https://plus.google.com/107158560758466172135/posts
Charlie Kindel uses a backdoor to paste his tweets to G+ and adds very little to the community. There is no interaction on his posts - it's just added noise.
I couldn't turn it off if I wanted to (and I don't; I have no desire to "engage" on G+, but the narcissist in me likes knowing as many people are seeing my posts as possible).
I turned it on as an experiment to see how the people who have "circled me" on G+ would react.
The reaction has been mixed. On one hand VicG used it as an example of what not to do. A few others have made snide comments.
On the other hand, I've picked up hundreds of new circlers and gotten some interesting (to me) comments on some of my posts/tweets.
And there is a best argument against adding a write API to Google+
Fine, then the people who find it to be noise can un-circle him. For the class of people who are largely interested in the same topics as Charlie, it isn't even noise in the first place. Honestly, I don't see this as much of an argument against allowing the Write API.
Like he apparently had some original ideas about the naming of Windows RT, represented in 4 posts each ~100 characters long (one of which seemed to be an "end of split post" marker). It looked the worst of both worlds. And argument so abbreviated it had been reduced to gibberish, but looking very verbose due to having been artificially split.
How do people know what g+ users are "desperately eager for"?
Have there been studies? Polls?
Nobody does, but - again - we're talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Not everything posted via API is "junk."
True, but enough of it is to make it a problem. What could Google do to trap the noise but allow the signal? Rate limiting? Pattern matching against Twitter posts?