i know this is getting tired, but i don’t care if the
new york times
buys into the
“deal may freshen up google’s links”
theory – i’m still not having any of it and the rationale is extremely quishy technically and value propositiony. google can certainly handle polling the number of blogs in question. maybe, just maybe you could make the argument that it might be rude for
google
to poll frequently updated sites as frequently as might be required to instantaneously know what’s in the inner folds of the blogmind, but that ignores the fact that the
value proposition
of knowing the instantaneous state of the blogmind is nonexistent [ and besides it’d be trivial for them to use or create something like changes.xml as per weblogs.com ].
i’m talking real value here, not some flim-flammy academic argument about meme propogation. nope.
google
is run by smart people interested in increasing revenue for things that people will pay them for. i still think the fresh links theory is a secondary benefit.