<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: J-Cal&#8217;s troops on the attack over Technorati critics: conflict of interest not in vocab</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogherald.com/2006/02/15/j-cals-troops-on-the-attack-over-technorati-critics-conflict-of-interest-not-in-vocab/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2006/02/15/j-cals-troops-on-the-attack-over-technorati-critics-conflict-of-interest-not-in-vocab/</link>
	<description>The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:18:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Marshall Kirkpatrick</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2006/02/15/j-cals-troops-on-the-attack-over-technorati-critics-conflict-of-interest-not-in-vocab/comment-page-1/#comment-86781</link>
		<dc:creator>Marshall Kirkpatrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/2006/02/15/j-cals-troops-on-the-attack-over-technorati-critics-conflict-of-interest-no-in-vocab/#comment-86781</guid>
		<description>Hmmm...by this logic any blog in a network would have an unfair advantage, the larger the network the greater the advantage.  To be honest this wasn&#039;t something I had considered.  It makes a lot of sense though and seems to be another problem with the authority system.  

I also hadn&#039;t thought of it as keeping riff raff out (I&#039;m a big fan of riff raff - my personal blog marshallk.com would get whacked by a high slider in most searches), but a way to selectively limit certain searches to blogs that were extensively engaged in the most communicative part of the blogosphere - sharing links from other blogs - relative to others in the discussion of that topic or keeping out search spam.

Sometimes a slider based on inbound links makes sense, sometimes it doesn&#039;t.  And I&#039;m glad it&#039;s an option for when it makes sense.  But point well taken about the effect of blog networks on this system.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm&#8230;by this logic any blog in a network would have an unfair advantage, the larger the network the greater the advantage.  To be honest this wasn&#8217;t something I had considered.  It makes a lot of sense though and seems to be another problem with the authority system.  </p>
<p>I also hadn&#8217;t thought of it as keeping riff raff out (I&#8217;m a big fan of riff raff &#8211; my personal blog marshallk.com would get whacked by a high slider in most searches), but a way to selectively limit certain searches to blogs that were extensively engaged in the most communicative part of the blogosphere &#8211; sharing links from other blogs &#8211; relative to others in the discussion of that topic or keeping out search spam.</p>
<p>Sometimes a slider based on inbound links makes sense, sometimes it doesn&#8217;t.  And I&#8217;m glad it&#8217;s an option for when it makes sense.  But point well taken about the effect of blog networks on this system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

