A little off-topic here, but I just can’t resist taking another jab at The Google.
I am a gmail user, but more recently I have considered switching.
Every so often, I notice a new gmail feature. Google is usually kind enough to let me know that a new feature has been introduced, such as offering me the option to try the “new look”, although after I say “no thank you” which I always do, I keep getting notifications to try the “new look”, even though I had already said “no thank you” to the “new look”. Thanks Google, but please STOP TELLING ME ABOUT YOUR “NEW LOOK”.
And then there is the little yellow “Important” symbol that one day magically appeared next to some of my messages. When I roll over the symbol I see the text, “Important mainly because of the people in the conversation”.
Yo Google: how ’bout if I decide what’s important.
One person in the Google forums complained about gmail tagging her message as: “Important mainly because of the words in the message”. She says, “Can we stop with the idiotic messages from Google, as if our paternalistic uncle was looking out for us?”
But that’s not what I want to talk about: I want to talk about a feature which is the ultimate example of Google developers trying to be oh so clever but just coming across as stupid. I’m talking about the text that appears when I’m composing an email to someone, which says, “Consider including: John, Rebecca…” And so on.
Peter Thomas, one of the many bloggers who has complained about this ridiculous feature, summarizes it:
“When you type an e-mail, Gmail comes up with a list of people that you may like to also copy it to. Let’s pause and just think about this. You are writing an e-mail, generally the first thing that you do is to type in the address of the person (or people) you are writing to. Gmail has a useful feature that scans your previous mails, so typing “Pe” will bring up “Peter Thomas” as an option. So far so good….
…but then, gmail offers a list of people that you may consider including as recipients of your email, based on simple association. Hello? What if I am emailing a colleague to complain about the boss? I certainly don’t want to include the boss, and it scares me that his name is sitting up there, a mouse-click away from disaster. Or what if I am plotting a surprise birthday party for Beth? Including Beth is specifically NOT what I want to do.
And…what if the person is DEAD?
I found this on the Google forums:
“I deleted my dead friend as a contact which was traumatic enough, but having google STILL suggesting I include her when there’s honestly nothing I’d like better than to be able to include her BECAUSE SHE’S DEAD. How do I make this stop?!?!?!”
Note to Google:
Please get out of the business of reading our minds. You suck at it.
Peter Thomas concludes: “This “feature” is bad enough to have merited me writing to Google asking them to remove it, or at least make it optional. Their support forums are full of people saying the same. It will be interesting to see whether or not they listen.”
Do a search for “consider including”, and you’ll come across several people railing against this act of stupidity from Google. My blog post is not original. Yet I feel compelled to add another voice to the chorus.
Do I have any conclusions or insights? Not really, other than my opinion that any good thing can turn bad when it gets too big and too powerful. Google is generally a good thing. But I think Google is getting too big and too powerful. And I am getting smaller and less powerful, in relative terms. I want to be completely in charge of how I communicate with my friends and colleagues.
The fact that Google is brimming with young, clever, cocky geeks does not make for an agreeable form of world domination.
Thank you for being kind enough to read and cite my article – there are a lot of fellow sufferers of this insufferable “feature” from Google – no idea why it has not been made an option.
I think Google’s arrogance regarding this feature, and their studied refusal to acknowledge user’s complaints, lies in the fact that the developers in charge of Gmail have never actually had real jobs before, and they own product management. The inmates are in charge of the asylum.
please edit the email example in previous comment… due to my stupidity… should be allertnevj?techie!com – use any random symbols instead of @ and . )
What can we expect from the company that gave us a search engine that says, “NO! You really meant to search for ‘Y’, not ‘X’, so we’re giving you links to ‘Y’, because we know that’s what you really want!”?