4 ms·
He’s just describing Webrings, except in a reactive tense (“filter out spam sites”) rather than a proactive tense (“associate your site with other worthwhile si
by floatingatoll 5y ago
He’s just describing Webrings, except in a reactive tense (“filter out spam sites”) rather than a proactive tense (“associate your site with other worthwhile sites”). Google’s ranking algorithm only works when someone is proactively curating, and only SEO spammers do so these days. Reactive curation is not a viable way to manage information.
The simplest way to compete with Google is to create a DIY Webrings site that disallows harvesting of data by Google. Charge curators to create a webring, and let curators select three hashtags and a description that represent their list of fifty or fewer sites. Use the revenue to pay a human to curate the list of hashtags, and let users tip a webring curator in gratitude with an Apple Pay button.
This is how to make a million dollars, Pinboard-style, out of the ashes of the original curated Yahoo idea and the information structures of hashtagging. It doesn’t work if you allow free-for-all infinite-sized lists, it doesn’t work if you allow free-for-all hashtags, but with clear limits and moderation of tags (instead of webrings), it would thrive. By moderating tags, users can keep the webring they paid for, and SEO rings will be stick out for having no shared network with any other rings, which allows for easier detection and culling of malicious non-participatory actors. Plus, with the curation networks in place, it becomes possible to bubble up rings that have unusual content for positive human moderation activity.
I tried to find some good podcast lists yesterday and each site I visited had a really interesting cross-section, but there were so many duplicates. I wish the ring site existed, so that it could remember what it had shown me already, and I could say “show me rings that intersect with this podcast and have something new I haven’t seen before”.
That’s where the theory of pagerank and the practice of curation and the capabilities of search align, and given that moderation of hashtags scales very cheaply, is a billion dollar opportunity that Google and Amazon cannot compete with if handled properly. It’s not about trying to get a cut of every visit’s revenue potential. It’s about giving human beings a directory that respects their time and remembers what they’ve seen.
- jart 5y agoIf I understand correctly, you're saying you'd create an exclusive webring, but the rule to joining is that you have to Disallow: Google, Bing, etc. in your robots.txt file. That sounds outrageous, but speaking as a content creator, I wouldn't be giving up much. My blog gets about 3% of its traffic from search engines. I have no idea who these visitors are or what they searched for, since browsers no longer send referral links. If a webring offered me the benefit of positive regularly engaged community, then having my blog part ways with search engines would be a no brainer. That is after all the Facebook model, except tailored for the open web. Believe me when I say that we bloggers are waiting to be rescued.
- floatingatoll 5y agoNo, you can join the webring and be still indexed by Google, but the sitelist of the webring cannot be. That’s all. It prevents Google from leeching off the human curation and not paying a fair market value for it. Given that Google makes billions of dollars a year on pagerank data, webring curators got screwed over pretty hard already once by Google twenty years ago, so no reason to allow it again.
- jart 5y agoSo the webring would use rel="nofollow" hyperlinks? Blog authors might see that as an insult.