A Call for Google+ to Enable Posting via its API

Re:A Call for Google+ to Enable Posting via its API by jamesbritt on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:57PM (#3854958)

I have a hard time seeing how one can justify avoiding providing something that users of a service are desperately eager for, ...

How do people know what g+ users are "desperately eager for"?

Have there been studies? Polls?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Call for Google+ to Enable Posting via its API by tobyjsullivan on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:05PM (#3854982)

I'll bet Google's done the studies and polls. And I'll bet they are seriously considering the response: "We don't want API-driven auto-junk filling our streams!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Call for Google+ to Enable Posting via its API by mindcrime on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:41PM (#3855148)

"We don't want API-driven auto-junk filling our streams!"

Nobody does, but - again - we're talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Not everything posted via API is "junk."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Call for Google+ to Enable Posting via its API by jamesbritt on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @04:42PM (#3860079)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Call for Google+ to Enable Posting via its API by mindcrime on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:38PM (#3855136)

OK, I don't mean to say that every G+ user wants this, mind you. But that a substantial number do is pretty obvious by the posts to the ticket about this, and observing how people interact with other, similar social networks. Does anybody really think that people wouldn't like to be able to use TweetDeck (or whatever) with G+? Or programatically interface with G+ from their blog, or whatever? I may ultimately be proven wrong, but I'd be shocked it a proper study did not show strong demand for a write API.

[ Parent | on HN ]