By the way: Google+ won't be remotely plausible as a "replacement for blogging" as long as you can only include one link per post. Even Twitter does better than that.

EDITED TO ADD: Well, actually, you can include as many links in the form http://cuteoverload.com/2011/07/08/nobody-understands-emo-kitten/ as you want -- see? -- http://www.shadycharacters.co.uk/2011/07/the-ampersand-part-2%C2%BD-of-2/ -- and more -- http://books.google.com/books?id=PaB7ohULQP4C&pg=PA433&lpg=PA433&dq=barbados+byzantine&source=bl&ots=jAiIUYkjZS&sig=J64g7HIk3JHG-6f2HFOezTp0MP4&hl=en&ei=sz8NTuurGsHdgQeG5ejQDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=barbados%20byzantine&f=false -- but only the first one will automatically spawn the little box under the post, showing the actual title (and first few lines) of the document being linked to. The rest of your links will work, but they'll look like alphanumeric barf inside your text, as above.
Shared publiclyView activity