Shared publicly  - 
Want to know why +Google+ shouldn't have a write API for posting to the steam? Go check out FriendFeed. My home timeline has 50 updates in as many minutes that were all automatically fed in from Twitter and not a single one has a comment/like/share. My +Google+ stream however is the complete oposite. Everything is posted by the hand of a human and 90% of the posts have been +1'd/shared/commented on.

Should there be a write API for circles? Yes! For the stream? No!

cc +Google+ Developers
Julian Bond's profile photoAllen “Prisoner” Firstenberg's profile photoShawn Drape's profile photoSelcuk Islamoglu's profile photo
Just because they were fed in from twitter... doesn't that mean that someone had to write them in the first place?
I do agree with you about the 'hand of a human' issue. totally. but I wish they'd come up with a way (that can't be hacked/co-opted) to allow us to build Android/iOS apps to post to our stream.
+Abraham Williams yeah. I can see how they're pushing the intent model for Android. I reeaaaaally want to build a nice iPad app though ;)
+Kosso K Maybe if you build an awesome enough iOS app they will let you in on the write API ;)
+Tzafrir Rehan - it is also a great pitfall.

I post less on Blogger now because my posts there won't post on G+. They post fine and automatically to facebook and twitter. And I don't make up for it by posting more here.

I have at least a dozen friends who won't use G+ because they don't feel like re-posting everything twice. It isn't worth their time and, given the number of people who are active here, thats quite understandable.

I have a friend who cobbled together a way to post here. And he remains at least somewhat active here as well because of this.

If we truly cared about "written on and for Google+" then we wouldn't have a link button.
+Allen Firstenberg Google made a very blunt decision to throw away the good with the bad. If you're a blogger, I'd very much like to see you blog posts (assuming long form blogging), But piping your Twitter feed into Google+ will make me hate you.

I understand why they decided to keep that kind of noise away, but by blocking those they also block the option of creating better tools for using Google+.
Three problems with this, +Abraham Williams:

1) This is one click more than I need to do for either facebook or twitter.

2) This only works if I make the post public at the time I publish it. It does not work if I schedule a post for a future time.

3) This works for publishing to my stream, but not for publishing to my page (which I can trivially do for the fb and twitter equivalents).

Yes, the big difference is that I need to use +ifttt to post to twitter and fb... but thats incredibly easy to setup and "just works". I just can't do these things with +Blogger yet. (And yes, I've provided feedback to them requesting the features.)
+Tzafrir Rehan - I understand the need to "block the crap" as well. And I support that! Way back at the dawn of G+, when people complained about not having a writable API, I pointed out that FB's writable API introduced all sorts of junk into the stream and I was hoping that Google was working on a vastly better way to handle it.

Instead we got the game stream. Another really blunt solution. Which also appears to have satisfied... pretty close to nobody.

There needs to be a balance and a way for us to control that balance.
My friend +Scanner Luce just said this, and I'll share it here because its relevant and right on the mark (and I'll be sharing it again later):

"You [G+] are not removing barriers to entry. Therefore, you lose."
Wrote this for +DeWitt Clinton and was about to post it just as he closed comments on his share: Sorry, but I have to ask. Do people at Google ever listen to the actual active users here, or just people who praise Google? Like this: or this: or lots more all over the place.
Interesting though -- on FriendFeed I as the reader could easily remove those Twitter posts from my steam on an individual or source basis. It gave me rather than the originator control over what I saw.

Here -- no such luck. I would counter that if Google+ provided the same level control here that it could well have an API that allowed writing to the stream to provide the benefits of that capability without all the negativity that you indicate.
Maybe they don't have comments/likes/shares because development on Friendfeed has stopped and no one goes there anymore. I feel like that could be at least part of the reason. Maybe a small part... but probably all of the parts.
If a write API comes to Google+, we need to be able to block the posts made by the write API, as well as by individual "apps". That would be sufficient for me.
Exactly +Mark Trapp Friendfeed did it right and grew a community specifically because of those features. Meanwhile, on Google+ when I add someone to circle, I get everything they decide to share with me, and I don't get to filter it myself by service. This is not a good thing.
+Brian Sullivan I don't think +Google can provide such fine grained controls over the stream. Anything more complicated than the simple slider that circle streams have will be too complicated. FF never found adoption outside of the tech elite because of this.
+Mark Trapp You are correct FF is actually a pretty bad example but I see a similar result on Facebook. To a less extent since FB likes to hide content that doesn't have any engagement but it still isn't as good as G+.
+Abraham Williams FriendFeed never had a real chance -- it was essentially abandoned 3 years ago -- but is still better than Google+ in many ways.
+Abraham Williams - I think the circle model is perfect for this, however. Apps should automatically be put into circles when you first encounter them. You should then be able to move them between circles, adjust the volume on their circles, etc.
+Abraham Williams Why? Other services do - Pinterest for example lets people choose which interests (boards) a user wants to follow. Also, the "slider bar" is seriously broken in my opinion - did you know if someone is in more than one circle it selects the lowest level slider setting, not the highest, as most people would assume.
+Abraham Williams I've often thought they could treat posts from apps 'like' a circle stream, where you can dial it up or down, depending on how 'noisy' it is. I think, rather than G+ make an API to post to the stream normally, it should only be able to make a certain type of post (rather like via Mobile is 'from Mobile') which could then easily be filtered. Even on the client side with JS.
+Brian Sullivan If FF had a real chance the founders wouldn't have sold to FB or would have sold with an agreement that development would continue. FB acquired them for the talent and technology not because FF was the next FB.
+Allen Firstenberg Actually an apps circle that defaults to no posts in the main stream could be pretty awesome. I would be ok with that. I'm betting that Google is trying such things internally or at least prototyping them.
+Rob Gordon Opting into interests is approaching from the opposite direction of filtering out unwanted sources. Pinterest is also the sort of site that attracts OCD scrapbookers that are more likely to fiddle with settings. G+ is targeted more at the common user who are lazy.
+Allen Firstenberg Ya. If apps have write access but no one sees or engages with the posts there isn't much point in developing a write API.
Thanks everybody for indulging my rants ;) This thread is a testament to how awesome G+ is even without a write API.
It perplexes me how a small group of people (like the development team at FriendFeed) could produce the features it did in a short amount of time while Google development groups with all their resources couldn't do anything useful in its first kick at the can (Buzz) and continues to be a relative non performer.

They seemed to have pissed away their time dealing with stupid stuff like their "real name" policy fiasco, mustache apps in hangouts and the like.
Keep in mind that Google is not only developing new products like G+ but rewriting the UI of all existing products at the same time. Even with 30k+ people that is a massive undertaking.
I'm with +Brian Sullivan 100% on the name policy. They wasted time and good will on that (and they still are). I get the intention... but it was such a mistake.

The moustaches... I have mixed feelings there. I saw pretty early where they were going with that, and I was glad to see that I was right. The Hangout API is pretty flexible, and you can do some neat things with it... and that grew out of the moustache stuff. So here was a case where they ultimately opened it up to make the platform more open and flexible.
I think the moustaches originated from 20% time so it was of interest to the devs building it.
+Royans Tharakan brought up a good point on his share ( that Buzz had this same problem. I would argue that it contributed to Buzzes eventual demise. Buzz had controls to filter out sources for specific people but the controls were too complicated to work any a product targeted at as mainstream an audience as G+.
I don't know but I suspect that Buzz casts a long shadow across G+ Despite the work done on filters, in the end the write API was more trouble than it was worth in Buzz. The slider volume control in g+ looks like another attempt at the same thing but I think it's more confusing than anything.

There's still a need for a personal aggregator that collects all your posts from all over the web and puts it into a tab somewhere under Profile About. That's more than Friendfeed although one major view in Friendfeed is like that. Google has the tech (via google reader) to do this and it would be a major enhancement to the Other Profiles, Contributor to, Recommended Links column on the right. So perhaps a write API could be just to that area. Even though this looks like a good idea, I suspect this quickly drags us back into the wider view of "show me all the posts from all my friends".

And round and round we go. Friendfeed was an awesome product that filled a need, it just got clunky round the edges, bought and abandoned. It's time for somebody (Google?) to try again.

So for all those people demanding a public Write API because you want to do X, please at least try and explain how G+ should present the results. Because I reckon that's what's blocking it and until that's solved G won't open up the Write API they've already written.
Just seen this. Request for Write access in the G+ issue tracker.

And the latest comment there.
Note that Vic Gundotra has stated that he has made a personal executive decision to prevent implementing this in order to control spam. Vic and Guy's SxSW Fireside Chat Because I have not seen any reason to believe that uncircling and reporting can not control spam more effectively than preventing popular publishers from automating their posting, I strongly suggest that additional stars or comments here are pointless, and people who want this should be asking Vic on his G+ posts instead.
copying from a closed thread to continue the discussion

To me, the best solution is obvious: Let apps build on top of Google+, with their own stream located separately.

Say +Instagram were to get write access. They'd be an app you install (perhaps right from their own device) which appeared on the right left. Clicking it would reveal your instagram feed, as well as the feed of people in your circles that you also follow in instagram. It includes people you follow in instagram that you don't follow (yet) on Google+. Then, using the same slider as other circles, or the trending stream, you can control if you want that stuff to filter into your main stream.

The only thing I haven't figured out is how you would make it worthwhile for the app itself. Perhaps just getting access to the list of circled users with opportunity to invite would be enough? The majority of benefit apps like these get from social networks is the exposure through the user's feed which doesn't exist if it is isolated. (although, perhaps a periodic, collated post of app activity a la Timeline would bridge the gap?)

+Abraham Williams brought up the counter-point of the Games stream again, but I think the largest issue there is that the posts generated from games are naturally un-engaging and when you do click on a link it rips you out of that stream and into the game so you don't end up spending a lot of time there. Neither of those issues would occur for installed app specific streams.
+Shawn Drape - it sounds like you're advocating a "app stream" which is the equivalent of the "game stream".

IMHO (not that anyone cares), this is a bad idea. As you note, it means that unless you go to check that stream, you won't see it. Game developers are incredibly unhappy with virality and engagement with the segregated stream, and I can't imagine anyone else would want them.

The good news is... we have a more powerful feature. Circles. Instead of putting apps in their own stream, but them in their own circle. Or let me do it. Or whatever.
+Allen Firstenberg Less of a app stream and more like integrated app. Take a look at how the new Hangout app works, with it's dedicated section and uniquely useful content. Imagine that, but with a stream. One stream for each app, which would be much like your "apps in circles" idea, except that the apps would be able to do and build whatever they'd like.
I don't see any reason to prevent write API from "pages", not profiles. Pages are followed for events, what's to come or news...
Add a comment...