Google's 'Search Plus' accomplished at least one thing, people can't shut up about it. The debate has been going strong for two days now. Most comments are negative and most people think that Google is overstepping its boundaries, but things may not be as bad as they look now.
The big complaint about the Google+ integration is that others are left out. There is no Facebook data and no Twitter data.
Google argues that it doesn't have access to data from those services, but there is plenty of public stuff it could have used. It chose not to.
Twitter complained that the change hurt users since relevant results were pushed down in favor of Google+. It even provided an example of how a search for "@wwe" is filled with Google+ results and link, while the Twitter account is only the third organic result.
It's hard to argue for or against any of the views since they're all correct to a degree.
The changes do favor Google+ and, while they may be justified in some cases, since the additions come in handy, they're not always. What's more, Google did indeed need access to more Facebook and Twitter data to provide the same features for them.
At the same time, Google could have added at least the public data available. Google says that even this wouldn't have been good move without first talking to the other companies.
But it's easy to see why Google needed and wanted to do this as well. The fact is, it is in competition with Facebook and with Twitter to a degree.
It needed Google+ to provide better search results at the least and without it, there would be no pressure on Facebook or Twitter to allow Google access to their data.
There's more though, it seems that, even with all of the rivalry, Facebook and Google were engaged in talks to open up some data to be used in search.
However, the rumor is that, as far as Facebook sees it, Google made some unreasonable demands.
Facebook agreed to enable access to data like friends list, likes and so on, but only if Google guaranteed that the data was only available to the user it belonged to and their friends, even if it was public data. Google didn't agree to that.
Rumors about talks between Facebook and Google have only surfaced, even though they took place in 2009. Doubtless, there are plenty of other details that are not public which would put the entire debate in new light.
Understandably, Google is looking out for its best interest, Facebook and Twitter are doing the same. User satisfaction comes second, but even that is understandable to a degree. The one thing that would be nice though would be for Google, Facebook and the others just admit it and provide the real reasons behind their decisions.