buckworks - 9:31 pm on Oct 22, 2008 (gmt 0)

There is "the data", which isn't redundant and isn't in multiple locations

A particular piece of data might reside in one and only one place within the database, but when live pages are presented on the web that same piece of data can indeed appear in multiple locations.

that's only a matter of allowing visitors to access the same data by whatever path is their preference

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those multiple paths should lead to multiple landing URLs to read the same content.

the bot needs to be able to sort things out

Savvy webmasters will build their sites so things are well sorted before the bot ever sees them.

Build, as best you can, for your users. Buckworks, on the other hand, will wisely build for the bot and benefit therefrom

No, it is not "on the other hand". I aim at both. If you think that pleasing users means displeasing the bots or vice versa then do some more thinking. It's certainly possible to focus on one and forget the other ... many people do ... but there's no inherent contradiction between the two goals.

If you take care with the sort of details that would make your content come across more intelligently to a non-sighted user, you'd automatically do a better job of pleasing the bots even if you had no idea they existed.

a stream of defensible traffic

The kind of work it takes to gain exposure in places that would send direct traffic often pleases Google along the way. That's another "both/and".

I just see no good coming from this Google monoculture.

Many would agree with that, myself included, but we have to deal with the world as it is.