Talk:Google Buzz

Image
Really not a fan of the picture, it's really hard to get an idea of what the page looks like, and what exactly Buzz does from it. Would much prefer a clear screenshot, perhaps like that on the Gmail article, or, if it's too much trouble to create a dummy account, blur out personal information. The perspective picture is just annoying and unhelpful. 65.94.4.109 (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Friendfeed Similarities
Has anyone pointed out the similarities to Friendfeed? Both are social media aggregation and collation. Main differences, to me, are that Buzz lacks many services and integrates with other Google social products. It doesn't seem as much a Facebook-killer to me, as it is combining content rather than encouraging creation. Unless I don't understand... Jbbdude (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk pages aren't meant to be used as forums or for general discussion. We're here to discuss edits to the article. If you want anything about similarities in, you need to get a source for it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: do not move. — ξ xplicit  00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Google Buzz → Google buzz — google is being inconsistent with caps but the image seems to suggest it is uncaps. —username 1 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Every source lists it as "Google Buzz". —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HelloAnnyong. And more importantly we should tackle the privacy issues that are being noted by critics. Here's one about lesser privacy concerns than the ones I included that are similar to those that Facebook experienced. I'd appreciate it if someone could include the relevant info from this article: I have to head out for dinner. Sushi! Das Lasting Impression (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Using it in Gmail it has a capital, so Buzz for me. --RedHillian | Talk 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:MOSTM may be relevant to this discussion. Ucucha 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apart from the logo, Google seems to consistently use a capital letter in describing the service, as do people commenting on it (see the list of references). -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose "buzz" could mean rumors about Google, which is a less likely meaning for the capitalized word. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whether or not the trademark holder capitalizes it is irrelevant. It's a proper name, and we capitalize proper names. Jafeluv (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can we close this per WP:SNOW? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Google's Ability to Change
How about a little blurb somewhere where it talks about the fact that it's a beta service and google is willing to adapt it based on suggestions ( http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users-and-improvements.html ) I would, but I'm not that great of a writer :P 199.247.238.29 (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Privacy
This whole area is out of date and needs revision. Google does not expose people's most frequent contacts by default. they changed this within days of Buzz being released and criticized. Lists of Follows and Followers are private by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.177.157 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mobile version privacy setting
I've removed the following line from the article, because in searching all discussion of Google Buzz, location and privacy, including the Buzz privacy policy, news articles and settings, I couldn't find any validation that the feature exists or how to get to it. If I've done this in error, please feel free to re-add a mention of it, with a link explaining where this feature is or how to use it.
 * Depending on the user's privacy settings, he or she can control the accuracy and details of what each of the other users can see — either the exact location or only the city.

Thanks. Npdoty (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PC World quote
As requested by User:Ahunt, I should explain why I think we should remove the PC World quote from the article.

I just thought the quote was particularly long and uninformative. It appears to be 5 or more sentences to express the vague issue that Buzz is "yet another social networking site" and a brief mention of the privacy concerns. I don't believe the article needs this one person's opinion at such length: we could quote a paragraph from anyone's personal review of Buzz, negative or positive, but what would that show us? Is Raphael's opinion more notable than mine or Tim O'Reilly's or David Pogue's? And without any context, it doesn't seem to illustrate any larger point: has there been a widespread negative response to Buzz for being another social networking site?

Anyway, those are my concerns. I think the article is better off without a long and unexceptional quote from a single person. Npdoty (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your concerns and I have cut the quote down so it doesn't ramble so much. I have never seen a rollout of a tech product that has been this badly received, with the possible exception of Windows Vista. I think this article needs to capture the amazing volume and range of the negative press and so I was trying to do that with representative quotes from the Canadian government, general press (CBC) and the specialized tech press (PCWorld). If you still think the quote doesn't add much of value then I am happy to cut it down to a brief one sentence summary instead. - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Ahunt, it looks like maybe you forgot to actually cut down the quote, it looks identical to me. I definitely like the idea of presenting opinions from different types of sources, though I still think we don't need many quotes of this type.  If we are to maintain a separate Reception section in addition to Privacy, we should refer to the positive reception as well (maybe I'll add a reference to Tim O'Reilly's piece). Npdoty (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I did remove about a third of the quote text, but let me reduce it to a summary and see what you think. I agree that there should be positive reception text and refs added - I haven't found any yet! - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Buzz API and the standards it works with
Just a reminder note (I don't have time to look up the content or write the section right now), we should add a section for the Buzz API and the standards (XFN, Pubsubhubbub, etc.) it works with to find and pull in content. Npdoty (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Email Received on 2 November 2010
from	Google Buzz  to	xxx@gmail.com date	Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:30 PM subject	Important Information about Google Buzz Class Action Settlement mailed-by	buzz-classaction.bounces.google.com signed-by	google.com

Google rarely contacts Gmail users via email, but we are making an exception to let you know that we've reached a settlement in a lawsuit regarding Google Buzz (http://buzz.google.com), a service we launched within Gmail in February of this year.

Shortly after its launch, we heard from a number of people who were concerned about privacy. In addition, we were sued by a group of Buzz users and recently reached a settlement in this case.

The settlement acknowledges that we quickly changed the service to address users' concerns. In addition, Google has committed $8.5 million to an independent fund, most of which will support organizations promoting privacy education and policy on the web. We will also do more to educate people about privacy controls specific to Buzz. The more people know about privacy online, the better their online experience will be.

Just to be clear, this is not a settlement in which people who use Gmail can file to receive compensation. Everyone in the U.S. who uses Gmail is included in the settlement, unless you personally decide to opt out before December 6, 2010. The Court will consider final approval of the agreement on January 31, 2011. This email is a summary of the settlement, and more detailed information and instructions approved by the court, including instructions about how to opt out, object, or comment, are available at http://www.BuzzClassAction.com.

This mandatory announcement was sent to all Gmail users in the United States as part of a legal settlement and was authorized by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Google Inc. | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, CA 94043 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepero1 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * google search brought these sources to confirm
 * The Register
 * Read Write Web
 * Washington Post

78.144.220.23 (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed
Google Buzz has been shut down. &rarr; &Alpha;&Chi;&Chi;&Omicron;&Nu;&Nu; fi  re  20:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding that. It looks like the article has been updated now to reflect that, present tense all converted to past, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Malicious Link Removal
-- Gary  Dee  10:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing Malicious URL:
 * hxxp://gmailblog.blogspot.com
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/6d820340a75d82952fa6ee75dbd0eb76f7a8c4494f30e57c98f6541937b610c7/analysis/
 * http://quttera.com/detailed_report/gmailblog.blogspot.com
 * SSLv3 outbound connection from client vulnerable to POODLE attack
 * https://urlquery.net/report.php?id=1417081382255
 * http://www.avgthreatlabs.com/website-safety-reports/domain/quttera.com/
 * http://www.urlvoid.com/scan/quttera.com/
 * https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-3566
 * What on earth are you on about? These reports simply show it uses out of date SSL and could be a vulnerability. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)