Does not sound like a rant to me.&nbsp; Accurate.&nbsp; It is a catch 22.&nbsp; I am thinking google will and I think in some ways google will give higher rank for 2.0 websites.<br><br>That should break those links sites.<br><br><b><i>Darrin Chandler &lt;dwchandler@stilyagin.com&gt;</i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:33:38PM -0700, keith smith wrote:<br>&gt; Have you factored in inbound links?  They are votes also.<br><br>I know that. I think you're missing my point. I am *not* courting search<br>engines. It's *their* job to find and index information, and return<br>valuable results. None of them are very good at it just now, though<br>Google is better than the rest. There are inbound links, but not nearly<br>as many as the mega sites. Which goes to show the folly of putting too<br>much emphasis on inbound links, because my site has actual
 information<br>on it and there's has none. Stressing inbounds links so heavily also<br>creates a positive feedback loop: people will only link to what they<br>find, and they usually only find things in the first few results. It's a<br>method that worked *brilliantly* when Brin &amp; Page were starting out as<br>the underdogs and Google didn't influence the actual link popularity of<br>pages themselves. The situation now is suboptimal from almost anyone's<br>point of view (though it's not horrible).<br><br>Where I care about traffic I court the search engines, and do pretty<br>well. The fact that I need to consider that is the real root of the<br>problem. As long as I can (and must) do stupid silly things to my sites<br>so that Google will like me better, there's an opportunity for<br>exploitation. Heck, it's an invitation, not an opportunity. When I can<br>focus on the content and presentation, and have the search engines<br>reward me for *that* then they will have
 arrived, and it will be much<br>harder for web spam sites.<br><br>The rise of sites like del.icio.us and Stumbled Upon show a<br>dissatifcation with search engines and portals. They will probably have<br>to face mass exploitation some day, but for now they can provide *much*<br>better results in some circumstances.<br><br>Sheesh, I must be in a ranting mood today.<br><br>-- <br>Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD Users Group<br>dwchandler@stilyagin.com   |  http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/<br>http://www.stilyagin.com/  |<br>---------------------------------------------------<br>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us<br>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:<br>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss<br></blockquote><br><BR><BR>- - - - - - - <br>Keith Smith<br>- - - - - - - <br>http://travelingcheese.com/search_engine/increase-search-engine-traffic.html<br>- - - - - - -<p>&#32;
		<hr size=1><a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43256/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta"> All-new Yahoo! Mail </a>- Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.