That's what Wired editors think.

<< Check out this screenshot:

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/01/21/google_docs_example2.jpg

This is what you see when you choose to share a spreadsheet within Google Docs. (The red labels are my own). Shown is the Invite People tab, where you can add e-mail addresses of people you want to let view or edit your doc. You can also set permissions as you invite them, by clicking on the To Edit or To View radio buttons. I've labeled it section A.

At the bottom, in section B, are the Privacy settings, with three more radio buttons. The options are clear: You're choosing whether to let people edit or view the document without signing in, something that requires a Google account.

What's not clear is that in this instance, "people" in section B refers not to the people you've specifically invited in section A, but rather everyone on the internet. >>

http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/01/google-docs-des.html

My question: how would Google know that the people you allowed to edit the spreadsheet are who they claim to be without authenticating?

My suggestion for Google: replace "people" with "anyone".

I always understood that this is how it works, for the same reason you give, but I can definitely see how some people may get confused without thinking about it. I'm not sure whether your simple solution would really solve the problem for people like that.

Isn't that – "Let people edit without signing in" – referring to an unlisted, hard-to-guess URL of the document which you would first need in order to edit it? In other words, while technically public, not everyone would know the URL and thus be able to edit it. So in many cases (but not all) only the people (and not just anyone) who have been forwarded the document URL by e.g. an invited person could edit it. Or am I understanding this wrong?

PS: I do think the sharing/ invites/ unlisted/ private/ public etc. issues with Google Docs *can* be confusing, definitely. And sometimes, Google's security is not as tight as it could be for what the phrasing of the dialogs would suggests.

Another idea: the options from "privacy" could be moved to the "advanced permissions" tab.

[X] this spreadsheet requires authentication
[ ] allow anyone to view the spreadsheet without authentication
[ ] allow anyone to edit the spreadsheet without authentication

<< Isn't that – "Let people edit without signing in" – referring to an unlisted, hard-to-guess URL of the document which you would first need in order to edit it? >>

No, it's the same URL you can use to edit a spreadsheet you own.

> No, it's the same URL you can use to edit a
> spreadsheet you own.

I don't understand.
I just created a spreadsheet for testing purposes, and I set its sharing to "Let people edit without signing in". How are you able to edit this now (as you are of the group "anyone")? Do you see this document somewhere?

<<I don't understand>>

That's the problem...

<< How are you able to edit this now (as you are of the group "anyone")? >>

If I know the URL of your spreadsheet, I can edit it without having to be logged in.

> If I know the URL of your spreadsheet, I can edit
> it without having to be logged in.

Yes, but you don't know the URL, which was exactly what I said – it's an "unlisted, hard-to-guess URL of the document which you would first need in order to edit it". So using a phrase like "anyone" also doesn't seem to be completely correct, and could add its own type of confusion...

Google could "tell it like it is":

"Let anyone who knows the address of the spreadsheet edit it. Send the address to the people at these email addresses."