"EDIT: as far as including Twitter/FB goes, Eric Schmidt addressed this"
Not to the satisfaction of many people. I don't need FB or Twitter or G+ results but it seems clear to me that:
(1) if subject X is more active by far on network Y, then even partial results results including network Y are better (read: "more relevant") then results only showing network Z.
(2) Most subjects are more active by far on Twitter or FB then they are on G+.
(3) Results only showing G+ therefore are inferior to more inclusive but partial results from FB/Twitter.
LONG EDIT:
I guess even given the above we'd have to consider whether results that only include network Z are better then results that include no network.
Google's case apparently is that it does, and that, while better worlds may exist where FB and Twitter sign deals, what Google delivers today is better for the user then what it delivered a few weeks ago.
The skeptical counterargument is that this just amounts to favorable placement for Google's product. Imagine if Google launched a Flickr clone tomorrow with very few users and suddenly on GIS's a quarter of the top results were reserved for Google's Flickr clone. Why bother earning a higher page rank the right way when you can just host your images with Google's services and get a free SERP boost? That is exactly what Danny Sullivan talked about although he used video for his example.
Not to the satisfaction of many people. I don't need FB or Twitter or G+ results but it seems clear to me that:
(1) if subject X is more active by far on network Y, then even partial results results including network Y are better (read: "more relevant") then results only showing network Z.
(2) Most subjects are more active by far on Twitter or FB then they are on G+.
(3) Results only showing G+ therefore are inferior to more inclusive but partial results from FB/Twitter.
LONG EDIT:
I guess even given the above we'd have to consider whether results that only include network Z are better then results that include no network.
Google's case apparently is that it does, and that, while better worlds may exist where FB and Twitter sign deals, what Google delivers today is better for the user then what it delivered a few weeks ago.
The skeptical counterargument is that this just amounts to favorable placement for Google's product. Imagine if Google launched a Flickr clone tomorrow with very few users and suddenly on GIS's a quarter of the top results were reserved for Google's Flickr clone. Why bother earning a higher page rank the right way when you can just host your images with Google's services and get a free SERP boost? That is exactly what Danny Sullivan talked about although he used video for his example.