Comments on: Google Knol goes live – should Wikipedia worry?

By: Mike Scott

Mike Scott — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:32:44 +0000

I just don't see the community rising up to support them.

From the sounds of it, authors are going to get authority over their articles, and I think there will be a rush to claim topics.

By: J-F Arseneault

J-F Arseneault — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:31:06 +0000

Given no one really knows the scret sauce in the Google search algorythms, It must be awfully tempting/easy for Google to game the system… this reminds me of how (supposedly)there is a virtual 'China Wall' between Stock Brokers and Portfolio Manager in most full-service brokerage firms… although many wonder if that wall isn't more like the Berlin wall, lately…

By: Preston L. Bannister

Preston L. Bannister — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:40:32 +0000

Google provides a service, both to consumers, and to advertisers. They stand to lose credibility if the Google results become noticeably bogus, or word leaks out that they are tweaking PageRank in a selfish way.

Credibility is important.

Take Microsoft as an example. Microsoft's credibility is badly by their past actions. Even when Microsoft does something good, most folk assume there is something dubious going on …

By: Shéa Bennett

Shéa Bennett — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:08:03 +0000

Yes, I agree, although there is a monopoly issue.

It's hard to test, because as we all know if you type 'Google' into Google it crashes the Internet.

By: Mark O'Neill

Mark O'Neill — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:43:24 +0000

It's their PageRank so who's going to know if they make a few subtle tweaks here and there? Plus how is it illegal if it belongs to them? Their attitude would be "we own it, we'll do what we want with it"

By: Sheamus

Sheamus — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:39:02 +0000

Is it illegal for Google to adjust the pagerank for their own pages, or just 'frowned upon' (by Google)?

I mean, surely they'd be daft to not put their own stuff right at number one…