Talk:Gmail/Archive 19

has google ever recycled a user name?
I deleted my username becuase it had dots in the log in and I didn't realize it would be lost for 9 mo to eternity to get the same username without dots. Has a username been recycled yet? Any confirmations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.234.9 (talk • contribs) 03:24, May 24, 2007


 * Don't know if this still matters to you, but gmail email addresses ignore the dots -- i.e. abcdefg@gmail is exactly the same email address as a.b.c.d.e.f.g@gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.31.68 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 November 2007

for archival: Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment(?)
LOL the hilight of your year, to change gmail space in article to 5GB bravo. You'll go a long way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.103.122 (talk • contribs) 19:10, November 17, 2007

dating discussion: Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiding of ads next to sensitive messages
I just added a subsection under Privacy regarding the fact that Gmail does not display ads next to potentially sensitive messages, such as those concerning a tragedy or catastrophe. It's in the best place I could come up with; is there a better place to put it that I missed? (Reference for new section: https://mail.google.com/mail/help/about_privacy.html) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that's notable enough to put in there? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is going to sound rather know-it-allish, but I've never seen another email service, that displays ads, specifically not display them when it detects a message of a sensitive nature. Though if we're going to worry about notability, is it quite necessary to mention that there is a Google redirect prepended to every link in emails? (That's what I inserted near.) Notability is a fine line; all of these things are part of the product. The question is whether they should be mentioned. My personal feeling is that yes, this should be in the article, but that's leaning toward POV I realize. If someone else disagrees, remove it; I won't edit war over something like that. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 10:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand where you're coming from. I for me wouldn't have added the google redirect, nor the amazing sensitivity-dependent adds. But if that was reason for me to completely remove it, I would have done so, so aparently, I'm not all that fuzzed. The thing I'm starting to worry about though, is that the article is rather long as it is, and if cruftlike elements are starting to creep in, it will bloat even more. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that; and yes, the article is pretty long. I personally wouldn't have added the thing about the redirect either, but it's there now, and with no good reason to delete it (it is accurate). That was just an example, anyway. The article will probably need to be rearranged if too much more stuff is added; the current section layout will become inadequate. When that time comes, we can all get out the weed-whacker and cut out the stuff that doesn't really have to be in there – my new section being up for grabs along with everything else (of course). Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)