Doc Searls is not a gatekeeper.

I know, I know, it's sooo February 11th to discuss the gatekeeper issue, but Z-listers such as myself don't spend all their time blogging.

Seth Finkelstein responded to my Stephen Kurkjian example my last post with this point, "You only have one such result because nobody with higher 'gatekeeperness' wants them - not because of any great ability to reply."

This highlights the point at which Seth and I disagree. He's right that were someone with a highly popular blog (Doc Searls, for example) to start blogging extensively about Kurkjian, my result would soon be bumped down the list of Google results into oblivion. However, I don't think "gatekeeper" is the right name for that situation. Doc Searls' intent would probably not be to drown me out-- he's just adding his statements to the pile of available material on Kurkjian.

Viewed through the lens of Google, the effect is similar. Viewed from a perspective of information propagation, Doc Searls is just the reverse of a gatekeeper-- he can't blog about something without propagating the ideas that he mentions. Take Scoble's brrreeeport meme. Nobody, not even Scoble himself, could stop that once it was started.

Compare that to the example I used in my last post of me sending a letter to the Boston Globe in 1995. The Globe acted like a gatekeeper. Some editor there decided not to publish my letter. As far as I know, that left the ocean of Globe readers exactly zero ways to find other public responses to the news. My best bet might have been standing in the middle of the Boston Common with a sign promoting my cause. Even then, there is no search engine that indexes placards found in public spaces.

That's why I claim that Doc Searls isn't a gatekeeper. On the other hand, I strongly agree with Seth's criticism of the recent Technorati authority feature. I sent the following feedback to Technorati:

"Your new authority filter feature is a bad idea. It lets you find that which is already easy to find, while obscuring that which is already obscure. It might be a useful tool for establishing what blogs are popular, but popularity is very different from authority."

"Perhaps you could call it the "mainstream" filter. It's more accurate but less appealing than "authority." Unfortunately, that's what it really is."

I think that it's the algorithms of the Technoratis and Googles that are the real gatekeepers. So then the question is what is a good substitute for variations on "most links" or "most readers"?

Suggestion to Doc Searls: remove every "A-lister" from your blogroll. Divest your A-list links today!