Discusion: Is Google+ embed useful?

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  Dave Elliott: I can't see embedded posts being much use for the spammers to be honest as it IS actually loading in an iframe(ish) just one that is controlled by a javascript. This page has an embedded post. ;http://www.businessinsider.com/xiaomi-valued-at-10-billion-2013-8 if you look at the page source there is no code from the post. There is however a frame source which in turn takes you too google's api. ;view-source:https://apis.google.com/_/widget/render/post?href=https%3A%2F%2Fplus.sandbox.google.com%2F108531052526575991056%2Fposts%2FCEXM3G4SVF5&hl=en-US&gsrc=3p&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_GB._iVHuVZ_RW0.O%2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DIQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTOr_YV6NTcnqc5VfXxq5WrTbcNxLw#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I2_1378974048049&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com&pfname=&rpctoken=26603011
  
  I agree with the concerns via commenting on the blog vs commenting on the original post though and it would also be insanely useful to have some sort of mechanism to view where your posts have been embedded (i take it that it doesn't show up in ripples or anything?) apart from anything else it would be useful to know for link building/out reach purposes.
  
  Last point, ;+Masatake Wasa ;says "Firstly, the original posters on Google+ cannot control by whom and where their posts are embedded(ooh look it auto copied the source down below, how cool is that!!! ahem)
  
  Source: http://en.wasaweb.net/articles/internet-2013-09-12-Google-plus-embedded-posts.html#ixzz2efIZG99k"
  
  But this isn't strictly true, if you set your original post to anything but public and set it to not able to share then no one but the people you shared it to in the first place will be able to embed...... surely?
  
  In fact this is wrong i have just checked, I can't seem to embed any non public post. Has Google changed this since the article was written?