On a similar tangent to your OT post: we're getting to the point where seeing (plus.google.com) would be useful, since it conveys quite a different meaning to me from (google.com).

If you use Chrome, you might be interested in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2240646

Actually, yes, that did the trick for me; thanks! (Though I still think it's a feature that everyone would appreciate, so if it could go into news.yc, that would be even better.)

You will hear no disagreement from me. Glad it worked for you.

And I am impressed by how bad their URL structure is.

I'm just relieved that I can copy their URLs, email them to a friend and have them work ... since there are so many gaps in G+ sharing.

Although if the post is Limited, you just get a 404. Which isn't super friendly.

Is that important?

Yes, human-readable URLs are important.

They are important as additional clue to users.

They are important for SEO.

But most likely it would take Google+ years before they implement it (like it was with Blogger).

Does Google really care about SEO?

I very much doubt that users care about urls. (Yeah, you care, I care, sure, but nobody else.)

If you and I care about readable URLs why other users would not care? Everyone benefits from being able to read link that they see.

Google thinks so, they use human readable permalinks on their official blogs: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-do-you-love.html

Isn't that just a side effect of using Blogger? I know why people demanded that feature for Blogger (imaginary effects on PageRank), but I imagine Google has a better algorithm than looking at text in the URL for content that they host. For example, they can find the post's title right in the database.

Its kind of problem for me, as G+ is blocked on my office network. ;) :(

Yep, for many people g+ will be the long form twitter. Google should throw some calendar / archive and search in there

OT: (FUD) All HN users will move to G+?