chiyo - 11:58 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

it would be a major mistake to use a simple definition of a "blog". All the simple one- variable filters would be too broad. Filtering by CMS system via required links out or patterns or filenames or default templates, filtering out sites featured on "blog rolls" or those incredibly long lists of "freinds blogs".

I would expect Google would filter intelligently using a mixture of factors - possibly centred on link patterns, which seem to have a certain "character" for blogs.

There are several dozen blogs with original excellent content (I can think of several just off hand written by journalists, academics, professors who have actually managed to turn the "personal diary" into something more than their freinds to read) that deserves to be on the main google search instead of being lost in a tab filled up with the remaining 99% of discountinued, perosnal-writing-therapy, narcissitic, cat-lovers and family blogs. How Google filters is critical. It would be a pity to see sites like Andrew Goodman's and many others categorized with the crud and banished from exposure to information and news seekers.

That said, i would think a lot who follow Google's indexing strategy on WebmasterWorld saw this coming for quite a while. A "Blog" tab i remember was foreseen by several in WebmasterWorld threads after the blogger acquisition.

[edited by: chiyo at 12:05 pm (utc) on May 9, 2003]