Gatekeepers and you: the exciting third post

Seth Finkelstein and an unknown vendor of Algerian scarves responded to my last post with a few counter-arguments. Seth claims that my comparison of the Boston Globe's letters section in 1995 to blogs today "exemplifies a tendency to talk-down all the avenues that do exist, but we know are ineffective in practice (going around to various other publications), and talk-up an avenue that’s favored, but also seems ineffective overall (random related Google searches)."

I agree that I was talking down the 1995 alternatives to the Globe, like the Herald and the Phoenix. However, I was doing that because I thought that using them would be, as Seth says, "ineffective in practice." I have actually tried doing things like that (sending letters to the Phoenix about the Globe's poor reporting), and it was definitely ineffective. The other possibility is that I'm a ranting madman who deserves his place on the tip of the long tail, but if so, I submit that all of my arguments are always right because, hey, I'm a ranting madman.

Also, Seth is right that I was talking up Google, but I don't think that Google is "ineffective overall." I'm not arguing that Google is perfect. I'd like to say, "Here, look at how short this list of 'things I can't find on Google' is," but I don't know how to generate that list. All I can say is that I regularly find my searching needs satisfied by Google. I would definitely be interested in hearing of counter-examples, though. (I'm not talking about net censorship here-- a crippled Google is obviously less effective. What I mean is something like, "Here's this brilliant analysis of X that Google could index, but due to reason Y, you can't find it.")

Seth goes on to say "That Doc Searls is a gatekeeper is shown unarguably by the fact that so many people talked about and linked to my post after he was kind enough to put it through his blog-gate." I would say that it is shown arguably, rather than unarguably, and here is my argument. The letters editor for the Boston Globe is a gatekeeper-- we all agree about that. He or she decides which letters get published, in the same way that an actual gatekeeper decides which Algerian scarf vendors get let through the gate to the castle and which are prodded with spears until they retreat.

Doc Searls, on the other hand, flies from conference to conference and writes about things that interest him. Google indexes his pages, and as a result of the link structure of the web and Google's PageRank algorithm, pages that he links to end up higher in the Google search results. Doc Searls isn't actively deciding who gets on the first page of Google. If Google changed their algorithm to use BrinRank, in which pages are sorted by length and links are ignored, then Doc Searls would do exactly the same thing, and entirely different pages would get the top results on Google. If Searls is the gatekeeper, rather than *Rank, what's going on?

The second commenter, Monsieur Lheureux, characterizes Doc Searls as having the ability to drown me out in the Google listings, making my post "effectively inaccessible." Unfortunately, this brings me back to the Boston Globe letter and 1995 again. When the Globe decides not to publish my letter, it is inaccessible. Nobody can ever get it, not even me. That's different from being the 7 billionth result on Google. My blog post is still accessible from the internet, and I can tell everyone I communicate with how to get there.

I think the real complaint here should be about Google's algorithm. To some extent, it is unreasonable to complain about a search engine's algorithm. It's like complaining about bad commercials on TV. Their intent is to make money, and they've figured out a good way to do it. I'm not saying that making money is an excuse for immorality, but I don't think Google has a moral responsibility to popularize Z-listers such as myself.

One last note: anyone have any good suggestions for how PageRank could be improved? Simply ignoring links doesn't work so well (Remember Yahoo in 1997? It sucked.). Anyone?

Chrislott.org is smarter than I am

Chris Lott has a great post responding to my last post about this gatekeeper business.

As I commented on his blog:

Well said, Chris Lott.org! I know you used my blog post as a example of disagreement, but you have stated my central point quite well: “The issue here is that many in this debate use the term ‘Gatekeeper’ when what they mean is ‘powerful connector’ or something of that ilk.”

I’m not disputing the shape of the long tail or the influence of Doc’s link love– the question is just who, in your metaphor, is driving the Ferrari.

I claim that the drivers are Dave Sifry of Technorati and Page and Brin of Google, not Doc Searls. I also agree with your description of the desire behind the argument, the desire to have Searls (for example) “recognize the influential power they have and the amount to which they tend to link inside their circle and that other worthy people don’t get that link love.”

I was just drinking some cocoa at the old Darwin's with the translation-obsessed SJ Klein, and we talked over the gatekeeper business. I suggested an idea I had recently:a Wordpress plugin that presents your blogroll in reverse order of Technorati rank. SJ suggested an even more amusing possibility-- sorting by reverse Technorati authority.

When this gets written, you'll see the news here first (unless someone else writes it).

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!

There is no A-list.

Doc Searls and Seth Finkelstein have been discussing the hierarchy in the blogosphere. Doc Searls is claiming that, "the Internet blew away the porches of membership. You don't need to bark at a door you can just as easily walk around." He's claiming that there are no gatekeepers regulating the popularity of blogs.

Seth contends that when an A-lister slags a Z-lister, the Z-lister has no effective means of response.

I contend that there is no A-list or Z-list. I have Seth's blog and Doc Searl's blog in my RSS reader (Sage, an extension to Firefox). Until a recent post from Seth, I couldn't have told you who had more readers. I read about 30 blogs on a regular basis, and only 4 or 5 are in the Technorati Top 100. As far as I'm concerned, Seth and I are sitting at the top of the Pingswepterati. Seth Finkelstein, you are on my A-list.

Contrast this with the situation 10 years ago: me versus the Boston Globe. I had an English teacher in high school who was arrested for some depravity involving kids. The Boston Globe ran an article that printed the lurid details of the accusations against him, before any trial had occurred. They failed to mention that he was a monolith of English teaching for 20 years at my high school.

I wrote a letter to the Globe saying something along the lines of, "If he's a child molester, he should go to jail, but so far these are just accusations. He was a great teacher; don't ignore his brilliant history just to sell papers." They didn't print the letter, and I felt like I had no recourse. (Incidentally, he did go to jail, and he was still one of the best teachers I've ever had.) In this case, I was such a Z-lister that literally nobody heard my complaint. I couldn't even find out if the Globe received my letter, never mind printing it.

Compare that to Stephen Kurkjian's recent smear campaign against former Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn. I'm as much of a Z-lister as you can get (Technorati rank: 843,855 and rising, baby!), but if you Google his name, the third result is my response to his shameful article about Peter Quinn. It's tailed off a bit now, but for a while, a large fraction of the traffic to my site was from that link.

I think that's a great change. Sure, we still have the echo effects of top 100 lists reinforcing the popularity of the top 100, but that doesn't make the top 100 gatekeepers. It sounds trite, but blogs have actually given a soapbox to the unwashed millions with internet access. It could be better, but it's still only 2006. (Hey, I even have a hotline to the NSA installed in my house, thanks to Mr. Bush and his illiterate assistant, Michael Hayden!)

I'd love to hear a suggestion of how we could spread people's attention away from the "A-listers," but so far, I don't find my attention too strongly drawn to them.