[codingthebeach]

If that's true then G+ is more of a danger to Google than Facebook ever was. Using the index as a way to strong-arm publishers into using a half-baked Facebook clone may even work, short-term. Long-term this is one way Google can lose Search.

[weinzierl]

It is true, Eric Schmidt said: “Within search results, information tied to verified online profiles will be ranked higher than content without such verification, which will result in most users naturally clicking on the top (verified) results. The true cost of remaining anonymous, then, might be irrelevance.”

[hosay123]

I assumed you were making that quote up, but holy cow, he actually said it.

My historical love of Google has been directly proportional to my unawareness of Schmidt's privacy philosophy. The man's gone completely insane, and makes a frankly woeful spokesperson.

[sergiosgc]

Eric Schmidt tanked Sun, Novell, and Google. His best CEO ability is ejecting before the crash, so his effect on Google is not yet evident.

[mkr-hn]

I post links to new blog posts on G+ with a nice lede, then gently push e-mail subscription and RSS on the site. That's all G+ will get from me until it's useful for more than SEO.

[bdowney]

Please ignore everything Schmidt says. He's creepy beyond belief.

About G+ I hope more people give it the finger so that Vic Gundotra finally understands that you can only alienate your users so much before they go somewhere else.

[Supermighty]

Right now not using G+ isn't hurting publishers. Those that do use it get a little bit, but not enough that they have to use it. Google is playing the long slow game with this. By the time everyone has to use G+ to stay relevant in the SERPs everyone will be.

[Evbn]

Linking a profile to your web page is not the same as using the plus.google.com website.

Verifying identity is simply submitting a form to Google.