Receptional_Andy - 10:59 pm on May 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

you are assuming the SE's are using a dictionary-thesaurus platform to fuel the algos

Perhaps it came across that way, but I meant something quite different. I'm assuming that a writer can interpret dictionary/thesaurus entries much more effectively than any current search engine. A search engine relies on a mass of user-supplied data (much of it inaccurate) to approach the same task. With rather mixed results.

the tilde operator

It tells us a lot about Google's current 'understanding' of words. But it also highlights a lot of misunderstanding. I reckon you could get a better list of related words by asking the nearest person to you at the time ;)

We're coming from very different sides of the debate. I think search engines are playing catch-up when it comes to keywords - that's why a concept like LSI even exists, and to some extent is a major reason something like SEO is even necessary.

It'd take a week to write an article employing the OP's theory

I remain a single-finger typist, but a week would be stretching it a bit ;)