Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

  Communication Nation: And, well, that whole blog thing? A: Because these systems operate on the alien logic of probabilistic statistics, which sacrifices perfection at the microscale for optimization at the macroscale. (via Cosmos)

Surfarama: It is a PPC model so if he don’t get no clicks, Google don’t get paid…that’s the whole idea. He might be getting some impressions, but so what… (via Cosmos)

Fractals of Change: Much more likely it disappeared because of trouble TypePad (the hosting service that Chris and I both use) has been having all day. I had to rebuild this site to recover the last week's posts and Chris probably just hasn't done that yet. (via Cosmos)

The Long Tail: Tom Elvsin extends my experiment in getting free impressions from Google AdWords and applies it AdSense, text ads running on third-party sites: "The advertisers benefit by repeat display of the name of their products. Google benefits because it does gets paid for the occasional click. (via Cosmos)

  Infamy or Praise: he's "hacked" Google's AdSense/AdWords online advertising system: Google ads are pay-per-click. They're based on an auction model, so for each keyword/phrase the best performing ads (some combination of those that generate the most clicks and those who will pay the most for those clicks) (via Cosmos)

  Location Based Services: The Long Tail: Cheating Google 101 I wanted to understand clickfraud a bit better, so I started advertising this blog on Google and trying to see what sort of fraud it could catch. Then when I had finished the experiments I left the ads running. (via Cosmos)

  bare feet studios :: blog: If your steak doesn’t live up to the sizzle, people won’t buy (at least not more than once.) Also, unfortunately, there’s been more than one case of someone’s competitors merrily clicking away to burn up the budget (Google has worked hard to stop that.) (via Cosmos)

[Google.blognewschannel.com] » InsideGoogle » part of the Blog News Channel: Besides predicting that the press will finally turn on Google (which is bound to happen sometime), that Wikipedia will be humiliated by a spam robot, that the big threee will experiment with personalized news, and the boldest prediction of all:

 [Glinden.blogspot.com] Geeking with Greg: 04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005: Chris Sherman at Search Engine Watch has a particularly thorough review of the new service.

[Roughtype.com] Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: The value of Wikipedia, he says, lies not in the whole but in the individual entries, and the quality of those entries is determined not by statistics but by the work of individuals: "Wikipedia is wrong when a single person is wrong." Chris counters that, even with Wikipedia, the whole matters: "The main point I was making about Wikipedia was not that any single entry is probabilistic, but that the *entire encylopedia* is probabilistic. Your odds of getting a substantive, up-to-date and accurate entry for any given subject are excellent on Wikipedia, even if every individual entry isn't excellent." He then provides a hypothetical illustration:

[Mattcutts.com] Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO » Jagger 2 Update Info: One particular site is doing fine at MSN, Yahoo has decided to hate it (my first Yahoo penalty, for NO reason I can see, it’s as white hat as it gets other than a c-class association), and Google is showing much kindly love and sweet affection with this update, in spite of NO attempt being made to “optimize” other than occasionally cranking out verbose marketing copy for the sole purpose of convincing and converting visitors and turning them into buyers.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, Wikipedia, Openpedia.org