I suspect Google is already turning to alternative factors when and where they can. They’ve got enough data sources at this point to start incorporating bounce rate and other usage data into their algorithms.

The problem with links as a messy signal is not exclusive to the payola issue. One thing that Linkscape really drives home is just how simplistic some link building tactics are that still help companies achieve top positions for competitive keywords – the kind of stuff that we’ve all read won’t help your rankings and may even get you penalized actually seems to work quite well.

Rand had a good post on the topic that was blown out of proportion because he “outed” an SEO company. The debate grew so heated that I think many people missed part of the point – it’s worth a re-read for sure.

It’s almost like they can’t find anything else to build their algorithm around, so they’ll go to any length to try and keep links to be the “votes” they once were. That calls into question whether or not links are really the best way of determining search results. As long as Google thinks they are, I guess we do need to play by their rules.

Re: searchwiki – I did enjoy making some of my competitors disappear off the screen, but since I also know the results are only shown to me, it doesn’t really help much. Do you think they will take searchwiki results in the aggregate to effect real results? For instance, if lots of people continually downgrade a certain result, that might be an indicator that it’s not relevant or helpful.

As a long-time Google user SearchWiki turns me off. A huge part of Google’s rock solid brand is due to the trust users have for the relevance of Google results. I as an SEO know that Google’s results are far from perfect – but I still use Google search on a daily basis. Even if SearchWiki isn’t going to allow one user’s behavior to effect another’s results, the appearance is there. I’m not convinced that Google users want to see results that are ordered by the masses.