That is some distracting ad placement, particularly given the content of the blog post. I spent a good couple of minutes trying to figure out what was wrong with the copy on the "Heart Internet" ad before I realized that it had nothing to do with the blog post.
Leaving aside the question of whether this message should even <i>exist</i>, here's a somewhat better approach:<p>Your profile "Your Name" has been temporarily suspended because it appears confusingly similar to <a href="...">Other User</a>. We do not allow profiles that appear to impersonate another user. If this is not correct, please <a href="...contact form that works with suspended profile...">contact us</a>.<p>Of course, having a "contact us" link would break Google's usual support policy (namely, don't offer any).
Google has gotten big enough to where "don't be evil" is just a cute saying that people mouth with absolutely no conviction whatsoever.<p>The company can distinguish spam from legit messages pretty well from what I hear so there's clearly corporate knowledge of the notion of false positives and false negatives. But seemingly none of that made it from the gmail division over to the G+ division.
<rant>
The question I am going to ask is - What's wrong with Google? They had solid services, great reputation, every techie loved them. Now they fit perfectly in the stereotype for a big, bad and greedy corporation.<p>In retrospect:
April 2013 - they butchered Adsense YT reporting by removing the real-time reports from your Adsense profile and moving them to YT. There was a massive drop in earnings afterwards! Instead of aiming for transparency they gave their users the finger.<p>Then comes the constant harassment with this G+ thing. I've gotten the popup message around 50 times.<p>Should I discuss Gmail redesign - hidden interfaces, new sorting system. Absurd things!<p>And the latest - G+ comments on YT. Yeah, that improved the comment quality.<p>I am wondering who's fault that is. There probably is a committee of managers who come up with these "changes".<p></rant><p>I come off as too negative, but I am just mad at them. That's why I've stopped using gmail, gtalk, hangouts, etc.
My wife has had the same thing happen to her today. Her Google+, and by extension, her YouTube account through which she promotes her work (she's a musician) were suspended, apparently without any notification.<p>There's an appeals process, and she's linked to her website and Facebook profile and submitted a photocopy of her passport to prove her name. Does anybody here know how long this is likely to take, or the chances of it being successful?<p>edit: s/password/passport/
<i>Your profile has been suspended because it impersonates someone.</i><p>This message is wrong because it asserts something which isn't true. That is, you are clearly not impersonating somebody else, right?<p><i>If it was a copy writer I’ve lost all hope.</i><p>Copywriters aren't responsible for this type of mistake.<p>A copywriter transforms a message into coherent language. The language here is clear and readable. The message is the problem.<p><i>A straight up accusation of potentially illegal acts.</i><p>This message is not accusing you of fraud, that's your own hyperbole.
>A straight up accusation of potentially illegal acts. There’s no ambiguity, I’m guilty until proven innocent<p>Usual complaints, but it's weird how people expect corporations to somehow adopt a charter of rights like "the right to a fair trial for your corporate ban-hammer". Much like complaints about "free speech" when reddit bans some subreddit.<p>There's no obligation for Google to prove anything (until you start paying for something, in which case you start entering contract law issues).<p>There's a lot of value-add in offering a minimum of customer service nowadays, considering the complete lack of service by most companies.
<i>Presumption of Innocence</i> is not directly enshrined in the US constitution. It is implied by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. However, it is acceptable practice in the US for local jurisdictions to relax aspects of the Presumption of Innocence. For example, for rape cases in some jurisdictions, it is not necessary to address the <i>mens rea</i>.<p><a href="http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm" rel="nofollow">http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm</a><p><i>"It is not that you are innocent until proven guilty as many believe. It is that you are assumed guilty because of the assertion made and until your presumption of innocence prevails your protestation of innocence is simply the challenge to the prosecution to prove its case...With the presumption is innocence you do not have to prove innocence as it is a given. The burden of proving otherwise is upon the party making the assertion."</i><p>So the <i>Presumption of Innocence</i> is simply placing the burden of proof on the accuser and therefore any lightening of the burden of proof is effectively an erosion of the <i>Presumption of Innocence</i>.<p>Is it really a right if local jurisdictions can simply decide to erode it?<p>Now, certainly there is another side to the story. The argument made in rape and sexual assault cases is that, "Of course, the defendant is going to claim consensuality." The position that <i>mens rea</i> is impractical in cases of rape and sexual assault is not entirely unreasonable. My point is that the commonly held view that US citizens have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty isn't so assured and cut and dry as most of us believe.
I'm not on the google+ hate train.<p>I don't think this message is really horrible. The fact that they suspend your account is kind of weird, but IMO, you shouldn't be using G+ as your "home" on the web. I don't think it's meant to be that way. I've been using it since beta, and I've found that joining relevant communities and following certain people makes it an awesome mix of reddit (sans-comments) and twitter. My home feed has all the stuff I want to see from G+, and I will look into new communities once every few months.<p>I would never send anyone to my G+ profile. There's nothing really on it. I don't use it as if it were Facebook and load my history with vapid statements or "inspirational" quotes.<p>I think now, more than ever, it's easy to get your own "destination" site up and running with minimal effort. The social stuff? It's just a way to kill time. It shouldn't be everything.
I'm intrigued: what's the other side of the "Take Action" link? Not curious enough to try to trigger the suspension, though.<p>Back to the topic at hand: writing "appears to impersonate" wouldn't have been so much extra effort, would it?
Maybe they forgot to include "seems". Doesn't appear like that big of a deal. There's a "Take Action" button ready to fix the issue. Is such a thing illegal in the UK?
The author left out a detail? Does his account impersonate someone else? I think that's an important part of the conversation, even if the messaging is presumptive.