crosspost to Google+

[mellowtigger]

Title:
crosspost to Google+

Area:
crossposting

Summary:
When I post on Dreamwidth, I want a blurb added to my feed in Google+.

Description:
When I post on Dreamwidth, I want a blurb added to my feed in Google+. Not the whole post, just a few things (similar to how Livejournal crossposts to Facegook):
1) Google+ title= "Dreamwidth: (post title)"
2) Google+ image= (post icon, if any)
3) Google+ text= (first 30 words from the post) and (link to Dreamwidth post)

Poll #7726 crosspost to Google+

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 65

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
20 (30.8%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (10.8%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
12 (18.5%)

(I have no opinion)
24 (36.9%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (3.1%)

Comments

[eleanorjane]

If one has a G+ cross-poster, why not a Facebook or Twitter crossposter as well?

I like the existence of the LJ cross-poster, but I think people who want to auto-link all their posts on every service they use are better off using a third-party tool that will facilitate that.

[denise]

We do, in fact, have bugs open for crosspost to FB/Twitter/various other services. LJ and LJ-codebase was first to implement because it was easiest; the API was already supported.

[eleanorjane]

Fair enough!

I must confess that it annoys me when people auto-promote everything they do on every other service they use, but my cantankerousness on the point should not be a reason for the feature not to exist. :)

[mellowtigger]

Granted, the poll has been open only a short time, but I'm surprised by the leading negative response. It would be nice to have more people here on Dreamwidth, but it seems that the only people who know of this site are current Livejournal users. Wouldn't "*.dreamwidth.org" posts showing up on Google+ provide useful advertising for the blog hosting available here? If there were more of it, might it eventually convince a few people to start blogs here rather than elsewhere?

Near as I can tell so far (there is a lot of time ahead for it to change), Google+ users are more thoughtful and involved than the Facebook or Twitter crowds. They actually discuss posts rather than just click a button to "Like" them. This population might actually notice a new domain name crossing their view repeatedly.

[matgb]

You sometimes get a kneejerk no response from people that don't use a different platform for various reasons, and want no contact witht hat platform, at the moment, G+ is getting a bad rep due to the name policies and similar. Poll votes aren't the decider, they just act as a guide, especially for stuff that implementing doesn't affect people that don't use a feature (something that changes default site behaviour is different to a complete opt in extra feature, etc).

We've actually had some people come to DW direct from G+ over the name issue, and I agree that it'd be nice to be rcruiting people from other sources.

I really want to be able to ping G+ with my updates directly, and ideally choose what's displayed over there, sometimes a whole post, sometimes an exerpt, etc. So I strongly want this, when the APIs make it possible, currently, they haven't released APIs, it doesn't even implement with some other G services, they plan a strong Blogger integration, but I loath Blogger with a fiery passion so that's no good (although crossposting to Blogger would work if they get that setup, and that might be easier).

[jumpuphigh]

You sometimes get a kneejerk no response from people that don't use a different platform for various reasons, and want no contact witht hat platform, at the moment, G+ is getting a bad rep due to the name policies and similar.

It's true. I often notice that kneejerk response for myself when reading through suggestions (which is one of the reasons why I often read comments prior to voting) and Google has firmly set itself up on my "evil companies" list by this point. But, while I won't use G+, I think that others should be able to interact with it as they please.

[ariestess]

If there are people who would use it, and it's not a resource hog, sure. Personally, I wouldn't use it and would hope that it would be an opt-in situation if it's implemented.

[denise]

Crossposting is by nature an opt-in feature, since you have to set it up before you use it or else the system won't know where to crosspost to :)

[ariestess]

*facepalm* And I'm being a dork about the crossposting. Sorry about that. Clearly I need more caffeine...

[ursamajor]

I would support this eventually, but right now, Google Plus is still in beta, and from what I've heard, doesn't have an official, complete, or well-documented API to make things like crossposting easy/secure.

[montuos]

+1

[archane]

This.

[jumpuphigh]

Yep. Same here.

[azurelunatic]

APIs allowing *cough* I don't see any reason why someone who wants to hook up their DW and their G+ accounts shouldn't be able to cross-post, and cross-post at either link/title/(blurb?), link/title/outside-the-cut, or link/title/whole thing, according to their preferences when setting up the crosspost feed.

API allowing, it would also be excellent to be able to select circle(s) to post to on G+, in case one is not posting publicly.

[mellowtigger]

API allowing, it would also be excellent to be able to select circle(s) to post to on G+, in case one is not posting publicly.

Ah! I hadn't thought about this limitation of cross-posting. Yes, managing public/private issues seems complicated with potential for end-user error in how they intend to publish their post. I would be okay with limiting availability to only public Dreamwidth posts to public Google+ posts.

Maybe if the Dreamwidth post is non-public, then other options open up for choosing a circle(s) for publishing on Google+? That ability sounds a lot more time-consuming to program, though.

[azurelunatic]

The way it's handled in crossposting to LJ is that if the custom security group is named the same thing, then that's where it's posted to; a feature of LJ's interface is that when entries are posted specifying a nonexistent custom security group, the entry is posted effectively privately.

All of this really depends on the eventual G+ API and its limitations.

Edit: I'm saying this rather than "Yeah, it would be excellent to send someone through to the G+ menu if all else failed" because the existing crossposts are handled such that someone can post and then turn off the computer and walk away, and Dreamwidth will keep trying the crosspost on their behalf, and I do not imagine that there would be an operator-must-be-present-through-whole-process thing designed for crossposting to G+.

[matgb]

It shouldn't be, really, we already have an interface for it in that LJ posts can be sent to just a custom circle, the requirement currrently is that the one group it's sent to has the same name as on here. Assuming G+'s API isn't insanely stupid, making that work in the same way should be doable.

We're assuming G+ wants to allow off site comments and similar, which i think they will but they may want everyone to always go to their site to be tracked &c.

[ciaan]

Am totally fine with people crossposting or linking their own stuff wherever they want; however, would be against the ability to crosspost comments left on other people's posts to various services (as LJ tried to do that time).

[turlough]

+1

[fyreharper]

+1

[arethinn]

would be against the ability to crosspost comments left on other people's posts to various services (as LJ tried to do that time)

THIS.

As for adding G+ in the manner in which one can currently crosspost to LJ etc., why not, when API allows.

[piranha]

+1.

i am ticked off at Google over the stupid "real names" policy, and that has moved them into my "temporarily evil" list of companies. but people who don't mind that, sure, why shouldn't they be allowed to crosspost? same with Facebook, which is firmly on my "evil" list, and Twitter, which is on my "largely useless noise" list. and please, why not Diaspora? that seems the least evil of the lot.

[aedifica]

My "other" is "I really want to vote 'no' because I'm pissed off at G+ over the pseudonymity thing, but I don't feel like that's a good enough reason to actually vote 'no,' so I'm voting 'other'".