I agree that they'd use regular Google search, and not game it (there already was user backlash when knol ranking highly when it was announced). I was thinking

I agree that they'd use regular Google search, and not game it (there already was user backlash when knol ranking highly when it was announced). I was thinking more for once you go to knol, and search for something there -- or, better, when you arrive at a page, it has pointers on top to similar articles, and their "knol-ratings". I've heard that point of view of Pagerank before, as a marketing device. I personally do like the idea that an algorithm can make a difference, and I absolutely believe it can. Whether it really did in this case, however, is a question of fact. What you say about search engine complexity is true; although many of those techniques were known before pagerank (though I'm sure they're been developed further and new ones added since then). The Pagerank patent itself goes to some pains to mention other techniques being integrated. But I think the significant thing about Pagerank is that it really was something new. Google's overall success had many factors: fast results; an uncluttered search-only webpage; no paid placements in search; and doing a good job on all those factors you mention (though I think the specific ones you state are to do with search, and not with ranking - at the time, there was no problem finding the right result; it was ranking it near the top that seemed to be the issue... at least, according to Google PR...). To be honest, for me personally, I think the leanness of Google was most appealing (fast, simple, honest), together with a sense of coolness, of it being new, and by a couple of brilliant guys. It was also (virally) introduced to me by someone cool in tech. The search results themselves were "good enough". I remember doing some comparisons, and finding Google better - but it really didn't matter to me... it just confirmed the attitude I already had. Now, regarding my "blind pontification" in your opinion: I did look for ratings/ranking - on the front page, and I tried a search, but I didn't see any ratings (That's why I said "I don't see any explicit ranking." It turns out they don't appear on the front page, or for search results; you only see them after you have selected an article. EDIT actually, they do appear in search - but that take so long to load (for me) that they didn't appear (and there's no placeholder), even when I was double-checking. The "pontification" part bemuses me... I was suggesting/asking/wondering what a good way would be to do it. That's the opposite of pontificating (in my opinion, anyway). I like to wonder about things - it's a source of new insights, and it works for me. A request: if you think I'm saying something silly, could you straightforwardly point it out to me? People (and I really think especially I) do make mistakes; and I (at least) appreciate being set straight. I must say, I've got used to straightforward discussions on HN, but it seems to have shifted recently. I feel sad about that.