. I stressed the concern of Google not pointing to anything other than Google+ for these new social suggestions, not what I had expected from the same search engine that points at content even from rivals through things like Google Finance.
“We had permission,” in that case, Schmidt said, suggesting that Google seemed to lack the permission needed to equally display social suggestions from Facebook and Twitter.
p. The thing I've noticed is that SEO people tend to have really good insights into the workings of Google and Google+ and the implications of their changes. The main reason for this is that they analyze each and every change so they can exploit it to its full potential. The same goes for new services which crop up on the web or mobile like Path. The SEO and marketing people are already jumping on it to see how they can exploit the network to suit their needs (all the better to spam you with my dear).
It's strange that after an initial response from Twitter on the "recent Google search changes":http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/search-plus-your-world.html that Google responded shortly after and "mentioned":https://plus.google.com/u/0/116899029375914044550/posts/24uqWqvALud Twitter's rel=nofollow instructions. Twitter does in fact implement rel=nofollow to external links on their site but this does not mean content (especially profiles) can not be indexed. Mentioning Twitter's use of rel=nofollow is a definite red herring.
The Google search changes were recently pushed out to my Google experience tonight and I'm expecting more of a back lash tomorrow when other people realize how these changes effect them. The search results are busy to say the least. Google just pushed out the most intrusive and biggest opt-out search feature in their existence. This should be interesting.