Feeds

back to article Creepy photo-tagging tech slotted into Google+

Eric Schmidt may have been creeped out by the idea of using huge facial databases to identify individuals online, but that hasn't stopped Google from debuting its own version of the technology. Google+, Mountain View's own take on social networking, is now loaded with a photo-tagging and "find my face" feature that punters must …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Dropped Google+

I dropped Google+ last week in response to the spam: "What's hot on Google+" that they shove into the stream.

7
2
FAIL

Hmm, not seeing that here

I'm guessing you just made that up.

0
3
Thumb Up

Minimise?

I thought the same until I clicked the minimise button right next to it. It's now (and still is a week later) a one line entry that I can look at from time to time if I fancy.

0
0

I am

it is a permanent 'feature' of my stream. Oh and it's shit, I really don't care what some unknown stranger is posting on their fecking stream

0
0

Err...

You can remove it, you know?

It only appears as a link below my circles on the left.

I've always thought it was a part of what makes G+ not just another Fb - being able to share and converse with strangers that you don't want to "friend".

0
0

Google+...

...is that thing still around?

11
8
Anonymous Coward

Yes,

and very good it is too.

It's not crammed full of the idiots, adverts and washing up liquid companies like Facebook is.

I dropped Facebook 6 months back it was WAY too creepy, as even an "test" FB account I created that I provided no real details for, suggested family members that I might know... (IP logging, matching?:????)

Google+ is superior in every way to FB.

5
5

That's right...

...it's not crammed full of anyone. I've got quite big circles on there and it's still a ghost town. Haven't had a single notification in months. I wanted it to work, I really did. But critical mass is required, and it ain't got it.

Oh, and the suggesting of your family members- that's THEIR fault. At some point they will have allowed FB access to their email address book and it will have noted that you were in it. Anyway, Google is at least as creepy as Facebook- I'm sure they know far more about you than you'd like, judging by your apparent level of paranoia. Don't get complacent with Google if you're scared of FB. Oh, and get an ad blocker if you don't want ads.

1
0
Silver badge

"Google+ is superior in every way to FB."

Isn't that like saying cat shit is superior in every way to dog shit?

1
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Why did they buy another company for this?

Face recognition already worked fine in Picasa (both local and web albums)

1
0

Patents.

That's all.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

So what happens if...

Although I'm very fond of GMail and GoogleDocs, Calendar etc, I have no intention of going anywhere need Google+, so I dodn't know the answer to this...

What happens if...you opt-in but then go round tagging random faces in pictures as being 'you'?

4
0
Anonymous Coward

If its anything like Facebook tagging...

...there are quite a lot of adults who it thinks are babies.

0
0
Paris Hilton

Hmmm...

Does it work with other body parts?

10
0
Bronze badge
Joke

Well, as we say in the biz ...

Suck it and see :)

0
0

Presumably, so long as you draw a face on them.

Yours Sincerely

Tim Longnose

0
0
Silver badge

"Seven months is a long time in the online world"

"In July, Google bought facial recognition outfit pittpatt, at which point it was clear that the company would eventually add a photo-tagging feature to Google+.

However, it's a move that appears to fly in the, er, face of Google chairman Schmidt, who in May this year indicated that the world's largest ad broker had no intention whatsoever of using such creepy tech in the firm's products."

That would be two months, wouldn't it? Indicating that either he's a lying Schmidt or Google doesn't really plan things at all and neither reflect well on the company.

1
1
Pint

More under the spotlight?

"But it does mean the companies are much more under the spotlight when it comes to herding identities on the interwebulator"

No, it means Google will work to influence and capture the regulator and make it do what they want it to do.

1
1

If it did that could get interesting...

...for example: photos of Paris giving to a blowjob could confuse the hell out of it. Is it you or is it Paris?

1
0

Re: So what happens if...

>> What happens if...you opt-in

Why do not need to opt-in, if you do not need it?

0
0
FAIL

Google+ ?

Oh yeah, I remember now, Google+ - some sort of social network the world+dog were raving about earlier this year.

I suspect the next time I have to use it in anger, will be as a developer having to make some sort of marketing wank 'fan page'

In the late nineties, the new 'hotness' was web portals, geoshities, myfaeces and the like.

In the noughties, we've got 'social networking' - I'm still not entirely sure how that differs from what we had before it was given a term... ah yes, the world+dog suddenly got online and 'slow on the uptake' 'marketing experts' jumped all over it and squeezed out huge piles of steaming turd all over the interweb.

Social networking is going to be the next big internet bust as punters get bored - the writing is already on the wall, as many leave farcebook in frustration over recent changes and realise there's more important stuff to do - like keeping your job and earning some cash.

Thumb me down, go on, I know you want to, a big fat Register- for the old school netizen who once had a shitty page in silicon valley on geocities back in 1995.

Social networking = dying.

12
0
Anonymous Coward

I wouldn't say it was dying a such but I think you're right in so far as the novelty has worn off and people simply now use it as a tool just as they would their toothbrush, pots and pans, etc., and then they only use FB to let Fred, John and Harry know there is a piss-up on Friday night after work.

The very fact that firms like FB, Google are so desperate to stop losing the fickle users who jump from trend to trend, they are adding gimmicks to try to keep people and out do each other backs up my observations.

Too many networks now and not everyone is on every network, nor have they the time. Most people are either on FB or nothing at all. Some joined Google+ as something new but unless all your mates did too, it's not much use to your old mates on FB. You can't demand huge circles of people move around from network to network every time something new comes along.

I wouldn't say it was dying more like settling down to be of some limited use to make sure you don't lose contact with ex-work colleagues, that sort of thing, other than that the novelty has worn off I think.

2
0
Thumb Up

Sift out the important stuff...

"to let Fred, John and Harry know there is a piss-up on Friday night after work"

Where and what time?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Even YouTube is playing the social networking game

I distinctly remember some time ago logging in to YouTube and having a sniff round the account details / options settings out of curiosity and seeing it say in the section that told you how many people you've 'friended':

"You have no friends."

Wow. Harsh.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

On the Internet

I don't exist.

0
0
Paris Hilton

"butter-fingered handling of data online"

Would that be butter-fingered like in Last Tango In Paris?

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.