Blogger and TypePad also take very different approaches to creating your internal link structure. These are the “bare minimum” links that it automatically puts in from the archiving system, Previous Posts links and prev/next arrows. Each system is brilliant in influencing search engines in its own way. This internal link structure is the unsung hero of SEO, and a great part of the reason blog sites have almost an unfair advantage in influencing SERPs. Wiki’s, while influential in SEO are not particularly more effective than blog software. It could be, but it would take a lot of special configuration. Anyway, SEO is part of PR 2.0, whether the PR industry knows it yet or not.

From a fairness stance it is not very democratic. Everyone does not have an equal vote. But in another sense it is democratic. If you are able to convince other people that your website is good, they will be more likely to link to your website, and this will increase your website’s page rank, and therefore your voice.

I think it would be possible to create an algorithm that substitutes links for reasons to agree. Lets say you have an idea with reasons to agree and reasons to disagree. Each reason to agree would give points to the idea, and each reasons to disagree would take away points. But just like Google, each of these reasons could have different weight, based on how many reasons their are to agree with them. And each of these reasons could have a different weight based on the number of reasons to agree or disagree with them, and so on forever. Just like Google.

I think promoting good ideas is more important than promoting good websites.

Wiki sites are great because they promise continual improvement and group participation. However, people don’t always agree on what an article should say. The creation of a discussion section has somewhat addressed this problem, giving people an opportunity to list some reasons for an article to read a certain way. But because of formatting this discussion can not be very thorough. I believe we can use the concepts of continual improvement and group participation that already exist in wiki-communities, to better organize the debates in the background of wiki sites. With the number of people using the internet, I believe we could brain storm all or the reasons to agree or disagree with different positions. We could then create a process where the best reasons to agree or disagree would go to the top of their columns, so that each idea had the best reasons to agree or disagree with that idea, in descending order beneath the idea. I believe with continual improvement and analisis the best reasons to agree or disagree will really float to the top of a page. I believe with group participation each perspective can get its chance and logic will rule the day.

You want to be sure you do it right to maximize the benefit of the time you put into creating your blog, especially as the blogosphere gets more crowded.