[sixtofour]

And, as he points out, other people with "normal" (whatever that means) names, some of whom have supplied govt ID as proof), have still been denied their appeal.

What does it mean that Google is this insane about this one little thing? Yes, directed advertising is the obvious answer for an advertising company.

But you DON'T need a real name to have advertising directed your way, all you need is a record in a database. If I registered with G+ as John Smith (not my real name) they would be none the wiser, notwithstanding any correlation with my gmail and outside sources that they may or may not perform. The ads would still get to me.

However, if they were selling correlation to third parties ...

[Xlythe]

It has more to do with the atmosphere than ad targeting. Pseudo names, screen names, random characters that can't always be pronounced scare away people who don't spend much time online. In most social settings, it's common for people to share names, for it to be pronounceable, and for it to be familiar. Like the "Trash" icon being where you dump your unwanted files, or the "Magnifying Glass" being where you search, you want users to feel familiar with your product. Google+ is pruning away a bit of the geek subculture so it doesn't become a huge majority and scare away a much larger crowd.

If Google+ ever becomes a household name, there'll be much less emphasis on real names. The risk of a super majority on Google+ by a minority in the real world will be gone.