"By updating its API to support posting, users of clients and plugins would start to actively publish to Google+. This would quickly increase the amount and quality of content available on this platform and in turn attract users and engagement."
No, it wouldn't. It would turn into Facebook, which right now is a stream of unreleated, unuseful junk. Why do I care if my friends on the other side of the state check into a bar? I don't. It's pointless, useless information.
What Facebook has built is a data dumping ground, songs listened to, bars checked into, and the always obnoxious comment from someone you know to someone you don't.
What G+ has tried to do, at least with games, is contextualize the notifications. If I'm playing a game, then I see the game notifications. They never appear in the main stream. I like this. I really hate the Spotify track notifications in Facebook, they're awful. I'm perfectly fine with seeing them in Spotify, because I've already made a decision to listen to music.
Facebook opened up the flood gates, and everyone is drowning. Google is taking the opposite approach, but everyone is thirsty. It seems a lot easier for Google to move towards more useful notifications than for Facebook to back away from them.
No, it wouldn't. It would turn into Facebook, which right now is a stream of unreleated, unuseful junk. Why do I care if my friends on the other side of the state check into a bar? I don't. It's pointless, useless information.
It's pointless and useless to you; you can hardly claim that it's pointless and useless to everyone. And this is exactly why I'll reiterate what I've said over and over again before... the solution is to give people better filters. You can't control what other people publish and trying to do so is pointless... but giving people filters to decide what to include/exclude in their streams it totally reasonable, and it's what Facebook, G+, and all the other "social" sites need to get better at.
I'm the author of the post. While I agree there is a risk of a flood of content, I have two counterpoints.
First, there are countermeasures. As a user on Google+ I'd quickly remove someone from my circles if they over-shared low quality content. Furthermore, Google+ can implement algorithms that affect the prominence of the content based on various quality factors. There's evidence that Facebook has such algorithms in place (1).
Second, the headwinds to gain share in a market with strong network effects outweighs the risk of a flood of content. Users already have a preference to use Facebook and Twitter given their network value (2). Any friction in sharing via Google+ just further encourages users to invest the bulk of their time and resources on these other platforms.
I've heard from people at Google that the reason they don't want to open up posting over the API is because they don't want people's streams filled with robot cross-posts from Twitter, Facebook and zillions of other services. I happen to agree with this point of view.
Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. I have a hard time seeing how one can justify avoiding providing something that users of a service are desperately eager for, and which would undoubtedly help grow the ecosystem around said service, all because of one potential negative consequence. And especially one that, at the end of the day, people can simulate anyway by just posting the same content (by hand) to G+, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I have a page for my podcast. I want my podcast's web-site to automatically post about new episodes to G+ the same way it does for Twitter and Facebook. If people don't want it, they can just unsub.
But what is worse: A stream full of reposts, or an empty stream? It's each user's resonsibility to choose what to post (or repost) or not... Google could just give lower priority in the "filter" to reposted content.
I think Google+ are doing the right thing by not allowing write access yet. Facebook has taught us that. The main reason I've seen people wanting write access is so the can "automatically post to G+ when they post to twitter or facebook" - um, no thanks.
However, I would like to see them improve their API by supporting some realtime notifications like PubSubHubBub (for stream items and comments).
For purely selfish reasons, I'd like to see them consider allowing write access to comments.
I would certainly be using G+ more were the API for posting available.
I had an idea very early on in G+'s life that it'd work great as a sort of bookmarking tool (nb: for myself, not necessarily others). I wanted to create an extension that I could use to "post" articles to circles I created (e.g. tech, or food or whatever) when I came across an interesting article.
I've tried other bookmarking services in the past, but never had the discipline to keep going (or I forgot). I figured because I use gmail frequently, and am always logged in, it would work well as a place I could aggregate things I wanted to read, but didn't have time to read at the time. It would also have the added benefit of being a list, or collection of things I found interesting/relevant that I could then share with other people. Could even have communal bookmarking with my closest friends.
They tried this before. Doesn't anyone remember Google Buzz (and before that FriendFeed)?
You end up with streams of auto-posted Twitter junk.
Maybe at some point in the future they will develop algorithms that filter out this stuff to the point where it is useful. At the moment I prefer it the way it is.
I use Tweetdeck (on my phone) and Rockmelt (on desktop) to post to Facebook and Twitter. I don't always post to both at the same time but when I want to... it is easy. I just need to select where it goes before I send it. I would very much LOVE to include G+ in this scenario but I cannot. In the beginning I was really trying to give G+ the shot it deserved. I was making the extra effort to make common posts in my G+ app, too. I even went a couple days where I only posted stuff to G+. But it was too early. Now I check in on my G+ stream maybe once a week to catch up with stuff from a few friends that have made the full jump and I rarely post anything. I would really like an app that can post via an API. I would certainly use G+ more.
On a side note, I kind of like what G+ was thinking with the Circles concept as a way of filtering but I don't really like it in practice... or maybe it was just how my friends were using it. Most of the people I know on G+ created Circles and used them like you might use tags in a blog post. A post from a Mac person about a cool photo app or feature they found in the latest iOS might be visible only to people in their "Mac-heads", "Photog" and "iOS" circles. I'm not a Photog or a Mac/iOS person but still might be interested in content of that nature. I can understand having Circles like "Coworkers" and "Bible Study Group" where there might be discussions that should be kept private. But using Circles like tagging seems excessively exclusionary when it is not done for privacy reason. While I appreciate the sentiment of people not wanting to bore me with stuff I may not be interested in, I think it made the "share ALL the things" pendulum swing too far the other way. (just my opinion)
I think that this is the biggest challenge that G+ needs to solve, at least for the way that I use the service.
I want to share things publicly without spamming my friends with things they would not be interested in. What I want to be able to do is share something publicly that my Hackers circle or my Rock Climbing circle would appreciate without spamming the other.
Similarly, there are plenty of people that I want to follow because of their insight in one area, but I don't want to see their lolcats.
+1. The fear that APIs would increase noise can easily mitigated by providing filter for source application (just like FB allows to block posting from apps). Regardless of the noise issue, the fact is that most people do not their presence exclusively on G+ and no one likes to copy-paste their posts across multiple social networks. G+ is losing out on lots of valuable data by worrying about noise that otherwise can easily filtered out algorithmically.
Social Automation? Is it just me or do the two just not go together? I like the fact that when I look at my G+ account, I only see what others want to share, took the time to share.
It's a nice break from FB and Twitter...if I was running g+ I wouldn't enable write access at all, make a niche on the fact that everything is organic.
Automation comes with marketers and spammers, and I want them off my feeds for good to be honest.
+1. I am frustrated when I see discussions and demands made in the media that are fomented by SEO and marketers. They are strip miners of communities, who happily exploit loopholes for profit until no trust remains in the system.
All social platforms need time to find their own voice/posting behavior. Think of how Instagram evolved it's own etiquette instead of being yet another place to dump your photos.
I'm with Google here. Allowing people to use the API and cross-post might get them short term wins but will cause long term harm; they will be commoditizing themselves and worse, not giving themselves the chance to build an organic community.
How exactly would those who really want a post API to G+ use it?
The uses that come to mind are the convenience of posting from a multi-network client (e.g. TweetDeck), cross-posting from other networks and for those "RSS/new blog post to network" type scripts. In my opinion, the latter two are the robotic posts that can bog down G+ and the third isn't too far from that.
I would disagree with this article. Most posts through third-party applications will have a motivation to reach the largest possible audience. This will lead to an excessive amount of public posts. Not only will this defeat the purpose of "circles", it will also flood G+ search with noise. This will destroy much of the usefulness of the network.
I would settle for at least a comments plugin! That's really the only big problem with Plusify (https://github.com/lylepratt/Plusify), in order to comment on a post, you have to go to Google+.
[+] [-] Lewisham|14 years ago|reply
"By updating its API to support posting, users of clients and plugins would start to actively publish to Google+. This would quickly increase the amount and quality of content available on this platform and in turn attract users and engagement."
No, it wouldn't. It would turn into Facebook, which right now is a stream of unreleated, unuseful junk. Why do I care if my friends on the other side of the state check into a bar? I don't. It's pointless, useless information.
What Facebook has built is a data dumping ground, songs listened to, bars checked into, and the always obnoxious comment from someone you know to someone you don't.
What G+ has tried to do, at least with games, is contextualize the notifications. If I'm playing a game, then I see the game notifications. They never appear in the main stream. I like this. I really hate the Spotify track notifications in Facebook, they're awful. I'm perfectly fine with seeing them in Spotify, because I've already made a decision to listen to music.
Facebook opened up the flood gates, and everyone is drowning. Google is taking the opposite approach, but everyone is thirsty. It seems a lot easier for Google to move towards more useful notifications than for Facebook to back away from them.
[+] [-] mindcrime|14 years ago|reply
It's pointless and useless to you; you can hardly claim that it's pointless and useless to everyone. And this is exactly why I'll reiterate what I've said over and over again before... the solution is to give people better filters. You can't control what other people publish and trying to do so is pointless... but giving people filters to decide what to include/exclude in their streams it totally reasonable, and it's what Facebook, G+, and all the other "social" sites need to get better at.
[+] [-] mjfern|14 years ago|reply
First, there are countermeasures. As a user on Google+ I'd quickly remove someone from my circles if they over-shared low quality content. Furthermore, Google+ can implement algorithms that affect the prominence of the content based on various quality factors. There's evidence that Facebook has such algorithms in place (1).
Second, the headwinds to gain share in a market with strong network effects outweighs the risk of a flood of content. Users already have a preference to use Facebook and Twitter given their network value (2). Any friction in sharing via Google+ just further encourages users to invest the bulk of their time and resources on these other platforms.
(1) http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/32124/Facebook-C...
(2) http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/28/google-plus-ghost-town/
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mmastrac|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindcrime|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apreche|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danmaz74|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugorodgerbrown|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] passionfruit|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ed209|14 years ago|reply
However, I would like to see them improve their API by supporting some realtime notifications like PubSubHubBub (for stream items and comments).
For purely selfish reasons, I'd like to see them consider allowing write access to comments.
If you're interested in adding your vote to allowing write access, join the others here http://code.google.com/p/google-plus-platform/issues/detail?...
[+] [-] dannyr|14 years ago|reply
It's the longer & more difficult way and I applaud them for it.
If they open up a WRITE API right away, it's going to be exactly like Google Buzz.
[+] [-] obituary_latte|14 years ago|reply
I had an idea very early on in G+'s life that it'd work great as a sort of bookmarking tool (nb: for myself, not necessarily others). I wanted to create an extension that I could use to "post" articles to circles I created (e.g. tech, or food or whatever) when I came across an interesting article.
I've tried other bookmarking services in the past, but never had the discipline to keep going (or I forgot). I figured because I use gmail frequently, and am always logged in, it would work well as a place I could aggregate things I wanted to read, but didn't have time to read at the time. It would also have the added benefit of being a list, or collection of things I found interesting/relevant that I could then share with other people. Could even have communal bookmarking with my closest friends.
Alas, I haven't opened G+ in months.
[+] [-] Lewisham|14 years ago|reply
For sites that don't implement a +1 button, there are browser extensions (at least for Chrome) that will do it for you.
[+] [-] nl|14 years ago|reply
You end up with streams of auto-posted Twitter junk.
Maybe at some point in the future they will develop algorithms that filter out this stuff to the point where it is useful. At the moment I prefer it the way it is.
[+] [-] jack-r-abbit|14 years ago|reply
On a side note, I kind of like what G+ was thinking with the Circles concept as a way of filtering but I don't really like it in practice... or maybe it was just how my friends were using it. Most of the people I know on G+ created Circles and used them like you might use tags in a blog post. A post from a Mac person about a cool photo app or feature they found in the latest iOS might be visible only to people in their "Mac-heads", "Photog" and "iOS" circles. I'm not a Photog or a Mac/iOS person but still might be interested in content of that nature. I can understand having Circles like "Coworkers" and "Bible Study Group" where there might be discussions that should be kept private. But using Circles like tagging seems excessively exclusionary when it is not done for privacy reason. While I appreciate the sentiment of people not wanting to bore me with stuff I may not be interested in, I think it made the "share ALL the things" pendulum swing too far the other way. (just my opinion)
[+] [-] camikazegreen|14 years ago|reply
Similarly, there are plenty of people that I want to follow because of their insight in one area, but I don't want to see their lolcats.
[+] [-] sytelus|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Monotoko|14 years ago|reply
It's a nice break from FB and Twitter...if I was running g+ I wouldn't enable write access at all, make a niche on the fact that everything is organic.
Automation comes with marketers and spammers, and I want them off my feeds for good to be honest.
[+] [-] sad_panda|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sriramk|14 years ago|reply
I'm with Google here. Allowing people to use the API and cross-post might get them short term wins but will cause long term harm; they will be commoditizing themselves and worse, not giving themselves the chance to build an organic community.
[+] [-] RossM|14 years ago|reply
The uses that come to mind are the convenience of posting from a multi-network client (e.g. TweetDeck), cross-posting from other networks and for those "RSS/new blog post to network" type scripts. In my opinion, the latter two are the robotic posts that can bog down G+ and the third isn't too far from that.
[+] [-] johngunderman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunsu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevejalim|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonaphin|14 years ago|reply