done on professional built content, it's now trying to shut down and stomp out new means of communication just because, as a part of its nature, it allows for the copying of professional content as well. Yet, in doing so, they're slowing down basic communications, and with it, the core of economic activity and growth.

The attempt to apply ever more draconian copyright laws may appear to be in the interests of those who have relied on such artificial scarcity for years, but the end result is a significant restriction of economic activity, which harms everyone -- including the companies who are in favor of such copyright laws and enforcement. Purposely limiting a market is a dangerous short-term practice that has significantly negative long-term consequences.

Filed Under: communications, copyright, cory doctorow, culture

Imagine If Political Campaigns Couldn't Use The Web... Or Just Look At Japan

from the no-communicating-please dept

While there have been plenty of news stories about how the various political campaigns in the US have been using the internet to get out the vote, Newsweek has a fascinating story about how Japanese election law pretty much bans all use of the internet in campaigning. Once a political campaign is announced, that candidate can't update his website or blog. The only loophole is podcasts (the law doesn't cover audio), but that's hardly enough to make much of a dent. As the article notes, this has helped keep younger, more technically savvy politicians from succeeding when they run for office -- and that's part of the reason why older politicians are perfectly happy with the system the way it exists. It sounds like some are pushing for change, while others are actively defying the ban, but it's apparently quite a different online atmosphere during election season in Japan than elsewhere.

Filed Under: communications, free speech, internet, japan, politics