EditorialGuy - 2:35 pm on Aug 10, 2013 (gmt 0)
Turbocharged, what you're talking about is an "abstract." Google didn't invent abstracts. And if the goal of "In-depth results" is to help Google create abstracts, Google certainly did a poor job in choosing schema markup elements for its "Schema.org Article markup" recommendations. (Identifying the "articleBody" section of a 2,000-word article isn't exactly rocket science. It certainly doesn't require schema.org markup or creating a new "In-depth articles" feature for Google Search.)
Instead of looking for Google monsters under every bed, publishers should be asking themselves:
1) "Do I have any articles on my site that might qualify for Google's 'In-depth articles' results?"
2) "Am I likely to gain enough traffic from 'In-depth articles' results to justify the time required to mark up those articles?