OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE <3 <3 <3!!! 165
Chapium writes "Google Romance (Beta) is a place where you can post all types of romantic information and, using our Soulmate Search(TM), get back search results that could, in theory, include the love of your life. Then we'll send you both on a Contextual DateTM, which we'll pay for while delivering to you relevant ads that we and our advertising partners think will help produce the dating results you're looking for.
With this addtion has Google gone too far with its data collection?"
Slashdot users rejoice! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slashdot users rejoice! (Score:2)
Brings together what Google is good at - data search, and a good platform for selling ads on.
Re:Slashdot users rejoice! (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot users rejoice! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he is. But he also has a point. It's not so far-fetched to think Google will get into this eventually, even if they joke about it know. They already have orkut [orkut.com], you know? And online dating services are moderately popular and an interesting type of site for advertising.
More generally, Google <insert whatever word you want> Beta is not unlikely to happen eventually.
404 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:404 (Score:2)
Re:404 (Score:2)
Re:404 (Score:1)
I'm suing....
Re:404 (Score:1)
Could be worse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Could be worse (Score:2)
Making love to google... (Score:1)
rofl (Score:2)
Re:rofl (Score:1)
Re:rofl (Score:2)
How cute (Score:2)
Re:How cute (Score:2)
Not as cute as this: http://www.cuteoverload.com/ [cuteoverload.com].
LOLZ!!!! BRB CYA!1
Re:How cute (Score:1)
Slashdot at its best. (Score:5, Funny)
Even the April Fool's jokes have Google flamebait.
Slashdot Drinking Game (Score:5, Funny)
Story contains "OMG": 1 shot
Story contains Google, MS: get a beer
Zonk says something foolish: shot of beer
SLOW DOWN DAAMMIY!!11ToO muCh..1!!lk21;l1k
Re:Slashdot Drinking Game (Score:2)
Goog's search data put to good use! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Goog's search data put to good use! (Score:1, Funny)
Google romance not far away from being feasible. (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine if Google profiled you by your Gmail account and web-searches, blogger entries, etc and was able to use this information to do a psychometric profile of you. It could then compare this with other people's profiles and suggest members of the opposite sex that it thinks you would most like!
I don't know whether this would be cool or damn scarey. What's worse is that the only thing standing in the way of this happening is programmer time. What's amazing is how effectively we've created 1984 and in how little time we've done it.
Simon
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:5, Funny)
Depending on you how you look at that claim, one might say we've actually been quite slow though.
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:1)
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:2)
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:1)
Anyway, I'll stick with good old carbon-14 dating.
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:2)
Well, yes...
But what if that is the actual joke?
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:3, Informative)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. In fact...
I haven't read 1984 myself, but I do demand accuracy in my Slashdot cultural references!
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:2, Funny)
1984? Dude we are way off schedule... Do you by any means work at microsoft?
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:2)
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:1)
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:2)
Re:Google romance not far away from being feasible (Score:2)
Presuming it thinks you like the opposite sex. Better cut back on searching shemale zoophile sites, everyone...
What's worse is that the only thing standing in the way of this happening is programmer time.
No, what's worse is that programmers likely to have the requisite time are correspondingly likely to have the motivation to work on the project.
"Don't be medieval" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Don't be medieval" (Score:1)
Sigh.
The other button (Score:5, Funny)
from the faq (Score:2)
Here on the Google Romance team, we follow the philosophy "Don't be medieval," so we brought only the latest psychographic and search algorithms to bear on the problem of hooking up our users. First you fill out an extensive personal profile carefully designed by a team of both married and single Google engineers for the express purpose of gathering and analyzing romantic information. Then you fill out an equally obscure and elaborate profile describing various attributes of the p
from another faq (Score:2)
Re:from another faq (Score:2)
I for one ... (Score:1)
OMG! 3 (Score:2)
In any case: ASL && more pix??
Re:OMG! 3 (Score:1)
There are many nice little features to this aprils fools, I like the diffrent error messages and there is even a press release [google.com] about how the new tool was leaked to
One would almost think that this was somehow coordinated between
Translation, please? (Score:3, Funny)
For those of you having difficulty with the above emoticons, take note they can be read in either of 2 ways:
OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE less-than-three less-than-three less-than-three!!!
-- Which means on a scale of 10, this site only rates a "3"
OMG GOOGLE ROMANCE conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls
-- Which makes no sense whasoever, must be some kind of April fool's joke.
Re:Translation, please? (Score:3, Informative)
Your geek card has been confiscated.
Re:Translation, please? (Score:2)
Oh, good. I thought that maybe the "<3" meant that Google Romance was being prejudiced against polyamory, and that their service was only good for arranging romance among "less than three" people. One could also infer that their search engine might find that you deserve to be in a relationship of 1 person (just yourself) or 0 people (even you can't stand to be with you).
I'm so glad to learn that the "<3 <3 <3" stands for three hearts, and as such is poly-friendly.
Re:Translation, please? (Score:2, Funny)
mushroom mushroom
> conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls, conical-penis-with-balls
snake, it's a snaaake!
Re:Translation, please? (Score:2)
those are actually ass-cream cones.
Perfect Match (Score:5, Funny)
She is my delicate flower.
Grr... (Score:1)
So gay = bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you could put 'fag' next time instead? OMG, like that would be SOOOO FUNNY!!!
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot also has a very healthy "words evolve" faction which holds that words do not mean anything other than what the speakers of the words think they mean, so if "gay" means "bad" it's not homophobia, it's evolution.
I'm now taking signups for the "just fucking get over it, you're not that special" faction. Sign up now and get a free "There was only up to 1 cross in history that mattered, and yours ain't it." T-shirt.
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:2)
--Humpty Dumpty
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Take the word "suck," for example; a person I insultingly call "gay" is no more homosexual than a person I insultingly say "sucks". Or what about "jerk"? A "jerk" was originally someone who...jerked himself. Jerk has become a word accepted in society (its slang status notwithstanding), and "suck" is bordering at least passive acceptance.
What about "SOB"? D
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:2)
That said, they still score higher in esteem than anyone who talks about being "offended" by words.
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:2)
*ZING*
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:2)
All that means is that the intolerant people who started using that as an insult got the term to spread so much that most people don't know how it started. That doesn't mean that the original intolerance should be forgiven, and there are many people out there who use "gay" as an insult because they think being gay is bad. I don't see how anyone can not understand how hurtful
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:2)
No. There aren't. People who would hate you for it are already looking for a reason to hate you, so it doesn't matter if race or sexual orientation is the answer they find. They're probably the same ones who'd accuse the straight WASP of being rich and intolerant.
Race is probably harder to hide, but sexual orientat
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:2)
Re:Blame the victim = bad (Score:2)
Nor out, either. Do you know if I'm straight or gay?
If you met me in real life would you know? (No, I don't have a boyfriend or girfriend, and if I did, they wouldn't be soldered on to me like some people seem to be.)
Re:Blame the victim = bad (Score:2)
Nor should anyone else be forced to know far too much information about any other given person.
Not to mention that there's a list of people as long as my arm that "offends"(read: makes me question the value of humanity) me whenever they open their mouths. Nobody's moving to shut them up. Anyone w
Re:Blame the victim = bad (Score:2)
There is no double standard. There are people who view just about any sort of marriage with disdain. Gay, Mixed-race, BDSM, mixed-faith, civil/secular, young, old, age-different, vanilla, second marriages. You name it, you can find someone to condemn it.
Whinging about it and making sure everyone "realizes there's a problem, goddamnit" is stupid, attention-whoring bullshit. The problem is that by insisting on pushing it to the forefront of people's minds, they draw more NEGATIVE attention, which onl
Victim Mentality = bad (Score:2)
Again, all of which are just as often applied to any of the other marriages I listed and you carefully ignored. The simple fact of the matter
Re:Victim Mentality in the eye of the victimizer (Score:2)
When did we get into gay marriage from "hate speech?" It occurs to me that this is apparently your pet agenda and should be dismissed in favor of the original discussion, which was about "offensive" words, and to continue on this new thread would be feeding the tro
Re:Everybody wins if nobody loses (Score:2)
Have a nice life, try not to blow up any churches.
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:1)
Am I allowed to hate Christians and Gays for making so much god damned noise that this country is falling into the shitter faster than the scumbags at the top can flush?
Just kidding! April Fools! You were saying something about 2000 year old fairy tales and their relationship to the civil rights granted under Jefferson's list o' rules...
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:2)
Why not? I do.
You were saying something about 2000 year old fairy tales and their relationship to the civil rights granted under Jefferson's list o' rules...
No I wasn't. If it's the t-shirt that convinced you otherwise, note the "up to" qualification.
Obvious homophobia (Score:1)
Of course it's homophobia. The fact that a slur is unfortunately trendy doesn't make it less of a slur. Would you argue that to "jew someone down" isn't anti-Semitic merely because the expression was in common use?
The expression "that's so gay" is considered the universal insult in American schools, something that would be readily rejected as vulgar if applied to any demographic besides gays.
Re:Obvious homophobia (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:2)
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:1)
'm really impressed with the latent homophobia in nearly every single 'aprilfools' post so far today. The 'gay' tag? Is that necessary? It's really not funny.
You're gay. Gaaaaaaaayyyyy! (scnr)
So this kid is at a ballgame.. (Score:2)
Since all these AF stories are getting tagged 'gay'... here's a little joke to fit the context.
So this kid is at a ballgame, and goes to take a whiz. As he's standing at the urinal, he loooks over and sees a cowboy standing next to him..
Kid: Hey mister, are you a real cowboy??
Cowboy: I sure am son, would you like to wear my hat?
The kid happily accepts, and puts on the cowboy hat. Just as the kid is finishing up, a man in a sailor suit walks in and stands next to him..
Kid: Hey mister, are you a real
Re:So gay = bad? (Score:1)
maybe it's slashdotted (Score:2)
I guess I'll try again tomorrow.
gay (Score:1)
If everyone on Slashdot signed up for a dating service, the only ones who would find compatible mates would be the gay members.
Re:gay (Score:2)
gay, adj.
No romance.. (Score:1)
That's just great - once again, the sheer volume of our users' thirst for our products has exceeded our capacity to quench it, therefore, deja vu, this service is not available at this time (at least not to you).
I wish I had registered a little sooner
Now I will never find romance !!
Romantic AdSense (Score:5, Funny)
Flowers. Music. Personal advice. E-greetings. Later on, depending on how our long-term opt-out natural-language-based monitoring system thinks things are going, personalized thank you notes, romantic getaway offers, various intimate pharmaceutical come-ons, engagement and bridal wear catalogs you know the drill.
+------------
| Ads by Goooooogle
|
| V 1 A G R A - En1arge yuor pen1$ n0w
|
| Advertise on this site
+------------
Check out the FAQ (Score:1)
It's a satire of Google's own business model. Their contextual ads and their Beta products.
And it's biting. I'm just reminded why I like Google.
6. What is Contextual Dating?
It's a free date plus the added accrued value of the past decade's worth of post-Industrial Age online marketing genius, all tied into a real-time, video-based, GPS-tracked, psychographically astute and environmentally pervasive promotional system.
7. Come again?
You see ads that might make your date b
Heartbroken... (Score:1)
Not at all psychological damaging?!?!
Just while all this pinkness and cute pictures of fluffy little animals has managed to stirred up long abandoned faint hopes of locating a perfect soulmate, your preposterous prank has shattered
OMG ? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:OMG ? (Score:2)
Re:OMG ? (Score:1)
You don't know that? :-O..Oh My Gawd..
Re:OMG ? (Score:1)
Re:OMG ? (Score:1)
I'm Feeling Lucky (Score:1)
OMG OMG BALLS!! (Score:2)
Re:OMG OMG BALLS!! (Score:2)
==3
Or if you've got a really tiny curved penis
~%
A 4/1 joke or ambivalence? (Score:1, Insightful)
Google builds Google Romance.
They're ambivalent about introducing it.
Product Manager has the brilliant idea to introduce it as a joke, monitor interest, and later claim, "Oh, it started as a joke, but people really wnated it, so we did it."
slashcode bug (Score:2, Informative)
Re:slashcode bug (Score:1)
I'am feeling luck!!!!!!!!! (Score:1, Funny)
Google DOES do Romance (Score:1)
Invites! (Score:1)
This shows Google's uninterested on online dating (Score:2)
This April Fools joke wouldn't have happened if Google had a serious interest in online dating -- it wouldn't make sense to ridicule a business concept and then enter the business.
Match.com and competitors are breathing a sigh of relief today ...
Searching doesn't work (Score:1)
Re:WTF Stupid Slashdot (Score:1)
Re:Google... still catering to the... (Score:1)
awww (Score:2)