Liane - 11:34 am on Jun 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you decide to evaluate one single URL, you should evaluate all URL's.

Under the heading of "Bad" you made the above statement. That in and of itself is a value judgement. Perhaps its not included in your postings on your site, but it isn't difficult to guess what side of the fence you sit on in regards to the rating system.

You further state:

I'm worried about whitelists. Google should check the sites over and over again to be sure that the whitelisted sites still meet the criteria. But they don't check them over and over again...

How on earth would you know they don't check white listed sites over and over again? Are you a Google staff member involved with this programme? Do you know someone who is and who is sharing this information with you?

Under the heading "Good" you said,

Evaluation of search results is quite normal, but Google takes it too great heights.

Does that mean they take it too far in your opinion?

You know, nobody seems to be paying too much attention to "Trust Rank" in the grand scheme of Google's algorythms, filters, etc.

How would anyone know if Google hasn't already created several of their own seed sites (created by Google employees using Google's guidelines) by which to gauge all white listed or "trusted" sites?

If I were Google, that's exactly what I would do! I'd build several sites in several competitive markets and donate them to various charities to operate. However, any and all changes would have to be done by Google employees to ensure their continued adherance to Google's guidelines. Its a sure fire way to know what standards are considered 100% on the up and up.

Think about it. Google builds an acceptable affiliate site, marketing "whatever" and using what they consider to be acceptable SEO techniques. They then approach some charity to monitor and process orders, sell and ship the goods and collect the profits. But Google controls the site at all times.

Now multiply that effort by a set of several sites in various niche markets. To me, this would guarantee an excellent base by which to evaluate other sites ... while "doing no harm".

Obviously, I am not saying Google has done this or has even considered doing anything like it ... but there is nothing preventing them from doing so and to be honest, I would if I were in in their shoes.