I fully agree that tags are better than hierarchies. BUT: when classifying e-mail, it only takes me one mouse click (click & drag) to move my incoming mail into the folder, say, "Sales/2006/Product1/", whereas applying the tags "Sales", "2006" and "Product1" to the mail requires three clicks.
This could be solved if GMail introduced "super-labels", such as "Sales/2006/Product1", which, when applied to a mail, applies all tags it consists of.
Yes, links from high-ranking traffic increases a site's overall ranking. What I don't know, is if Google only considers the domain name or the complete URL when caculating rankings.
And whatever you do, Google just hates when you use certain CMS systems, such as Mambo: my travel blog, which has been online for two years, cannot be found using any of the keywords that appear in the content. Not that I care (it was meant for my family, and it's in French...). For my company site I'm using hand-coded PHP and its ranking is much better.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully agree that tags are better than hierarchies. BUT: when classifying e-mail, it only takes me one mouse click (click & drag) to move my incoming mail into the folder, say, "Sales/2006/Product1/", whereas applying the tags "Sales", "2006" and "Product1" to the mail requires three clicks. This could be solved if GMail introduced "super-labels", such as "Sales/2006/Product1", which, when applied to a mail, applies all tags it consists of.
Yes, links from high-ranking traffic increases a site's overall ranking. What I don't know, is if Google only considers the domain name or the complete URL when caculating rankings. And whatever you do, Google just hates when you use certain CMS systems, such as Mambo: my travel blog, which has been online for two years, cannot be found using any of the keywords that appear in the content. Not that I care (it was meant for my family, and it's in French...). For my company site I'm using hand-coded PHP and its ranking is much better.