cabbie - 5:09 am on Feb 11, 2013 (gmt 0)
There are already dozens of meaningful question about your broken model and you didn't even care to answer ..
Which question is troubling you, Matrix?
The only thing that bothers me is how much it encourages kool-aid drinking instead of building a valuable web resource.
I wonder if my model will actually help and encourage webmasters spending more time building a valuable web resource.
I don't have the time to police all incoming links to me, to see whether they are low quality or malicious in trying to harm my rankings.
I can possibly police them by automating my model by asking those incoming links to verify themselves.
This will give me more time spending on improving my resource.
If webmasters thought that they would be actually paid for any links to them, then they may spend more time concentrating on producing great content, instead of spending a disproportionate amount of time, chasing and paying for links.
See above about pyramid schemes. It's a terrific idea-- if you're at the top of the pyramid.
On the contrary, although at first it might take a pyramid shape , proper uptake of the model would trend it be more circular.
What would be left out would be low quality sites masquerading as good quality which is what is happening now.
You cannot "allow" (or disallow) publication of a hyperlink on a website you do not control.
That's why Google and Bing allow webmasters to disallow links with them
You are free to monetise your own content if you want.
But you have zero control over mine.
You are monetising your site by linking to my resource.Not the other way around.
I have no control over what you do, but I have plenty of control over the link you have to my website.