I really see no point to conversing in an abandoned thread like this, but i 'm outlining it here: 1) My message would be "HN, if you care, help make more visib

I really see no point to conversing in an abandoned thread like this, but i 'm outlining it here: 1) My message would be "HN, if you care, help make more visible this request for a Google Scholar API by visiting this petition that has been submitted on google issues to add Google Scholar to the API, along with BibTex and 100+ other features that are requested in the comments for the issue. I 'm very unhappy that it hasn't been implemented in 3 years, and it's not just me, it seems other people are working on research web apps, too.". 2) How is "3 years old Google issue" of interest to anyone? It's trivial metadata (and implicit in the URL) 3) Please don't misunderstand my "are you happy now" comment. It was well-intented 4) If I used your wording, people wouldn't know whether i was pointing to an open, closed, fixed, invalid or other bug. Also there would be no indication that i actually would like them to upvote the petition. 5) I believe, "We want a Google Scholar API" is the shortest way to describe the request. "Listen, Google" is meant to be a motivator 6) This must be my most-scrutinized title. And I m not even English.