Page Rank is a clever but somewhat abstract and indirect way
to measure the value of a site. External links
to a site count as a vote of sorts: "this site is so good I (a
webmaster)
made a link to it."

Another way to count votes would be to support elections,
directly from the masses of web-surfers. Exactly how that
would work isn't clear. Any link clicked in a Google result
page might open two tabs: 1) the selected page 2) a voting
tab, listing all seo links clicked by that user in this session,
or perhaps as an extension to the Google Search Bar.

Voters would (presumably) only bother to vote if they really
liked or disliked a site. But that would be valuable information.
Voters could also be given the opportunity to attach delicious-like
user-supplied tags.

A service like that (like gmail) might have to require a login/
registration
step, in order to keep spam bots at bay. But it still seems
like added value and added information, to a system that
tries to supply just that.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:23:02 -0000, Gene Yusnot
<Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.com> wrote:

>Page Rank is a clever but somewhat abstract and indirect way
>to measure the value of a site. External links
>to a site count as a vote of sorts: "this site is so good I (a
>webmaster)
>made a link to it."
>
>Another way to count votes would be to support elections,
>directly from the masses of web-surfers. Exactly how that
>would work isn't clear. Any link clicked in a Google result
>page might open two tabs: 1) the selected page 2) a voting
>tab, listing all seo links clicked by that user in this session,
>or perhaps as an extension to the Google Search Bar.
>
>Voters would (presumably) only bother to vote if they really
>liked or disliked a site. But that would be valuable information.
>Voters could also be given the opportunity to attach delicious-like
>user-supplied tags.
>
>A service like that (like gmail) might have to require a login/
>registration
>step, in order to keep spam bots at bay. But it still seems
>like added value and added information, to a system that
>tries to supply just that.

Have you seen stumble upon?
http://www.stumbleupon.com/

--
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

> Voters would (presumably) only bother to vote if they really
> liked or disliked a site.

Or if they're trying to tamper with the Google search results.

That's probably the main reason why it hasn't been done.

Mike

<Sandy.Pittendrigh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Voters would (presumably) only bother to vote if they really
> liked or disliked a site. But that would be valuable information.
> Voters could also be given the opportunity to attach delicious-like
> user-supplied tags.

Unless by some chance they were spammers.

Duh!

Page rank taught Google that treating all visitors like honest folk is
perhaps not a realistic proposition.

Votong systemes are simple and open to abuse.
Google is much more sophisticated - and does a better job
No, I didn't say perfect - but much better than spammers.
--

Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.

The video that makes YouTube worthwhile:
Charlie The Unicorn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus