Talk:Google Allo

New Logo for Allo

Hello there, since my account has not been confirmed I cannot upload files to wikipedia so to those who have had their account confirmed I should make you aware that the logo for Allo has changed and it now looks like this.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmswell (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello to you too. This week Google put out a promo video that appears to show that the logo currently depicted in the article is accurate. I have not followed the history of changes they've made, but as it stands now, that part of the article appears to be in good shape.--Concord gioz (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"non-secure-by-default"

Security is a HUGE issue with this new app. Prominent experts in the field of internet security have weighed in with their opinions. The lede has just been changed to make it crystal clear (here on Wikipedia, at least) that the default setting is not secure. Ironically, this week Google released a promo vid with a Star Wars theme where it actually looks like the company is promoting itself as being the Empire. Y'all can have a look for yourselves here: Google-Death Star video clip (Allo advert).

Google appears to be at a turning point in the company's history. Many would argue that they had turned this corner long ago (eg: Google+ auto-membership, ...).

I have started this section not to advocate that anyone here insert into the article any connection between Google and the Empire. At this stage, that would constitute Original Research. Now if any reliable sources commenting on this are out there, then let's get on this edit. And if none are out there now, it is easy to guess that they will be coming soon.

(Topic for a future time & place: Shining light on the darker aspects of Wikipedia. Of course the list is endless, as the fundamental problem being addressed here is integral to the human condition) --Concord gioz (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We have a section in the article detailing the issues with security, based on verifiable sources. We place weight on the issues surrounding security, and I agree the problem is important. We probably can place short info in the lead, but in the same sentence as the name of the application is too much. We can write a short paragraph in the lead below the first paragraph detailing issues with security. But just remember that *you* think security is a big issue, but Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view. Also, I am not a Google/Alphabet employee. LocalNet (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your points. Thank you. I am working an edit that honors aspects you have highlighted.--Concord gioz (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Privacy issues

@LocalNet: What you consider to be the "most important contents" of an article is not what everyone considers. You were the person who boldly added it to the lead, I reverted and now you are edit warring about it. I think it needs at most a brief mention in the lead, not an entire paragraph. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:3RR you're now at 4, I recommend you calm down before you get reported. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: Hi there! Thank you for coming to the talk page! First off, take a deep breath! Now, it's important to note what kind of press a subject has gotten. Obviously, the article should indeed have an extra paragraph in the lead between the first and third paragraphs focusing on features, which is currently missing. Two, please know that I added a summary of privacy concerns to the lead back in December 2016, at which point it received no objections. It has been this way for several months, gaining current consensus. You removed the information now, constituing a WP:BOLD edit, and I reverted. At which point you reverted me, and I asked for a discussion here, but you reverted again, starting a WP:WAR. In summary: The article should definitely have an extra paragraph on features, which it is missing, but I fully believe the summary of privacy concerns is warranted. Also, next time, please wait until someone has the opportunity to reply on the talk page. I believe in this particular situation, you are actually the one edit-warring. LocalNet (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I like the lead now, thanks for improving it :) I got a bit busy IRL but looks nice now... Was just worried about the undue weight it was giving that before, it led to quite a biased article tone... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)}15:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@EoRdE6: You're welcome, and you are absolutely right about undue weight before. But in the future, please pay attention to how edit wars are actually made. My edit from December had no objections for months until your edit arrived. That meant your edit was the bold one, and instead of continuing to try to revert to previous changes and accusing me of trying to own the article, it would have been friendlier, more efficient and just more organized to bring your correct thoughts on balance to this talk page. Something to keep in mind in the future :) LocalNet (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead too long

I believe that – in its current state of three paragraphs and ~330 words – the lead is too long for the length of the article (see WP:LEADLENGTH). It could easily be reduced to one third of its current length. For instance, when summarising the Features section, the lead does not need to repeat entire sentences that explain what specific features do, when they were added to the app, or list every file format that the app is able to send. The lead should also be able to summarise the Reception section with one or two sentences. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Dodi 8238: Thanks for coming to the talk page! I definitely understand your points and I agree that information can be shortened. However, I have a little bit of a difficulty in trying to figure out exactly how. You mentioned "easily be reduced", but I'm finding it quite tricky :/ Do you happen to have any particular examples of shortened summaries? :) LocalNet (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The Features section is currently 284 words long. The part of the lead that is supposed to summarise the Features section is 183 words long. Here is how I would shorten it to 49 words:

The app uses phone numbers as identifiers, and allows users to exchange messages, files, voice notes and images. It includes a virtual assistant, a feature that generates automatic reply suggestions, and an optional encrypted mode. Users can resize messages and add doodles and stickers on images before sending them.

I think the details that I left out are trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans (WP:CRUFT), so they don't need to be mentioned in the lead. Someone could argue that the features in the last sentence (message resizing, adding doodles/stickers on images) could also be left out of the lead (bringing the features summary down to 35 words). For examples of summaries, I recommend looking at some featured articles. Specifically, compare the lengths and amount of detail in the lead sections to the lengths and amount of detail in the bodies of the articles themselves. The PowerBook 100 article's lead only has one sentence about its reception, even though that article's Reception section is 286 words long. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dodi 8238: Gosh, there are so many rules/guidelines on Wikipedia! I had no idea there was a rule about the length of the lead, I thought it was only supposed to adequately describe the contents of the article... But you do appear to be correct about the lead length, and I'm not going to argue against established guidelines singlehandedly (just sometimes wish there weren't so ridiculously many!). I agree with your summarization here. LocalNet (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This falls under Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which is quite comprehensive and, as such, can feel intimidating to newcomers. If you would like to learn how to improve articles, Wikipedia:Writing better articles is a less intimidating page that is intended to be a supplement to the Manual of Style.

I have now shortened the Features summary. I still think that the Reception summary can be shortened to one or two sentences. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dodi 8238: Hehe, I know. I worded myself a little weird by "rules/guidelines". I've been here for over a year and have thousands of edits under my name, so I'm not exactly a newcomer, but first and foremost I'm a content writer on Wikipedia. I memorize quite a few of the most common guidelines and styles, but I (admittedly) haven't taken the time to familiarize myself with the full setup of the Manual of Style. There's a lot in there. :P And some of it appear to be details necessary for upgrading internal article assessment rather than outward-facing visibility. (Nothing wrong about that, though, I'm just not very interested in that aspect of WP myself). Thanks for the link, though, might be easier to learn more when I'm not bombarbed by instructions haha :P Regarding the Reception section, you were right earlier so you're probably right again now. I don't have the opportunity to revise the text myself now, but I can try later if you can't take care of that. :) LocalNet (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Allo web client

Hi, I've added some information about the recently-released Allo web client in the History section, lede/lead and the infobox. Feel free to make any additions or corrections.

Airborne90 (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)