Of course I knew that Google tailored results. How would I have been able to include any context in this post otherwise? You took a human-written sentence out of context and made it make less sense than it does in the body of the post.
As for your attack on G+, the only real problem I see is if they promote G+ posts over the original. But that could also just happen because maybe many of your "friends" liked or shared the G+ post (that wouldn't be surprising), and you being logged in to google, the algorithm interpreted those social cues of high importance for you. The best solution, though, would be if those "social love" was transferred to the linked article.
I am polite, point out that much of what you say is useful, and thank you for a correction, and I'm a troll. Reddit is that way, friend. -->
As for my "misinterpreting" the meaning of what you said, there was no misinterpretation at all. 'A friend told me her results were different than mine / I now know that google serves different results.' Without more context, the only reasonable interpretation here is that you learned the latter from the former, there is no misinterpretation.
"My business went under / now I'm broke." If you interpreted the latter as a result of the former, you would be correct, not mistaken. ;)
Don't call people trolls just because they highlight a confusing statement of yours. Judging by the comments here (and on RWW), it was easy to interpret it "wrong" even with the context of the article.
Anyway regarding poisoning the well, check out the second example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well#Examples "The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and then when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot" [roughly, "You misunderstood me; you are an idiot"] (hence "terroriste")."" Ironically, this does precisely describe the behavior of a commenter here, but it's not me. :p
1. not being able to link to the original article,
2. Google favoring Google+ posts in search results overall,
3. and the Google+ interface looking and working terribly.
I used poisoning the well because it was a related ad hominem: you're saying him being wrong in this one instance means he is wrong in these other unrelated instances.
Horse flogging, stop now: If you were to tell my that northern Spain is rainy in the winter and Sweden has long dry summers, I'd take your word for it (I know little about the climates in those countries). BUT if you then told me snow is rare in winter in the US Northeast, which I know to be false, I ask myself "hmm... could his statements about the other places be equally inaccurate? He has demonstrated he does not know what he's talking about vis-a-vis local climate trends." Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying anything he wrote is true or false, it's just called into question by a demonstration of ignorance on the topic.
It's like Yelp reviews of sushi restaurants that start with "I don't usually eat sushi, but..." ... the points involved may still be valid, but the overal credibility of the assessment is seriously impaired.