I run a hypothetical restaurant, it behooves me to check out the YELP comments on my Restaurant. I look at the comments and I look at the general trends. I do not need to get caught up on some particular comment, and definitely do not attempt to pin point the individual making the comment.
I am not going to create a database of ONE STAR comment-ors on Yelp and go through my payment records to see how often they have visited my restaurant, I am not going to setup a camera at the entrance of the restaurant to picture identify those customers as they walk in -- and use an alerting system -- to I can step in and show them the sign that says "This business has the right to refuse service ... " and then the door... because it makes absolutely no sense at all ... A) Feedback as in -- suggestion boxes, physical suggestion boxes -- have some for support anonymity, customers are encouraged to make comments with or without their names -- even if name are provided, a good business will tend to think of them in an "anon- imized" manner. The feedback content is more important than the who(individual making it) , the stats around particular feedback (lighting, decor, noise ) at the hypothetical restaurant/ coffee shop help the owner to make educated decisions. If one person makes the same comment on the same issue over and over, that counts less that comments on the same issue from different and unique users. Comments may be judged frivolous and repetitive and ignored -- its effectively not going to get through the spam filter in the future -- which is the minimal and dignified solution. B) In the Android app world, the users data is meant to be personal, to be accessed on an individual basis with caution. A good business principle would be to view this data through an anon lense. So to pinpoint and match the user (providing feedback ) with the individual in the usage data collection on the back end, seems to be two counts of access of data that should ideally be viewed through an "anon lense". On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Atrus <atr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I can say that through out all of this back and forth, my opinion on > the matter has certainly changed. It's gone from "completely terrible" to > "terrible, but can be justified and used properly". As long as it's not > used improperly (which is something that should be determined on a case by > case basis) it's fine to use such a feature. > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM, c beck <usabec...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> sent from a mobile device >> On Dec 8, 2011 7:17 AM, "Rendall" <rend...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Now I understand some of the moral tone of the objection. The people >> who object, if I'm understanding correctly, believe that there was a >> violation of a social contract or even of the user's personal space (as >> represented by their device). Would it be different if it were a web app >> that you had to log into? >> >> For me, yes. But I am more concerned with the potential legal >> responsibility and bad press than I care about morally offending a >> ridiculously irate user. >> >> > Often, these users are banned for terms of use violations, and the app >> is upgraded arbitrarily. >> >> Maybe this argument could convince me. >> > >> > In my view, no one has an inherent right to the application. The >> developer has a right to dictate the terms of use, *paid or not*. If I >> don't like the terms of use, I am free to use another application. If the >> developer of an app makes a great app but has a TOU which shuts me down for >> some arbitrary reason, it sucks, but I am free to >> uninstall it and use another app, or write my own. >> >> The problem is this is a question for a jury if it ever come to being >> challenged. (not that it would). >> >> ------- >> >> I definitely don't have an entitlement to use any application out there, >> at will, even if I paid for it, unless I'm willing to understand and submit >> to the app's TOU. >> > >> > As for the space represented by the device, the application *is >> designed* to communicate with the mother ship. It's *designed* to be shut >> down or upgraded. It's not handing control over the device to the >> developer, but the application itself allows remote control over its own >> function. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Android Discuss" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> > For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Android Discuss" group. >> To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Android Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
