4 ms·

Really? Sure, I don't find his content appealing, but I don't think that has anything to do with the manner in which he posted it. Replace all those tech articl

Really? Sure, I don't find his content appealing, but I don't think that has anything to do with the manner in which he posted it. Replace all those tech articles and RT's with links to bacon (or zombie) related content and Mr. Kindel has a shot at being voted president, no?

jsnell 15y ago
The content might be slightly unappealing recycling of tech news, but the manner in which it's posted is what really hurts there. It'd look crappy anywhere, but especially so on Google+ where posts are long form and links are rich. 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.
- jack-r-abbit 15y ago
  Although... those 4 posts about Windows naming could actually be an argument FOR a write API. If he wasn't using a hacked up backdoor, then maybe he'd have an app that could have handled that in one post. But I do see both sides of this. It just sucks when the few idiots ruin it for everyone else. It'd be nice to post via API and it would be nice if people didn't abuse it. ;)
  - sad_panda 15y ago
    The point is that broadcasting the same message verbatim across every medium and community. removes one's ability to tailor the message for the standards of that community.
    - jack-r-abbit 15y ago
      Not every message needs to be tailored. And not every message need be the same across every medium. Having a write API doesn't force anyone to do either of those things. It would not give or remove anyone's ability to tailor as needed or broadcast verbatim as desired. Having a write API would allow 3rd party apps to add G+ to your options but doesn't force you to act any way you would not already act without the write API. My point was that having a write API doesn't have to be bad... but some abusers will ruin it for the rest.

jsnell 15y ago

The content might be slightly unappealing recycling of tech news, but the manner in which it's posted is what really hurts there. It'd look crappy anywhere, but especially so on Google+ where posts are long form and links are rich. 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.

jack-r-abbit 15y ago
Although... those 4 posts about Windows naming could actually be an argument FOR a write API. If he wasn't using a hacked up backdoor, then maybe he'd have an app that could have handled that in one post. But I do see both sides of this. It just sucks when the few idiots ruin it for everyone else. It'd be nice to post via API and it would be nice if people didn't abuse it. ;)
- sad_panda 15y ago
  The point is that broadcasting the same message verbatim across every medium and community. removes one's ability to tailor the message for the standards of that community.
  - jack-r-abbit 15y ago
    Not every message needs to be tailored. And not every message need be the same across every medium. Having a write API doesn't force anyone to do either of those things. It would not give or remove anyone's ability to tailor as needed or broadcast verbatim as desired. Having a write API would allow 3rd party apps to add G+ to your options but doesn't force you to act any way you would not already act without the write API. My point was that having a write API doesn't have to be bad... but some abusers will ruin it for the rest.