is Google omniscient?
STILL MORE: (8th comment)
re: "I still think that from a business perspective the two types of posts are identical to Google."
well... they *shouldn't* be! (they are of very unequal value; so what if they are just as easy to track algorithmically? that's just a means to an end...)
P.S. ah, the time when I had no idea how it really worked:)... (not that I know a whole lot right now, but still...); they say if you like sausage, it's better if you don't know how it's made... (seems to apply to a whole lot of other things) D.
EVEN MORE (6th comment):
if the problem is being big, wouldn't a host of small groups solve the problem? (you could cumulatively have significant impact without being detected)
how many Google employees are A-listers? (probably not that many and they could be "kept out of the loop" if you could track down their Google affiliation)
it's the A-bloggers that are really the problem, aren't they? I mean, a link from them is worth something -- what good is a link from somebody nobody's heard of? it may look like "activity" but it's really just meaningless noise, isn't it? D.
MORE: (4th comment) Seth: really? that's odd... Google is not exactly omniscient or... is it? :) You'd think they could set-up a "link market" Google couldn't infiltrate... D.
Seth, (2nd comments)
I'm wondering how much completely unacknowledged money changes hands. I mean, as long as the blogger *says* this is a sponsor or whatever, Google could potentially account for that... (I would hope it would get to that level of sophistication at some point, I'm sort of disappointed after listening to your description of how it really works -- seems rudimentary...)
P.S. if the blogger just links and says something like: hey, check it out! this is good! I like this! wraps it in relevant commentary and just "forgets" that he/she got paid by those people -- there is no way of accounting for that, as far as I can see... D.