Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Links stopped mattering after Google killed blogs.

Now there is no mass of people verifying the quality of random sites, and search engines lost they anchor.




The now-defunct Advogato approached the question of reputation by having explicit reputation sources, with its founder the ultimate source.

Raph now works for Google AFAIA.


Reputation is a lousy replacement for page popularity. When Google started to apply their metrics over an entire domain, they already lost a lot of niche information.

Yes, it's better than nothing, but don't expect it to keep the same quality of results we got earlier. Google killed the golden goose when they decided do concentrate their results on the large sites only, and it will be very hard to make similar algorithms work that well again.


Pagerank is explicitly a reputation measure. It's proved somewhat manipulable and unreliable.

Levien's reputation graph needn't be slavishly followed, though it does suggest an alternative.


Don't sites like reddit, stackoverflow and twitter have an equivalent effect? (And I recall Google coming about before blogs. How did Google kill them?)


Google was founded on the answer on how do you deduce the value of a site based on an ecosystem of personal pages around it. (Blogs are simply what replaced personal pages later.)

Have you ever seen any study like that for reddit and twitter? Those have completely different characteristics. (SO looks similar enough, but it's not comprehensive.)

On how did Google kill blogs, looks like you haven't noticed they decided to concentrate their search results on a small number of sites a few years ago.Google just does not lead people to them anymore.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: