Printable catalog (PDF)
Google suspended my Limor Fried “Ladyada” Google+ profile, no show-and-tell tonight… It’s my real name, a picture of me – my posts and my nickname. I made sure it wasn’t “Adafruit Industries” and specifically me when google asked people to only use real names in their profiles. No explanation or reason why, just nuked.
UPDATE: Profile is back, I seem to be back! Thank you friends and supports as well as whoever at google who restored me 
Will try and do the show-and-tell, look for it around 9:30pm ET!
FEED
Wow. There’s a dumb move.
Comment by Sean Michael Ragan — July 23, 2011 @ 4:26 pm
Because of the handle in quotes? Really? That’s silly.
Comment by F2 — July 23, 2011 @ 4:34 pm
Boooooo!
What could possibly be on there that “violates our community standards or our names policy” ??
Comment by David — July 23, 2011 @ 4:36 pm
The links for those policies appear right there in that notice. Have you reviewed them to see what relevant standard has presumably been violated? It might be some minutiae that anybody could have missed.
Regardless, that doesn’t mean no show-and-tell tonight, I’m sure there are any number of people who would be willing to fill the shoes until this is resolved.
Comment by Justin — July 23, 2011 @ 4:46 pm
It’s a *beta* site folks. Changes make bugs and mistakes also do happen. Maybe they are testing something. Don’t get up in arms. Please understand this before going on a rant.
Look, It also happened to William Shatner and I am sure that they can get it back.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388640,00.asp
Did you guys try to get it back yet?
Comment by kgroce — July 23, 2011 @ 4:50 pm
Wow, where’s the -1 button. Google needs to get their act together and quick. This inconsistency borders on recklessness.
Comment by Mike — July 23, 2011 @ 4:51 pm
More like Unilateral+
Boo!
Comment by johngineer — July 23, 2011 @ 4:51 pm
Given that there are massive numbers of ‘Business’ names still on there I’m not sure why they are doing it to people who are following the rules.
So I guess deleting the ‘LadyAda’ will allow the account to be reinstated?
Comment by BruceS — July 23, 2011 @ 4:55 pm
damn. but it’s clearly because the intro is for Adafruit, a business.
Comment by matt — July 23, 2011 @ 4:56 pm
@matt – i made it clear that it was me… here is the about section:
Limor Fried (ladyada) founder & engineer. Adafruit makes all-original DIY electronics kits – is a New York City based company that sells kits and parts for original, open source hardware electronics projects featured on http://www.adafruit.com as well as other cool open source tronix’ that we think are interesting and well-made.
Comment by adafruit — July 23, 2011 @ 5:00 pm
Who’s called Limor Fried anyway? No real person can have such a beautiful name!
Comment by PollieTheDog — July 23, 2011 @ 5:01 pm
Another puzzler by G+. Your profile does seem to be in compliance with their rules… :/
Comment by billso — July 23, 2011 @ 5:04 pm
Many people become their own brand (name).
Wouldn’t you agree that the name Limor "Ladyada" Fried became something of a brand name? For a good cause and reason, sure. But still. You can’t say you have zero commercial interest in media presence. That includes social media.
Seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_azOmh69A&feature=player_embedded
If I were you I’d try again with a different profile picture and without Ladyada.
Comment by Rolf — July 23, 2011 @ 5:11 pm
I think I know the answer:
Mixup with Wired magazine probably. Better put a picture of yourself, and mail them your ID and tell them that you are indeed that person
Comment by Julius — July 23, 2011 @ 5:13 pm
Unbelievable!!!
I can’t imagine a better test of what works and what doesn’t for a community service than what ladyada is enabling.
Hopefully it will be solved soon.
Comment by guolivar — July 23, 2011 @ 5:16 pm
@rolf, that’s not correct – i am me, the company is not “limor fried” or “ladyada” – other well known people can have profiles why can’t i?
Comment by adafruit — July 23, 2011 @ 5:21 pm
probably the quotes
“Avoid unusual characters in your name.
When you create your profile, our system will check the name you submitted for unusual characteristics. For example, numbers, symbols, or obscure punctuation might not be allowed.”
Comment by charliex — July 23, 2011 @ 5:21 pm
Google’s index still has you as Adafruit Limor “LadyAda” Fried:
http://i.imgur.com/HYXVD.jpg
Comment by Bob Cat — July 23, 2011 @ 5:26 pm
@charliex, really over quotation marks? surely they could just remove those if it was a problem and not my profile?
Comment by adafruit — July 23, 2011 @ 5:26 pm
Ah, sometimes Google really don’t get it. I suspect you just got nuked by some over-eager new graduate trying to make a name for themselves in the company.
If you want to continue with it, just a reminder that http://tinychat.com/ does something very similar, with up to 12 live streams, and they are publically viewable too, with an associated live chat system. I believe it is moderated too, unlike G+. I have no connection with Tinychat, I have just used it a few times for similar meetings.
Comment by Mike — July 23, 2011 @ 5:28 pm
The actual text of Google’s policy, as posted here, reads:
To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your full legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, either of those would be acceptable.
Can anyone see where Ladyada violated that? I can’t.
Comment by Rob T Firefly — July 23, 2011 @ 5:31 pm
It must be the quotes….goofy algorithms…that seems logical but who knows?
Comment by Neutron Spin — July 23, 2011 @ 5:31 pm
@adafruit, sure, it’s probably a bot scanning for characters it doesn’t allow. They don’t allow periods, dr/prof/mrs etc either, they’re being very specific.
http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271
I doubt they’re hand reviewing 20 million accounts so its just some grep rule search, maybe it’ll be reviewed by a human on the appeal. But i wouldn’t hold your breath, though since you’re an internet celeb with some pull you might get preferential treatment and have it reinstated quicker than others, but i can imagine that the appeals list is pretty long, i know a lot of people that have gotten suspended.
cheers
Comment by charliex — July 23, 2011 @ 5:33 pm
@charliex – can you point to any person you know of that had a profile suspended because of two quotation marks?
Comment by adafruit — July 23, 2011 @ 5:38 pm
On Hacker News:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2797761
Comment by another — July 23, 2011 @ 5:39 pm
Well…google plus *is* still in beta, isn’t it? Aren’t we all kindof volunteering to be bug testers by using it right now?
I don’t think there was an reason for this other than Ladyada finding a bit of a “bug” in it.
The bug being that you’re not supposed to have quotes in your name, but that the G+ code isn’t checking for it.
I’m sure your account will be back soon
Comment by Ryan — July 23, 2011 @ 5:41 pm
@ryan, if ” isn’t allowed in a form, why does google allow it? that seems like something they can handle
Comment by adafruit — July 23, 2011 @ 5:43 pm
Looks like it’s been restored. Find out what happened and let us know, please.
Comment by Oscar F. — July 23, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
@adafruit, I’m sure if you post to your twitter or such asking such a thing you’re a lot more likely to find the answer to that. I do know people that’ve been suspended for characters that aren’t normally part of a real name, which quotes aren’t, same goes for included nicknames. I’d be happy to ask around my group though, if it helps.
Most people have just recreated their suspended accounts with their real name ,but I can see why it’d be a bigger issue for you.
But honestly, I just don’t see why google+ would allow quotes in a name, if they’re insisting on people using their real name. I don’t envy them as it is writing a bot that can differentiate pseudonyms from real names, never mind adding a bunch of unique rules.
I’d guess quotes are the primary reason, unless their bot is smart enough to figure out ladyada is a pseudonym, which is possibly, but seems less likely.
Especially since they specifically list no punctuation or nicknames in the rules.
Comment by charliex — July 23, 2011 @ 5:56 pm
It’s back online.
Comment by kgroce — July 23, 2011 @ 5:56 pm
Limor: If you haven’t already, hit up http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=name_appeal and ask for an appeal. That’s the best way to escalate this.
Comment by Amanda Walker — July 23, 2011 @ 5:57 pm
Hey there, I just saw this and passed it on to the right folks in Google+. I hope we can get you back shortly.
Comment by Matt Cutts — July 23, 2011 @ 6:00 pm
Now thats service.
Comment by charliex — July 23, 2011 @ 6:04 pm
I’m in a similar situation with my G+ profile suspended but I feel so disgusted by Google’s attitude in demanding such a surrender of my privacy in the first place and now their follow up action that I simply won’t use their services in future. Well done Google…way to lose users.
Comment by David — July 23, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
Is there still going to be a show and tell?
Comment by RobotGrrl — July 23, 2011 @ 6:43 pm
The problem in all this is that although Google says you are not linked admin wise with all accounts, It seems by recent events you are, thereby, you are inevitably screwed..
Comment by Guns — July 23, 2011 @ 6:59 pm
@guns – what do you mean?
Comment by adafruit — July 23, 2011 @ 7:03 pm
As soon as I get into google plus, I’ll be there!
Comment by Kris Kortright — July 23, 2011 @ 9:08 pm
Lady Ada, you know you’ve arrived when you’re too popular for Google+
Must be a technogeek thing, William Shatner got delisted there for a while as well. If they can do it to the Captain, they can do it to you too!
Comment by Sean — July 23, 2011 @ 9:25 pm
Kris, send me a pm on twitter (@notexa) with your email address, I’ll send you an invite.
Comment by Robby — July 23, 2011 @ 11:37 pm
I have a comment about the remark per Amanda@google, giving a link to the name appeal site which some other G+ banned bloggers have already written about doesn’t work. It states among other things:
“Please provide us with a link to a reputable website where you are referred to by this name. Examples include Facebook, LinkedIn, a school or university student directory, or a news article.”
I would like a definition of “reputable website” with examples of websites accepted and not accepted as reputable. I would like evidence that websites not on the “reputable list” are actually not reputable, which is an accusation.
I suspect that “reputable” means giant for-profit corporate sites designed to exploit users, and not actually reputable in the meaning held by normal people.
Comment by Scott — July 24, 2011 @ 12:07 am
@adafruit — they should be able to handle it, somebody probably just forgot to test for it. You should demand a bug tester sticker
Comment by Ryan — July 24, 2011 @ 12:51 am
I love Google. Google is great. Yay Google. But.
It pretty much sucks that in order to get a human to do anything for you there, you have to be internet famous. Otherwise, welcome to the belly of a digital sarlacc, where your account will be slowly digested over a thousand years.
… curiously enough, that may be literally true, depending on their data retention policies.
Comment by Bruce — July 24, 2011 @ 1:35 am
After reading about William Shatners account being temp suspended, it would seem better to me if google listed psuedonym accounts as "Unvarified" accounts much like msn messenger did. I mean, if they want to go this far with verification, they to expand a little better on that system instead of over reaching with their "influence".
Comment by MrMoolz — July 24, 2011 @ 3:24 am
I’m glad this is resolved. However, I would like to point something out to the people who insist on reminding us that “this is in beta”. Beta means testing. You cannot test without feedback.
If they are going to implement an automated TOS-violation-bot then, preliminarily, any and all suspensions created by this bot ought to exist in a separate class for which a channel of direct appeal is available. Naturally, the bot is going to make mistakes — but there should be a way to provide feedback on it. Further, the user should be given more details on why their account was suspended.
Comment by johngineer — July 24, 2011 @ 9:49 am
You know, if that was a bug, that was a frighteningly stupid bug.
@charliex “I don’t envy them as it is writing a bot that can differentiate pseudonyms from real names, never mind adding a bunch of unique rules.”
Of course, experience tells me the best way to avoid bugs in a implementing a requirement is to *not have the stupid requirement*
Comment by Carlos — July 24, 2011 @ 12:30 pm
google has NO RIGHT to my real name or personal info unless we are doing business together.
i dont care about their eula. nobody read those.
Comment by jasonh — July 24, 2011 @ 12:32 pm
A lot of people are being suspended or banned because of shit like this. Clearly, Google+ isn’t any better than Facebook. Maybe worse.
Everyone hates Facebook, but is obligated to use it anyway. We’re itching for a replacement to come along so we can jump ship, but this ain’t it. Maybe there’s still hope for (vaporware) Diaspora?
Comment by ugh — July 24, 2011 @ 4:07 pm
First let me say I am a fan of Adafruit. Second let me say that your resistor Captcha is very difficult for people with vision anomalies.
Three of your resistor stripes are almost identical to the resistor color density.
Comment by Carlos — July 25, 2011 @ 2:27 pm