Am I the only one that sees the comedic potential in this?
Rate something 5/5. For example for a review of a restauraunt say "5/5. Sure beats eating rats infected with syphilis." or "4/5. Tastes like leprosy! Smells like porn locker!"
This is exactly what I thought. How are they going to be sure that the review is actually honest and relevant. What if I say something contradictory in the review? Or post irrelevant stuff in it?
The only way they could avoid such face-palms would be to do some sort of natural language analysis. Or have humans curate and cherry-pick the reviews. The latter one would be worrying indeed.
People are already ruffled up about their emails being scanned automatically. If their G+ posts are going to be scanned and cherry-picked by humans, it's even more unsettling.
Emails are expected to be private. Publicly shared posts in a social network are expected to be public, so I would not be concerned that someone is reading them.
But they are not just doing this for publicly shared posts. Even posts which are shared privately will appear besides the ad when a person whom you have shared the post with is viewing the ad.
That by itself is not a problem. However, to curate the post, somebody from Google would have to read it. Else, they have really good natural language processors.
Rate something 5/5. For example for a review of a restauraunt say "5/5. Sure beats eating rats infected with syphilis." or "4/5. Tastes like leprosy! Smells like porn locker!"
And I'm just being very bad here: http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/08703...