I'm dreaming of a libre quonsmas September 26, 2017 2:11 AM Subscribe
I love Secret Quonsar. I've participated twice and it was great fun. However, there is one fly in this sweet, creamy milkshake: Google.
Would it be possible to find a way to collect and process participants' information without using Google? I feel that they already know more than enough about me and I don't want to add to the pile by using Google forms. It doesn't really help if I can submit my information by email and know that someone else will be pasting it into a Google doc.
Does anyone have any ideas on ways to make this possible without creating extra work for the Quonsmas Elves?
Would it be possible to find a way to collect and process participants' information without using Google? I feel that they already know more than enough about me and I don't want to add to the pile by using Google forms. It doesn't really help if I can submit my information by email and know that someone else will be pasting it into a Google doc.
Does anyone have any ideas on ways to make this possible without creating extra work for the Quonsmas Elves?
> Any other functionally equivalent method would just be giving our data to a different provider, right?
That's right, but the thing that makes me uneasy about Google is that they have so many different kinds of data, from so many sources. Combining these kinds of data makes it that much more powerful in the endeavour of building profiles of all of us. That is why I like to compartimentalize the data about me that's out there.
>Google's already got our data from past years
That is true as well, but data rots and goes stale. We are ever changing in many ways, so more recent data is best data. In my view, stopping the stream of new fresh data (or decreasing it, which is probably the most we can do) makes a difference.
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:53 AM on September 26, 2017
That's right, but the thing that makes me uneasy about Google is that they have so many different kinds of data, from so many sources. Combining these kinds of data makes it that much more powerful in the endeavour of building profiles of all of us. That is why I like to compartimentalize the data about me that's out there.
>Google's already got our data from past years
That is true as well, but data rots and goes stale. We are ever changing in many ways, so more recent data is best data. In my view, stopping the stream of new fresh data (or decreasing it, which is probably the most we can do) makes a difference.
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:53 AM on September 26, 2017
Using a platform that most people already have reduces the amount of new information you're asking people to give up to the web, rather than requesting that they go out and get a new account on a new provider. I get the 'google already has too much info about me' problem, but Google almost certainly already has your updated information anyway. What are the chances that no one you knows uses android or gmail contacts to store your address? And in those cases, it would be much more likely to be tied back to your other data, versus the unstructured information in a google spreadsheet, which Google likely isn't even scanning in the same way as they are contact information trying to make connections.
posted by jacquilynne at 4:33 AM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 4:33 AM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
I'm not looking for solutions that ask every participant to get an account somewhere. Dog knows we all have enough accounts already.
I'm also not really looking for the 'Google already knows everything anyway, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯' argument; I'm asking how we can do this, not why or why not.
Personally, I feel the need for this. There may or may not be others who feel the same need. If you don't feel the need, then that's up to you, as always.
posted by Too-Ticky at 4:49 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm also not really looking for the 'Google already knows everything anyway, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯' argument; I'm asking how we can do this, not why or why not.
Personally, I feel the need for this. There may or may not be others who feel the same need. If you don't feel the need, then that's up to you, as always.
posted by Too-Ticky at 4:49 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm assuming any eventual solution will be applied to everyone, and that you're not asking the Quonsmas organizers to maintain separate lists for people who don't like Google, so I think the question of whether people would prefer not to input their data into some other random site that doesn't already have it and may or may not have Google's resources to throw at securing it is actually a valid point, but I'm feeling myself moving deeply into XKCD 386 territory and coming up with arguments I don't feel all that strongly about for the sake of arguing, so I will stop now.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:15 AM on September 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 5:15 AM on September 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
Does anyone have any ideas on ways to make this possible without creating extra work for the Quonsmas Elves?
Probably not, no, because Google has a very good lock on collaborative document creation. Moreover, the elves are doing this as a volunteer gig, and overhauling their process cannot possibly be labor-free. Institutional knowledge matters, and they know how to use this system for this purpose very well. There is not another elegant, free, collaborative, and integrated survey/spreadsheet/email service that exists. Even if there were, the elves would still have to port everything over to this new system, which would take time and thought and attention and frustration &c.
I definitely understand the conundrum, and I get why "then just don't participate" is a pretty crummy solution. But given what's involved here, I really do think that's the solution for people who don't like Google.
posted by sockermom at 5:52 AM on September 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
Probably not, no, because Google has a very good lock on collaborative document creation. Moreover, the elves are doing this as a volunteer gig, and overhauling their process cannot possibly be labor-free. Institutional knowledge matters, and they know how to use this system for this purpose very well. There is not another elegant, free, collaborative, and integrated survey/spreadsheet/email service that exists. Even if there were, the elves would still have to port everything over to this new system, which would take time and thought and attention and frustration &c.
I definitely understand the conundrum, and I get why "then just don't participate" is a pretty crummy solution. But given what's involved here, I really do think that's the solution for people who don't like Google.
posted by sockermom at 5:52 AM on September 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
The only viable alternative that would meet your criteria that I can think of is postal mail (as in the olden days), and that would create a very much unreasonable burden on whoever would have to collect, sort, and process the information. And we've already seen how postal mail can play heck with gift mailings, let alone signup and confirmation mailings. Plus, there's a cash cost to it and some of that would have to be borne by the organizers or site.
posted by Miko at 6:10 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 6:10 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think this is a reasonable request, however, I suspect the answer is no.
Perhaps the best solution is a proactive one on the user's end? If you use an pseudonym when you sign up for Secret Quonsar and a PO box as a mailing address (in the US, be sure that the pseudonym is listed as a valid recipient for the PO box) that sounds about as anonymous as it is possible to be in this day and age.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:13 AM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Perhaps the best solution is a proactive one on the user's end? If you use an pseudonym when you sign up for Secret Quonsar and a PO box as a mailing address (in the US, be sure that the pseudonym is listed as a valid recipient for the PO box) that sounds about as anonymous as it is possible to be in this day and age.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:13 AM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Do Google really scrape the contents of Google docs? If you're worried about that, how is it different to sending your deets to our from a Gmail address, for example?
posted by Dysk at 6:38 AM on September 26, 2017
posted by Dysk at 6:38 AM on September 26, 2017
The only people who can really answer this are the SQ organizers, assuming they're volunteering again this year. I think they've spent years building up a system that works though and to ask them to change it up is kind of asking a lot. Doesn't hurt to ask, though, I suppose.
In the past I have sent SQ gifts to people who did not give their complete names. Perhaps you could do something like that.
posted by bondcliff at 6:46 AM on September 26, 2017
In the past I have sent SQ gifts to people who did not give their complete names. Perhaps you could do something like that.
posted by bondcliff at 6:46 AM on September 26, 2017
If the address is the primary issue, what about including a link to a privately-hosted webpage or image or document (that displays your address) in lieu of a plaintext address, so you can take it down when all is said and done? Would that be satisfactory? Perhaps the SQ organizers could work with that link instead of an address without too much disruption to their process.
Personally I assume that since I shop online, google almost certainly has my name and address from others as well as from myself - any etsy seller that uses gmail for paypal, any google-hosted enterprise, etc. I don't know that that's a comforting thought, but I have trouble believing that this is new-to-Google information for anyone but maybe the smallest sliver of SQ participants.
posted by mosst at 6:58 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Personally I assume that since I shop online, google almost certainly has my name and address from others as well as from myself - any etsy seller that uses gmail for paypal, any google-hosted enterprise, etc. I don't know that that's a comforting thought, but I have trouble believing that this is new-to-Google information for anyone but maybe the smallest sliver of SQ participants.
posted by mosst at 6:58 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
It seems like a big ask. However if there are only a small set of people with your concerns, being added manually (i.e. without using the forms and possibly without even being manually inputted online) could be an option. But realistically, this isn't just changing what they'd be doing this year it's also having them learn a new system and, potentially, having everyone else who is participating use a new workflow. And they are volunteers. I used Elfster one year I did a gift exchange thing and it was good, but it required signing up with a new account and all the other stuff.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 7:03 AM on September 26, 2017
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 7:03 AM on September 26, 2017
To clarify: the address/real name combination is not my primary concern. What worries me is the link between real name and nickname, nickname and email address, and combining all of these with interests and likes/dislikes.
As for sending data to a Gmail adress: I don't feel good about that either. But I've given up on avoiding sending email to Gmail addresses.
If 'just don't participate' ends up being the answer, I will of course accept that and not participate anymore.
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:11 AM on September 26, 2017
As for sending data to a Gmail adress: I don't feel good about that either. But I've given up on avoiding sending email to Gmail addresses.
If 'just don't participate' ends up being the answer, I will of course accept that and not participate anymore.
posted by Too-Ticky at 7:11 AM on September 26, 2017
Google probably isn't doing anything evil (or anything at all, really) with the responses collected via Google Forms.
Any tailor-made gift-giving site definitely is harvesting that information.
If we just want to move sliiightly away from the Googleverse, we could probably easily build something with Airtable.
posted by schmod at 7:11 AM on September 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Any tailor-made gift-giving site definitely is harvesting that information.
If we just want to move sliiightly away from the Googleverse, we could probably easily build something with Airtable.
posted by schmod at 7:11 AM on September 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
I think this is a fine idea to consider some other year, but 2017 has been so bad that I feel like Quonsmas is one of the few bright spots and we should make as little work for the Quonsmas Elves as humanly possible.
posted by corb at 7:24 AM on September 26, 2017 [20 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:24 AM on September 26, 2017 [20 favorites]
What worries me is the link between real name and nickname, nickname and email address, and combining all of these with interests and likes/dislikes.
-Create a brand new email address from any of a variety of free email purveyors.
-Spend $5 to create a sockpuppet account with an unburdoned nick of your choosing here on mefi for SQ purposes, keeping in mind the site rules about socks.
-Ask to be given something the giver themselves would like to receive.
posted by phunniemee at 7:43 AM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
-Create a brand new email address from any of a variety of free email purveyors.
-Spend $5 to create a sockpuppet account with an unburdoned nick of your choosing here on mefi for SQ purposes, keeping in mind the site rules about socks.
-Ask to be given something the giver themselves would like to receive.
posted by phunniemee at 7:43 AM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
I think this is a fine idea in general, and as we learn more and more about the insecurity of our data in third party storehouses (whether mined by Google or lost by Equifax), maybe there’ll be a growing demand for better, more secure tools. I think some of the pushback this ask is getting is because it feels like just that—an ask without solutions. Do you have any suggestions for better, more secure tools or processes the SQ group could use?
posted by notyou at 8:05 AM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by notyou at 8:05 AM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
What worries me is the link between real name and nickname, nickname and email address, and combining all of these with interests and likes/dislikes.
I guess I feel like if one is going to participate in an internet gift exchange, one has to be willing to put a little trust into the system, and to the humans that run and participate in it. If you're not willing to do that, perhaps an internet gift exchange isn't for you.
As others have suggested, you could get around things by creating sock puppets, though I know I often use people's posting history to get ideas for what to send them, and people have used my history to send me things.
posted by bondcliff at 8:08 AM on September 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
I guess I feel like if one is going to participate in an internet gift exchange, one has to be willing to put a little trust into the system, and to the humans that run and participate in it. If you're not willing to do that, perhaps an internet gift exchange isn't for you.
As others have suggested, you could get around things by creating sock puppets, though I know I often use people's posting history to get ideas for what to send them, and people have used my history to send me things.
posted by bondcliff at 8:08 AM on September 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
I feel like volunteers could probably be found in the Metafilter community to build a custom solution. I don't usually participate in quonsmas because I am massively disorganized about anything that involves the post office, but I like building web applications. That said, the problem in this case is that I don't know exactly when names get put into the hat, but I suspect that building something custom in various people's spare time and getting people up to speed on it would take longer than is available to have such a thing ready for 2017.
posted by Sequence at 9:11 AM on September 26, 2017
posted by Sequence at 9:11 AM on September 26, 2017
bondcliff: I guess I feel like if one is going to participate in an internet gift exchange, one has to be willing to put a little trust into the system, and to the humans that run and participate in it.
I have more than a little trust in the MeFi part of the system and the humans that run and participate in it. It's strictly the Google part that I don't trust.
As for possible solutions: maybe the free version of Zoho could replace some, maybe all, parts of the Quonsmas machinery. I'm certainly willing to help look into that.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:20 AM on September 26, 2017
I have more than a little trust in the MeFi part of the system and the humans that run and participate in it. It's strictly the Google part that I don't trust.
As for possible solutions: maybe the free version of Zoho could replace some, maybe all, parts of the Quonsmas machinery. I'm certainly willing to help look into that.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:20 AM on September 26, 2017
I'm feeling myself moving deeply into XKCD 386 territory
Oh good god, no, please feel free to take over.
I'm so tired.
posted by someone is wrong on the internet at 9:47 AM on September 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
Oh good god, no, please feel free to take over.
I'm so tired.
posted by someone is wrong on the internet at 9:47 AM on September 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
If the address is the primary issue, what about including a link to a privately-hosted webpage or image or document (that displays your address) in lieu of a plaintext address, so you can take it down when all is said and done? Would that be satisfactory? Perhaps the SQ organizers could work with that link instead of an address without too much disruption to their process.
This sounds like an excellent option for the presumably small number of people who feel strongly about this.
I am extremely grateful to all of the work the Elves have done over the years. Quonsmas is one of my favorite things about Metafilter and the internet.
I cannot find a way to phrase this nicely, so I will just say it: Do not make more work for them.
posted by maryr at 9:52 AM on September 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
This sounds like an excellent option for the presumably small number of people who feel strongly about this.
I am extremely grateful to all of the work the Elves have done over the years. Quonsmas is one of my favorite things about Metafilter and the internet.
I cannot find a way to phrase this nicely, so I will just say it: Do not make more work for them.
posted by maryr at 9:52 AM on September 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
As for possible solutions: maybe the free version of Zoho could replace some, maybe all, parts of the Quonsmas machinery. I'm certainly willing to help look into that.
It violates two of your expressed limits - it will require new accounts for people and will certainly involve, at a minimum, a workaround of the processes and a learning curve - all of which is work for volunteer elves.
People have suggested ways to anonymize yourself in this process - a combination of only-quonsmas handle, only-quonsmas email address, and not using your full name will certainly limit whatever risk is actually here that Google can build a profile of you. Depending on where you live, you can sometimes get packages shipped to your closest post office going a step further even.
Could you explain why that's not a good solution to your problem?
posted by notorious medium at 10:22 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
It violates two of your expressed limits - it will require new accounts for people and will certainly involve, at a minimum, a workaround of the processes and a learning curve - all of which is work for volunteer elves.
People have suggested ways to anonymize yourself in this process - a combination of only-quonsmas handle, only-quonsmas email address, and not using your full name will certainly limit whatever risk is actually here that Google can build a profile of you. Depending on where you live, you can sometimes get packages shipped to your closest post office going a step further even.
Could you explain why that's not a good solution to your problem?
posted by notorious medium at 10:22 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
> Could you explain why that's not a good solution to your problem?
For one, because one of the rules to Secret Quonsar states that one must sign up with their normal Metafilter handle.
The option where all needed information is put on a webpage, the link sent to the Elves, and the webpage deleted when the information is no longer needed, sounds like something I would not mind at all... but the opinion of the Elves matters a lot here, so it's not really up to me. They get to decide what works for them.
I don't think that one needs a Zoho account in order to send in a form. But I might be wrong. Again, I'd be happy to investigate.
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:31 AM on September 26, 2017
For one, because one of the rules to Secret Quonsar states that one must sign up with their normal Metafilter handle.
The option where all needed information is put on a webpage, the link sent to the Elves, and the webpage deleted when the information is no longer needed, sounds like something I would not mind at all... but the opinion of the Elves matters a lot here, so it's not really up to me. They get to decide what works for them.
I don't think that one needs a Zoho account in order to send in a form. But I might be wrong. Again, I'd be happy to investigate.
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:31 AM on September 26, 2017
Hi there, elf here, though not the chief elf, and if julen chimes in on this, I humbly default to her judgment.
For one, because one of the rules to Secret Quonsar states that one must sign up with their normal Metafilter handle.
Unless I have missed something, the only rule about how you sign up for SQ (in re. accounts) is that the swap is per person, not per account, so you don't get to swap twice for your main account and a sock. i.e. Do not be a jerk, do not take advantage of people's generosity.
It's generally a better idea to sign up with your primary account IF you'd like your quonsar to be able to do some sleuthing about you, but this is neither required nor a big deal. TONS of lurkers and smalltime users participate in SQ every year and their quonsars have very little or no site activity to go on. As far as I'm aware, there is no rule obligating mefites to sign up with their primary account.
You may create a quonsar only sock account and use that for SQ if you have serious privacy concerns.
posted by phunniemee at 11:04 AM on September 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
For one, because one of the rules to Secret Quonsar states that one must sign up with their normal Metafilter handle.
Unless I have missed something, the only rule about how you sign up for SQ (in re. accounts) is that the swap is per person, not per account, so you don't get to swap twice for your main account and a sock. i.e. Do not be a jerk, do not take advantage of people's generosity.
It's generally a better idea to sign up with your primary account IF you'd like your quonsar to be able to do some sleuthing about you, but this is neither required nor a big deal. TONS of lurkers and smalltime users participate in SQ every year and their quonsars have very little or no site activity to go on. As far as I'm aware, there is no rule obligating mefites to sign up with their primary account.
You may create a quonsar only sock account and use that for SQ if you have serious privacy concerns.
posted by phunniemee at 11:04 AM on September 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
(Thanks be to the Quonsar Elves. Seriously, last year's Quonsmas was the first I'd signed up for and it was a lot of fun and I got a lovely package full of so many fantastic things and I crocheted the silliest floofy hat for my giftee while waiting in an ice storm in Portland and the Thank You thread was just wonderful and really cheered me up for humanity in general.)
posted by jillithd at 11:52 AM on September 26, 2017 [17 favorites]
posted by jillithd at 11:52 AM on September 26, 2017 [17 favorites]
This has definitely come up before in quonsmas chats but I'm on my phone. The answer then was also "not really".
More broadly though too-ticky, while privacy concerns are real, your objections in this case seem a little nebulous to me? You're worried that Google might scrape data from the doc and might use it for... something... ?
I dunno dude, is there any evidence they scan doc contents and use them for advertising or whatever currently?
I don't think it's really cool to ask volunteers to come up with a solution to your own personal problem with this well run process. Why don't you come up with a solution, test it, volunteer to run it, and then share the collated results with them to possibly incorporate offline or something, if they agree to it?
I don't want to trivialise your discomfort, but it kind of reads like your asking for a really big change based predominantly on, "I got a bad feeling about this". It's cool if you don't want to use a product or a service as a personal preference, but quonsmas is neither product or service.
posted by smoke at 2:18 PM on September 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
More broadly though too-ticky, while privacy concerns are real, your objections in this case seem a little nebulous to me? You're worried that Google might scrape data from the doc and might use it for... something... ?
I dunno dude, is there any evidence they scan doc contents and use them for advertising or whatever currently?
I don't think it's really cool to ask volunteers to come up with a solution to your own personal problem with this well run process. Why don't you come up with a solution, test it, volunteer to run it, and then share the collated results with them to possibly incorporate offline or something, if they agree to it?
I don't want to trivialise your discomfort, but it kind of reads like your asking for a really big change based predominantly on, "I got a bad feeling about this". It's cool if you don't want to use a product or a service as a personal preference, but quonsmas is neither product or service.
posted by smoke at 2:18 PM on September 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Disclaimer: I work for GOOG.
Please check out https://privacy.google.com/ if you have questions about what Google collects and what they do with it. E-mail and physical addresses are Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Google takes handling them Very Seriously. Knowing how hardened most websites are, frankly you'll have a much higher chance of that information being stolen if you use a homegrown solution or some other site...
posted by ReadEvalPost at 4:29 PM on September 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
Please check out https://privacy.google.com/ if you have questions about what Google collects and what they do with it. E-mail and physical addresses are Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Google takes handling them Very Seriously. Knowing how hardened most websites are, frankly you'll have a much higher chance of that information being stolen if you use a homegrown solution or some other site...
posted by ReadEvalPost at 4:29 PM on September 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
What worries me is the link between real name and nickname, nickname and email address
For $5 you can have a new nickname, and you can get a new email address for free.
If you don't want to provide data on your likes and dislikes, you could fudge them a bit, or say you like unique things from wherever the giver lives. (Which is a pretty common like)
creating extra work for the Quonsmas Elves
There is absolutely no way that asking people to completely revamp their entire data gathering system is not a LOT of extra work. Really, REALLY a lot. Really.
posted by yohko at 4:36 PM on September 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
For $5 you can have a new nickname, and you can get a new email address for free.
If you don't want to provide data on your likes and dislikes, you could fudge them a bit, or say you like unique things from wherever the giver lives. (Which is a pretty common like)
creating extra work for the Quonsmas Elves
There is absolutely no way that asking people to completely revamp their entire data gathering system is not a LOT of extra work. Really, REALLY a lot. Really.
posted by yohko at 4:36 PM on September 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
Another alternative for how to participate without sharing your own info would be to let the organizers know you want to provide X number of gifts but not receive any, so as to allow those mefites who cannot afford to send gifts to have the enjoyment and surprise of getting something.
That would probably be a little more work for the organizers, but less than changing to a different database system.
posted by yohko at 4:40 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
That would probably be a little more work for the organizers, but less than changing to a different database system.
posted by yohko at 4:40 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
MetaFilter: TONS of lurkers and smalltime users
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:37 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:37 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
For the real name concerns, I have used only my first and last initial and successfully received packages, though I realize your postal service might be pickier than mine.
posted by lazuli at 5:36 AM on September 27, 2017
posted by lazuli at 5:36 AM on September 27, 2017
I think this is an ok thing to ask in good time ahead of the signup dates. I don't know if I'll have time to participate this year but quonsmas has been one of the highlights of my membership here, and especially when the world is going to hell in a handcart it would be a pity if people felt they couldn't participate. Spitballing ideas isn't hurting anyone. Personally I have no idea about how to change it because a hamster is more tech-savvy than I, and my privacy concerns are such that I have the same passwords for everything. But I'm wondering if there's scope for Anon quonsings? Could people just memail a throwaway email and address and "go nuts" to the Elves and be put in a separate small Anon swap with assigned Anon numbers? Users can still participate in the thank you thread as they're not directly linked to the info. I know that's then taking on trust that people are only signing up once but people here are good people. If that's too much work or hopelessly simplistic then apologies, just wondering.
posted by billiebee at 5:38 AM on September 27, 2017
posted by billiebee at 5:38 AM on September 27, 2017
People signing up with new/sockpuppet accounts means that the giver won't have a chance to look at their past questions, projects, and posts to try to discern their likes and wishes.
If people are interested in trying to make a better alternative -- and I think they are out there -- what if they started now, tried to aim for a Nov. 15 finish (which they will miss, of course), and be OK with actually finishing around April, June, or next October, whichever works out?
This would be their gift, and I would be happy to reciprocate with a surprise Quonsmas gift from me, which they will probably like because I can be OK at shopping for people sometimes.
posted by amtho at 5:50 AM on September 27, 2017
If people are interested in trying to make a better alternative -- and I think they are out there -- what if they started now, tried to aim for a Nov. 15 finish (which they will miss, of course), and be OK with actually finishing around April, June, or next October, whichever works out?
This would be their gift, and I would be happy to reciprocate with a surprise Quonsmas gift from me, which they will probably like because I can be OK at shopping for people sometimes.
posted by amtho at 5:50 AM on September 27, 2017
Please check out https://privacy.google.com/ if you have questions about what Google collects and what they do with it.
Does that answer the question, though? I think it just says that Too-Ticky is right to be concerned, if they don't want their data mined by Google.
I found this bit:
My intuition is also that Google is likely to be more secure and more privacy conscious than most (but not all) alternatives -- it would be easy to migrate to a new system and make things worse rather than better.
But I can't find anything where Google has committed not to do what Too-Ticky is afraid they might do. Am I missing it?
posted by john hadron collider at 6:10 AM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Does that answer the question, though? I think it just says that Too-Ticky is right to be concerned, if they don't want their data mined by Google.
I found this bit:
Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection.My intuition is that Google is not data mining Google Forms responses to serve Too-Ticky targeted ads. It just doesn't add up -- Google already has high-quality profiling data on everyone, being embedded in 90%+ of webpages. Trying to extract psychometric data from private forms seems pointlessly difficult and politically foolish.
We may combine personal information from one service with information, including personal information, from other Google services – for example to make it easier to share things with people you know. Depending on your account settings, your activity on other sites and apps may be associated with your personal information in order to improve Google’s services and the ads delivered by Google.
My intuition is also that Google is likely to be more secure and more privacy conscious than most (but not all) alternatives -- it would be easy to migrate to a new system and make things worse rather than better.
But I can't find anything where Google has committed not to do what Too-Ticky is afraid they might do. Am I missing it?
posted by john hadron collider at 6:10 AM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
A lot of people have made very good arguments for the current system in terms of effort for the organizers and cognitive load. I figure I'll chime in with a technical answer: personally, I would not trust my personal information to any service BUT Google, or a comparably large Internet company (Microsoft, Amazon, etc). Hacking and data breaches are a much more serious and realistic attack vector than some huge company scanning my data to serve ads, and those are pretty much the only companies I trust not to have their heads up their own asses on even the most basic security.
If we switched to any third-party service (or, god forbid, something built by MeFites, which may be the worst possible answer) I would not participate in future Quonsmas exchanges, and I suspect that the same is true of many more-tech-savvy-than-average users.
posted by Itaxpica at 6:58 AM on September 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
If we switched to any third-party service (or, god forbid, something built by MeFites, which may be the worst possible answer) I would not participate in future Quonsmas exchanges, and I suspect that the same is true of many more-tech-savvy-than-average users.
posted by Itaxpica at 6:58 AM on September 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
If we switched to any third-party service (or, god forbid, something built by MeFites, which may be the worst possible answer)
How dare you.
Before google I stored all of my information on scraps of paper and stuck them in pockets, etc, and this was a VERY GOOD SYSTEM because sometimes I'd find a bit of crumpled linty envelope with an account number on it down in the bottom of my washing machine stuck to a sock and it always felt REALLY GOOD finding info I thought I had lost forever.
posted by phunniemee at 7:45 AM on September 27, 2017 [11 favorites]
How dare you.
Before google I stored all of my information on scraps of paper and stuck them in pockets, etc, and this was a VERY GOOD SYSTEM because sometimes I'd find a bit of crumpled linty envelope with an account number on it down in the bottom of my washing machine stuck to a sock and it always felt REALLY GOOD finding info I thought I had lost forever.
posted by phunniemee at 7:45 AM on September 27, 2017 [11 favorites]
Please check out https://privacy.google.com/ if you have questions about what Google collects and what they do with it.
Does that answer the question, though? I think it just says that Too-Ticky is right to be concerned, if they don't want their data mined by Google.
Plus, any privacy policy I've seen ignores the very real probability of regime change. Probably nobody is going to sell Google to a larger company, but company leadership or at least finances could change, at which point they can change and likely will change policies to extract whatever revenue they can, or possibly to try to affect people's choices and actions.
That policy, and any policy, is like saying "the gun is only for defense" -- which is true until "circumstances changed". In the end, it's all just people.
posted by amtho at 7:57 AM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Does that answer the question, though? I think it just says that Too-Ticky is right to be concerned, if they don't want their data mined by Google.
Plus, any privacy policy I've seen ignores the very real probability of regime change. Probably nobody is going to sell Google to a larger company, but company leadership or at least finances could change, at which point they can change and likely will change policies to extract whatever revenue they can, or possibly to try to affect people's choices and actions.
That policy, and any policy, is like saying "the gun is only for defense" -- which is true until "circumstances changed". In the end, it's all just people.
posted by amtho at 7:57 AM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I don't want to just leave that negative standing with no hope for something better. It's entirely possible for a company to build in a structure that will acknowledge and respect regime change and circumstance change. I haven't seen it in Google's case, yet, but for all I know someone's working on it. I hope they are.
posted by amtho at 9:16 AM on September 27, 2017
posted by amtho at 9:16 AM on September 27, 2017
sometimes I'd find a bit of crumpled linty envelope with an account number on it down in the bottom of my washing machine stuck to a sock
You had envelopes? I had to write my account numbers on the lint itself and store it in my bellybutton.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:38 PM on September 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
You had envelopes? I had to write my account numbers on the lint itself and store it in my bellybutton.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:38 PM on September 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
For the real name concerns, I have used only my first and last initial and successfully received packages, though I realize your postal service might be pickier than mine.
Is this some kind of USPS requirement? In Britain, I get post addressed to "the occupant" at my address all the damn time.
posted by Dysk at 1:56 AM on September 28, 2017
Is this some kind of USPS requirement? In Britain, I get post addressed to "the occupant" at my address all the damn time.
posted by Dysk at 1:56 AM on September 28, 2017
Is this some kind of USPS requirement?
It depends on the class of mail, if it is being delivered to a Post Office Box or a residence, and presumably the whims and attentiveness of your local post office employees. When you rent a PO Box, you submit a list of names that are authorized to receive mail in the Box, and they are not supposed to deliver mail to it that has a different name on it (though they still deliver mail addressed to "occupant" or "current resident"). I had things that were addressed creatively get returned to the sender when I had a PO Box.
posted by Rock Steady at 5:05 AM on September 28, 2017
It depends on the class of mail, if it is being delivered to a Post Office Box or a residence, and presumably the whims and attentiveness of your local post office employees. When you rent a PO Box, you submit a list of names that are authorized to receive mail in the Box, and they are not supposed to deliver mail to it that has a different name on it (though they still deliver mail addressed to "occupant" or "current resident"). I had things that were addressed creatively get returned to the sender when I had a PO Box.
posted by Rock Steady at 5:05 AM on September 28, 2017
Is there anything preventing you putting "current occupant" down as your real name for the quonsmas thing?
posted by Dysk at 5:16 AM on September 28, 2017
posted by Dysk at 5:16 AM on September 28, 2017
When you rent a PO Box, you submit a list of names that are authorized to receive mail in the Box, and they are not supposed to deliver mail to it that has a different name on it (though they still deliver mail addressed to "occupant" or "current resident").
I have a PO Box, and that's where I've had Secret Quonsar packages sent, and I've never used my full name. First name plus last initial, or just first and last initial. Like I said, my post office may be more lenient than average (or not, I don't know), but it hasn't been a problem for me.
posted by lazuli at 5:57 AM on September 28, 2017
I have a PO Box, and that's where I've had Secret Quonsar packages sent, and I've never used my full name. First name plus last initial, or just first and last initial. Like I said, my post office may be more lenient than average (or not, I don't know), but it hasn't been a problem for me.
posted by lazuli at 5:57 AM on September 28, 2017
Is there anything preventing you putting "current occupant" down as your real name for the quonsmas thing?
It looks like that should be fine, for the US, at least:
Yeah, if it has some semblance of an authorized name it should be fine. Someone once tried to send me a package addressed to "Stinky McSweatpants" or something and it got bounced back to them, but stuff addressed to my brother (same last name, but his first name was not officially listed on the box) got through fine, as did the occasional piece of mail addressed to (I assume) the previous owner of that Box number.
I generally love the USPS, but it can be a fickle beast.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:18 AM on September 28, 2017
It looks like that should be fine, for the US, at least:
3.3.1 Use of Occupant AddressFirst name plus last initial, or just first and last initial. Like I said, my post office may be more lenient than average (or not, I don't know), but it hasn't been a problem for me.
The occupant address format (“Postal Customer” or “Occupant,” “Householder,” or “Resident”) may be used to address mail selectively to a rural route and box number, a specific street number, or a specific Post Office box number without using the addressee’s name:
Example
POSTAL CUSTOMER
2711 ORDWAY ST NW APT 204
WASHINGTON DC 20008-5036
Yeah, if it has some semblance of an authorized name it should be fine. Someone once tried to send me a package addressed to "Stinky McSweatpants" or something and it got bounced back to them, but stuff addressed to my brother (same last name, but his first name was not officially listed on the box) got through fine, as did the occasional piece of mail addressed to (I assume) the previous owner of that Box number.
I generally love the USPS, but it can be a fickle beast.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:18 AM on September 28, 2017
Is there anything preventing you putting "current occupant" down as your real name for the quonsmas thing?
At my rural PO Box they will stick things in there for basically anyone, but the rules say they should only be putting mail in there for the people who are listed on the box (for various blabla reasons including people not using USPS to get shady things in the mail I suppose). I have lived in apartment buildings where the mail was ONLY delivered if the name on the mail matched the name on the box. So username address wouldn't work but Occupant might. Junk mail delivered to Occupant winds up in my box which is good hackery. But you'll notice that option can't be used with a lot of extra services like registering/insuring which might be an issue with SQ mail.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:33 AM on September 28, 2017
At my rural PO Box they will stick things in there for basically anyone, but the rules say they should only be putting mail in there for the people who are listed on the box (for various blabla reasons including people not using USPS to get shady things in the mail I suppose). I have lived in apartment buildings where the mail was ONLY delivered if the name on the mail matched the name on the box. So username address wouldn't work but Occupant might. Junk mail delivered to Occupant winds up in my box which is good hackery. But you'll notice that option can't be used with a lot of extra services like registering/insuring which might be an issue with SQ mail.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 8:33 AM on September 28, 2017
SQCKPUPPET
is free for the taking ...
posted by Kabanos at 3:45 PM on September 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
is free for the taking ...
posted by Kabanos at 3:45 PM on September 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
> For the real name concerns, I have used only my first and last initial and successfully received packages, though I realize your postal service might be pickier than mine.
Within the United States, I have literally sent a postcard addressed to "The woman who receives all the weird postcards" plus her zipcode and it was successfully delivered. The rate of success for recipients who live in more populous areas with a greater number of broad personal networks may vary. But my conclusion is that, in general, the USPS is pretty good at compensating for fudged data and the greater risk is more often a delay rather than misdelivery.
posted by ardgedee at 10:28 AM on September 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
Within the United States, I have literally sent a postcard addressed to "The woman who receives all the weird postcards" plus her zipcode and it was successfully delivered. The rate of success for recipients who live in more populous areas with a greater number of broad personal networks may vary. But my conclusion is that, in general, the USPS is pretty good at compensating for fudged data and the greater risk is more often a delay rather than misdelivery.
posted by ardgedee at 10:28 AM on September 29, 2017 [2 favorites]
> I had things that were addressed creatively get returned to the sender when I had a PO Box.
Again in my experience, this varies. At one POB I would routinely receive mail for previous holders of the box, dating back for over a decade. At the same POB I would get any mail for which the address vaguely approximated my official address, which was useful during the zines era of the 80s-early 90s, when creativity in addressing was part of the artform. I would also get mail intended for other mailboxes, at which time I would cross out the box number in the address and rewrite the exact same number more clearly.
posted by ardgedee at 10:33 AM on September 29, 2017
Again in my experience, this varies. At one POB I would routinely receive mail for previous holders of the box, dating back for over a decade. At the same POB I would get any mail for which the address vaguely approximated my official address, which was useful during the zines era of the 80s-early 90s, when creativity in addressing was part of the artform. I would also get mail intended for other mailboxes, at which time I would cross out the box number in the address and rewrite the exact same number more clearly.
posted by ardgedee at 10:33 AM on September 29, 2017
Does the Google data vacuum un-rot-13?
[Just reprising my work role as unashamed asker of ridiculous questions.]
And then we'll start seeing ads for sales on ivoengvat oebbz's in your area! And then we'll know the answer to that.
posted by ctmf at 5:45 PM on September 30, 2017
[Just reprising my work role as unashamed asker of ridiculous questions.]
And then we'll start seeing ads for sales on ivoengvat oebbz's in your area! And then we'll know the answer to that.
posted by ctmf at 5:45 PM on September 30, 2017
Within the United States, I have literally sent a postcard addressed to "The woman who receives all the weird postcards" plus her zipcode and it was successfully delivered.
It was jessamyn, right?
posted by maryr at 9:54 AM on October 2, 2017 [4 favorites]
It was jessamyn, right?
posted by maryr at 9:54 AM on October 2, 2017 [4 favorites]
of course it was!
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 1:01 PM on October 2, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 1:01 PM on October 2, 2017 [6 favorites]
Argh! I got out of the habit of reading MetaTalk this summer, so I missed this until just now when I was looking up what the Let's plan for sq! MeTa from last year.
In order to make secret quonsar go, we need a tool that
Would people worried about Google be ok with this solution?
posted by julen at 10:32 PM on October 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
In order to make secret quonsar go, we need a tool that
- multiple people can be signed in at the same time
- users can edit/format/update/run calculations on multiple spreadsheets/databases
- users can sign up and by signing up populate a database/spreadsheet
- users can get confirmation messages and updates (google increasingly sucks at this in effort to avoid spam)
- admins can run scripts on the database to generate messages, flagging, formatting (see above)
- can do randomization (google sucks for this, so we do it manually now)
- can support multiple subgroups
Would people worried about Google be ok with this solution?
- Create an anonymous sockpuppet on MeFi
- Sign up for sq WITH AN EMAIL YOU PROMISE TO CHECK REGULARLY.
- Using MeMail to let us know your Metafilter sockpuppet AND your regular Handle.
- We pass that info along via MeMail to whoever drew you.
posted by julen at 10:32 PM on October 10, 2017 [3 favorites]
Just coming here to say wow, Julen, that list of things that the tool needs to do is amazing - you guys do a tremendous service to us all. Thank you so much!
posted by mosst at 6:27 AM on October 11, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by mosst at 6:27 AM on October 11, 2017 [1 favorite]
julen, thank you so much for checking in! If that solution you are potentially proposing is doable for you folks, that would be totally fine with me and also be utterly cool.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:41 PM on October 12, 2017
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:41 PM on October 12, 2017
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by wenestvedt at 3:36 AM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]