Gmail update adds contact details and more

If you use Gmail, you might have noticed a few differences when you checked your inbox this week.  In a new post on the official Gmail blog, Google revealed some new features that have been added to the web-based email service. One of them involves seeing the contact details of the people who have emailed you.

The blog post states:

When you search for an email address, the search results will now show you contact details in addition to that person's profile photo and the emails sent from and to them. From here, you can start a chat, call their phone and more.

The blog adds that if the person you are searching for in your Gmail account also happens to have a Google+ account, the contact features will be automatically updated every time that person updates their Google+ details.

Speaking of which, the blog points out that the Google+ circle integration has also been changed. It states, "When you select a circle, you'll now see profile photos of people in that circle at the top right of the page. Plus, when you click on these images you'll be taken directly to search results with contact details."

You can also search for messages from a specific Google+ circle in your Gmail account by typing in "search" and then the circle's name. You can narrow the search for messages from your Google+ circle and even create filters for those circle notes.

Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

A wireless 3 Gbps transmission on the Terahertz scale

Next Story

Windows Phone Marketplace exceeds 90,000 apps

19 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

tiagosilva29 said,
I wonder what my enemies can see through my e-mail address.

Sigh.


Only what they could have already seen before... and surely privacy settings aren't that difficult to work out.

Total POS web mail!!

Only use it for storage. If Gmail was something I actually had to install on the computer, I'd call it bloatware! As it is though, I'll just call it s**tware!

cork1958 said,
Total POS web mail!!

Only use it for storage. If Gmail was something I actually had to install on the computer, I'd call it bloatware! As it is though, I'll just call it s**tware!

And yet it seems to get more popular every year...

cork1958 said,
Total POS web mail!!

Only use it for storage. If Gmail was something I actually had to install on the computer, I'd call it bloatware! As it is though, I'll just call it s**tware!


Bloatware? Do you have like dial-up or something?

cork1958 said,
Total POS web mail!!

Only use it for storage. If Gmail was something I actually had to install on the computer, I'd call it bloatware! As it is though, I'll just call it s**tware!

wtf

cork1958 said,
Total POS web mail!!

Only use it for storage. If Gmail was something I actually had to install on the computer, I'd call it bloatware! As it is though, I'll just call it s**tware!


someone is on drugs ..

topjolly said,

Try telling that to the 170 million users that have upgraded to google+


I'm one of that 170 million, and I never use it. Just because 170,000 have it. Doesn't mean 170 million use it.

Xerax said,

I'm one of that 170 million, and I never use it. Just because 170,000 have it. Doesn't mean 170 million use it.

I get what your saying but the comment from the above post was irrelevant at most. It's just like saying do all the FB accounts get actual use not that I'm compairing figures.

Edited by topjolly, May 19 2012, 11:16am :

fenderMarky said,

Active users?


define active user... How many "active users" are on Facebook? How many on Twitter?

Useless statistic since there are little to compare with.

Only comparable if they same definition is used.

Which never is.

Let me define: users who are logged in last 30 days and post at least 2 or more posts on their wall... Bet this is only the very very little portion of 170.000.000... And yeah i've closed my google+ since its useless and have even worse privacy settings then FB to my understanding.

Northgrove said,

define active user... How many "active users" are on Facebook? How many on Twitter?

Useless statistic since there are little to compare with.

Only comparable if they same definition is used.

Which never is.