Nice. You might wanna include a way to remove duplicates based on G+ IDs. Also some way of removing yourself from the list? Maybe use Google accounts to connect too, so you can verify the profile owners and don't have to ask for an email addy?
I'll see what I can do. The problem with just dumping the emails out to people, is it not only gives spam bots a giant list of actual emails, but would allow someone here to pitch their startup to xxx number of people instantly.
Wait, for a n00b like me can someone explain what is this? My best guess is that its a list of HNers who are on google+? if thats true then what is the use of this? almost every HN reader would have a google profile.
Suggestion: we should only be able to add ourselves. Google+ API. Because this will make sure only active users are added. Everyone knows celebrities like Mark Zuckerberg and Linus Torvalds. This way the list remains short and spam reduces. Like, i see people added their brand pages.
Yes, huge flaw in the system, what I'll do is write in a Google auth system, and send out ONE email so people can have a chance to do that, and then manage it, remove their profile, etc.
The problem with this kind of thing is I can add all the people listed here to circle I will call HN, but the people who get added by me will have no idea who the hell I am. They would have to check this list to verify if the guy adding them is from HN or not...
This problem should alleviate itself. If you add everyone in the list and someone adds you, and you hover on their profile and see that you have 5, or 10, or 15 mutual connections (usually with foreign names), you can infer that it must be someone from HN that's adding you.
var src = ["104448221006262595331", "102308414709447205951",...]; /*insert urls from above here*/
var blah = src.map(function(e){return [["",null,e],"",[]]});
var x = new XMLHttpRequest();x.open('post','https://plus.google.com/_/socialgraph/mutate/modifymemberships/?_reqid=333888252&rt=j,true);x.setRequestHeader('content-type',"application/x-www-form-urlencoded");x.send('m=['+JSON.stringify(blah)+']&a=[[["REDACTED"]]]&r=[[]]&at=REDACTED&')
To update the circle.
Edit: Updated the script to reflect site changes
Edit: It looks like sharing a circle doesn't include future changes.
Tried adding the latest circle with 498 members. Getting the same "Error Loading People" error. Is there a limitation on the number of people in a circle?
Some of the entries are obviously added by others, and not even necessarily even the right profile. For instance, Paul Graham is in the list (and in the shared circle), however it is not pg: https://plus.google.com/114939270563299965266/posts
True, it is possible that two people have the same name. I guess the uptake is to just take the list with a grain of salt. And, thanks for compiling the list - even with possible errors, it is nice to have.
I notice that I have been missed by these attempts even though I list my Google+ profile link in my HN profile. (I added that link after an earlier attempt by another participant to show a list of HN participants.) I use the same screen name I use here at two other sites I visit fairly often (I chose the screen name to fit the first of those sites several years ago), but of course I don't know who else uses this screen name at other sites I've never visited. In most places in cyberspace, and of course on Facebook and on Google+, I use my real name. It's interesting to see which connections between differing online names are readily made by Google, by HN participants with scripts, or by educated readers, and which connections are missed.
Wow. I don't want to start another debate on this, but am I the only one to be surprised at the near-complete lack of women on this contacts list? I'll admit that I don't subconciously think that every username on here has an even chance of being male or female...but I did assume that HN at least matched the male/female ratio at my computer engineering program (90/10).
I guess the G+ list might contain only the subset of women who feel comfortable with making their online identity public...but that's actually worse of an implication.
I'm only one, but as a woman - a woman in tech - I do not put my identity out in public. If I can't use a pseudonym I don't use a service or even RSVP to an event. Many tech events now require a Facebook RSVP; I just delete those invitations and don't attend.
I've had the creepy stalker thing happen to me and now anything requiring my legal name is a service/event/circle/platform I don't (and can't due to real safety concerns) use.
That was my initial feeling, and I continued to do what I did. After several years of it now, I'm tired. I'm tired of having someone at my door, showing up where I am, joining groups and communities I'm in, and friending my co-workers and vendors, sending notes to my employers, and so on.
They're doing nothing illegal these days (with one exception about four months ago), but when I surface it's always causing just one more thing to deal with.
Once I decided to actually use my privacy, it was refreshing. Aaaaah, the calm. Aaaah, the amount of freedom I felt going that first stretch of months without incidents.
Also, after dealing with this for just over four years it's pretty tiring to always be told that I'm the one who is doing something wrong.
I wasn't necessarily a "privacy advocate" before, but understand that viewpoint more and more.
It's kind of frustrating dealing with your vendor at Google who sends you a note saying "hey, I can't find you on g+ - let's use hangout" and saying something (nicely) like "yeah, I'm not on g+" and then leaving it at that.
Admittedly, I get somewhat cranky at all the questioning about my choices and my behavior and it's all I can do not to respond "because g+ use is completely optional and no one is forcing me to use it, according to Eric Schmidt".
I give up the interaction with my friends, vendors, co-workers and potential friends, vendors, co-workers, etc. in return for lack of harassment and stalking. I'm not super-happy about it and it's not a perfect solution but don't feel I should have to justify it. Yet I did once again (* /em headdesk*).
If you ever get around it, you should share your stories and takeaways with the rest of the community. I've never realized that women in tech had to deal with all these issues on a daily basis. Raising awareness can only be good, right?
I'm unsure how to take your phrasing "never realized that women in tech had to deal with all these issues on a daily basis."
On any other board I would assume that phrase to be argumentative and patronizing, but HN people always seem to be earnest and helpful, so I will take it on face value.
Many people have that kind of issue. Most of them are women. Women exist in tech. :) It's just more frustrating and sort of ironic when you're the one working on the products.
Not sure there's anything I can add that danah boyd hasn't covered on her many privacy presentations or that wasn't already "done to death" during the past "women in tech" arguments on Techcrunch, HN, etc. If there's something new or revealing that I can think of I'll share it, though!
ETA: Also, I didn't bring it up during the g+ name controversy on HN because I honestly couldn't add anything new. The pros and cons of the policy are out there for everyone to read. I watched it go on and decided what was right for me, which is to not engage in that medium due to the way it works and the intentions (that is, that g+ is an "identity service").
I apologize if my reply sounded patronizing, I'm notorious for getting the wrong tone across the Internet.
What I had found interesting about your post was the level of detail of what you described. This clearly shows my ignorance of the subject. I was aware of the G+ pseudonym issue, but I imagined that the harassment was limited to your personal information being looked up on the Internet and certain people sending creepy / unwarranted messages to you online.
Again, I must have been very naive about this, but I didn't realize that women in tech with any level of Internet exposure had to continuously deal with stalkers in real life, following you home, to meetups, to your workplace and so on.. It's quite awful, borderline terrifying. I thought the harassment was mostly verbal and impersonal, still unacceptable obviously, but at least not nearly as dangerous as what you described.
Online and offline ("real life") are inextricably tied to each other, though, particularly where real-world identity is imposed in online (indexed/searchable/social networking) platforms. What starts online can lead offline and what starts "in real life" can continue online.
I've been a die-hard citizen of the internet for over 15 years, I know how to handle things. If you have a threat in real life call local law enforcement and show them. If you have issues with someone online, use the privacy tools at your disposal, don't escalate things with the person, make reports to the service you're using if the other person violates the terms of service, but don't cause a scene (because that's often exactly what they're looking for; they want to rattle you).
I believe after the first in-real-life police episode the other party realized that they could not do anything physical to me. The odds are low that I'm currently in danger of a physical assault (in my opinion).
But back in 2008, when the Huffington Post suddenly decided to index the name of everyone who contributed to any political campaign by first name, last name, middle initial, address, and employer, I did feel that I was under physical threat. Their intentions were noble; have transparency about where political dollars were coming from. What they ended up doing is making the entire first page of Google results for my name all of the information about me that someone who really wanted to hurt me would need. I sent in four requests asking for it to be removed, re-indexed with my street number or first name removed, anything, and let them know I felt I was in real-life danger... but I never got a response, so for a year the first result on my name in a Google result was a map to my house, neatly pre-expanded in the first result. I moved, and I will never contribute to another political campaign again, in order to have that never happen to me again.
The annoyances that one can make on another without actually violating a law or getting banned from a service are enormous. It's a quality-of-life issue.
When my employer gets a call from someone for a reference for me, is it that person or a legitimate reference? When I get a friend request on Facebook, LinkedIn, or somewhere I have an account, is it that person? Or someone sent by them to find out where I'm currently working or living or hanging out?
The worst is when they get a bit bi-polar and start contacting my acquaintances out of the blue and asking if I'm okay, saying they miss me, and telling them all about our history. That happened to me when Facebook decided one couldn't hide one's listed friends. Over a certain threshold of people around me getting that type of communication about me and perception of me is permanently tarnished. It's not fair, but it's true - people think that the person being harassed must have done something to deserve it, or are "just handling it wrong" or something. It hurts my reputation, which impacts my ability to network effectively. Also, it makes me sad.
I still get LinkedIn friend requests from people I don't know: for instance, a college student from two states away. Is that last year's intern whose name I don't remember, or someone sent by this person, and I spend an hour finding photos of them to be sure... not a dangerous situation, but why should I have to deal with this until one of us dies? (Based on a follow-up Inmail, turned out to be someone sent by them, who thought that I'd welcome them putting the two of us "back in contact", ugh.)
I loved commenting at my local newspaper's website and a local online community blog/zine and had had an account/handle there for years. "In order to raise the quality of comments" they transitioned to Facebook commenting, so I don't do that anymore.
Based on advice from a psychologist, I left our old mutual acquaintances who didn't know the situation on my Facebook friends list back while things were still scary. Better to just stay status-quo than to provoke a reaction with a de-friending where you mig...
Thank you for sharing this...I was half-expecting a "What difference does it make if a HN participant is a male or female, we're all equal, right?" response to my question and I think your comments make a case for why gender-awareness is still an important thing to have.
Even if in cyberspace each gender were treated equally, in real life, that's not the case. And that's an issue we have to be aware of and vigilant in changing (for the better)...But we can't if there are virtually no women involved in our otherwise interesting and thoughtful discussions.
Your response reminded me of another article I just read recently about how prevalent Asperger's seems to around the high-tech crowd, especially among the male population. It's likely not the main cause for negative experiences such as yous, but I wonder if it still hasn't had a big impact.
72 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadI'd like to make a feature request. Please add a field for HN username/profile so I can better stalk my new friends :)
Good work getting this up and running so quickly, anyway.
https://plus.google.com/116347431032639424492/posts/BGk6DaqU...
I scraped the site with
and then I use To update the circle.Edit: Updated the script to reflect site changes
Edit: It looks like sharing a circle doesn't include future changes.
Edit: you can skip the first step and instead use http://hngp.axxim.net/home/json
I've also updated the site to include this circle.
Added a public list of the GID's http://hngp.axxim.net/home/json
https://plus.google.com/116088562611144379106/posts
Also getting the message "Error Loading People" on G+ when I try to view/add a circle with 440 people
I guess the G+ list might contain only the subset of women who feel comfortable with making their online identity public...but that's actually worse of an implication.
I've had the creepy stalker thing happen to me and now anything requiring my legal name is a service/event/circle/platform I don't (and can't due to real safety concerns) use.
They're doing nothing illegal these days (with one exception about four months ago), but when I surface it's always causing just one more thing to deal with.
Once I decided to actually use my privacy, it was refreshing. Aaaaah, the calm. Aaaah, the amount of freedom I felt going that first stretch of months without incidents.
Also, after dealing with this for just over four years it's pretty tiring to always be told that I'm the one who is doing something wrong.
I wasn't necessarily a "privacy advocate" before, but understand that viewpoint more and more.
It's kind of frustrating dealing with your vendor at Google who sends you a note saying "hey, I can't find you on g+ - let's use hangout" and saying something (nicely) like "yeah, I'm not on g+" and then leaving it at that.
Admittedly, I get somewhat cranky at all the questioning about my choices and my behavior and it's all I can do not to respond "because g+ use is completely optional and no one is forcing me to use it, according to Eric Schmidt".
I give up the interaction with my friends, vendors, co-workers and potential friends, vendors, co-workers, etc. in return for lack of harassment and stalking. I'm not super-happy about it and it's not a perfect solution but don't feel I should have to justify it. Yet I did once again (* /em headdesk*).
On any other board I would assume that phrase to be argumentative and patronizing, but HN people always seem to be earnest and helpful, so I will take it on face value.
Many people have that kind of issue. Most of them are women. Women exist in tech. :) It's just more frustrating and sort of ironic when you're the one working on the products.
Not sure there's anything I can add that danah boyd hasn't covered on her many privacy presentations or that wasn't already "done to death" during the past "women in tech" arguments on Techcrunch, HN, etc. If there's something new or revealing that I can think of I'll share it, though!
ETA: Also, I didn't bring it up during the g+ name controversy on HN because I honestly couldn't add anything new. The pros and cons of the policy are out there for everyone to read. I watched it go on and decided what was right for me, which is to not engage in that medium due to the way it works and the intentions (that is, that g+ is an "identity service").
What I had found interesting about your post was the level of detail of what you described. This clearly shows my ignorance of the subject. I was aware of the G+ pseudonym issue, but I imagined that the harassment was limited to your personal information being looked up on the Internet and certain people sending creepy / unwarranted messages to you online.
Again, I must have been very naive about this, but I didn't realize that women in tech with any level of Internet exposure had to continuously deal with stalkers in real life, following you home, to meetups, to your workplace and so on.. It's quite awful, borderline terrifying. I thought the harassment was mostly verbal and impersonal, still unacceptable obviously, but at least not nearly as dangerous as what you described.
I've been a die-hard citizen of the internet for over 15 years, I know how to handle things. If you have a threat in real life call local law enforcement and show them. If you have issues with someone online, use the privacy tools at your disposal, don't escalate things with the person, make reports to the service you're using if the other person violates the terms of service, but don't cause a scene (because that's often exactly what they're looking for; they want to rattle you).
I believe after the first in-real-life police episode the other party realized that they could not do anything physical to me. The odds are low that I'm currently in danger of a physical assault (in my opinion).
But back in 2008, when the Huffington Post suddenly decided to index the name of everyone who contributed to any political campaign by first name, last name, middle initial, address, and employer, I did feel that I was under physical threat. Their intentions were noble; have transparency about where political dollars were coming from. What they ended up doing is making the entire first page of Google results for my name all of the information about me that someone who really wanted to hurt me would need. I sent in four requests asking for it to be removed, re-indexed with my street number or first name removed, anything, and let them know I felt I was in real-life danger... but I never got a response, so for a year the first result on my name in a Google result was a map to my house, neatly pre-expanded in the first result. I moved, and I will never contribute to another political campaign again, in order to have that never happen to me again.
The annoyances that one can make on another without actually violating a law or getting banned from a service are enormous. It's a quality-of-life issue.
When my employer gets a call from someone for a reference for me, is it that person or a legitimate reference? When I get a friend request on Facebook, LinkedIn, or somewhere I have an account, is it that person? Or someone sent by them to find out where I'm currently working or living or hanging out?
The worst is when they get a bit bi-polar and start contacting my acquaintances out of the blue and asking if I'm okay, saying they miss me, and telling them all about our history. That happened to me when Facebook decided one couldn't hide one's listed friends. Over a certain threshold of people around me getting that type of communication about me and perception of me is permanently tarnished. It's not fair, but it's true - people think that the person being harassed must have done something to deserve it, or are "just handling it wrong" or something. It hurts my reputation, which impacts my ability to network effectively. Also, it makes me sad.
I still get LinkedIn friend requests from people I don't know: for instance, a college student from two states away. Is that last year's intern whose name I don't remember, or someone sent by this person, and I spend an hour finding photos of them to be sure... not a dangerous situation, but why should I have to deal with this until one of us dies? (Based on a follow-up Inmail, turned out to be someone sent by them, who thought that I'd welcome them putting the two of us "back in contact", ugh.)
I loved commenting at my local newspaper's website and a local online community blog/zine and had had an account/handle there for years. "In order to raise the quality of comments" they transitioned to Facebook commenting, so I don't do that anymore.
Based on advice from a psychologist, I left our old mutual acquaintances who didn't know the situation on my Facebook friends list back while things were still scary. Better to just stay status-quo than to provoke a reaction with a de-friending where you mig...
Even if in cyberspace each gender were treated equally, in real life, that's not the case. And that's an issue we have to be aware of and vigilant in changing (for the better)...But we can't if there are virtually no women involved in our otherwise interesting and thoughtful discussions.
Your response reminded me of another article I just read recently about how prevalent Asperger's seems to around the high-tech crowd, especially among the male population. It's likely not the main cause for negative experiences such as yous, but I wonder if it still hasn't had a big impact.