The New Scientist is reporting that Google is going to try to incorporate new measures of authoritativeness in its hit rankings. It sounds a little nebulous to me, but I'm sure they have the CPU power to do this:
The database will be built by continually monitoring the number of stories from all news sources, along with average story length, number with bylines, and number of the bureaux cited, along with how long they have been in business. Google's database will also keep track of the number of staff a news source employs, the volume of internet traffic to its website and the number of countries accessing the site.
I thought the link authority ranking system was already a pretty amazing- revolutionary, disruptive- technology. I hope it doesn't get improved to death.
With that said, I'd be glad to get fewer Google referrals for off-topic searches. It's a running joke on many blogs how really absurd the referrals can be. I appreciate having an audience, but I would really rather be an authority (sic) on exobiology than on Condolezza Rice boots (with misspelling). These days I have been getting many hits for "Caltech versus MIT pranks," probably because I spelled out "versus," and I'm guessing these people could give a rat's ass about the rest of my blog.
But, oh, if I could only talk to the person from the Philippines who landed on me with search terms "Coca-cola cockroach insecticide." I'm sure we'd have a lot in common.