martinibuster - 1:18 am on Jan 27, 2011 (gmt 0)
I think more is being inferred from the word might than was intended. I don't believe an entire sentence can be quoted from the video to support what is being inferred from the single word, might, much less a paragraph's worth. The point of the video is to confirm that this kind of thing happens, and it will take more than the single word might to change the meaning of that video.
"We do reserve the right to treat links in footers a little bit differently. For example, if something is in the footer it might not carry the same editorial weight."
He then goes on to explain using the same reasons I gave several posts up, about how not all links are the same, there are different editorial reasons for them and Google has to determine the reason through the context. There are many, many reasons for depreciating the weight of a link.
The topic of this discussion is PageRank circulation. I listed reasons above why not all links are the same. It's called Link Analysis. This has been around for years and years. It's not new. I was in the room when Marissa Mayer was presenting at SES San Jose in 2003, in a session about bots when she let it out of the bag that links are weighted differently. Google has been depreciating links for at least eight years now. This concept is not new.
Bill Slawski wrote a nice tutorial [seobythesea.com] discussing how Google has a patent on a system that understands that not every link on a page has the same editorial value.