一周的壁纸榜单又和大家见面了，看了这周的榜单多多少少会有一些沉重，不仅为在地震中逝去灾的同胞们祈福也希望生存下来的人们一切安好！第一名：汶川地震前 昔日美景壁纸，汶川，作为这次地震中受害最严重的地区只一，汶川以前的风景已经不在，我们只能通过仅有的图片资料让大家再次回顾往昔！汶川地震前 昔日美景@壁纸第二名：韩国版圣经壁纸 自然风景篇，在上一周中推荐给大家的一套壁纸，在一周中以其独特的风格得到了大家的喜爱，并在这周中获得了第二名的好成绩！韩国版圣经壁纸 ^自然风景篇第三名：爱的心 爱情主题CG设计壁纸，以“…
Gina Trapani via Lifehacker shared by 4 people
New Flickr photo browser TagGalaxy explores the Flickr tag-o-verse using a planet metaphor. Type in a tag you’re interested in, and TagGalaxy will instantly assemble a system of planets that represent those tags. Click on a planet to browse and zoom photos. Words don’t do TagGalaxy’s beautiful visualization justice, so check out the screencast above for a quick demo if you’re@ too lazy to head on over there yourself. (Sorry for the herky-jerkiness ^of the video, in reality it’s smooth as silk on-page.)Tag Galaxy [via Download Squad]
Matt Cutts via Matt Cutts: Gadgets, Google, and SEO shared by 4 people
xkcd recently posted a webcomic that is quickly becoming a classic cartoon:
That comic sums up the internet in one sentence: the scrum of jostling opinions on the web and the optimism that truth can still win out. I was reminded of that comic when someone asked me about a particular way that someone recently tried to get links. Jonathan Crossfield wrote up a good background summary of the situation.
Believe me, I have no particular desire or plans to charge out onto the internet looking for fake stories; Snopes and other people on the web do a fine job of that. But this was an interesting case, because the proof landed in everyone’s lap. Someone spoke up afterwards and essentially admitted “I made up a story and actively promoted it. The story is utterly fake. By the way, I think any tactic to get links is fair game. I only care about whether a tactic to get links works.” A little while later someone else asked me point-blank for my reaction. I pointed out that Google’s quality guidelines already cover deceptive or misleading ways of getting links. The first two sentences in our quality guidelines say
These quality guidelines cover the most common forms of deceptive or manipulative behavior, but Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known websites). It’s not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive technique isn’t included on this page, Google approves of it.
Google tries to return the most relevant, useful results to our users and protect them from deceptive or misleading tactics. For example, when someone spams a blog or a guestbook with a fake comment, we try to prevent that fake link from carrying weight in Google. If a spammer blitzes dozens of websites with fake referrers, we try to ignore those fake links. If a website claims to have high-quality information and then deceives the user and serves up malware or off-topic porn, Google considers that spam and takes action on it. Likewise, if a site says that they completely made up a story to get links, Google doesn’t have to trust the links to that site as much.
I really don’t view Google’s role as judging the truthiness of the web. That is, after all, what Stephen Colbert is for. 
But if someone is sloppy enough to get caught (or to admit!) making up a fake story, I don’t think Google has to blindly trust those@ links, either.
My takeaway from this brouhaha: There are plenty of ways to market a site creatively without deceiving anyone. Don’t burn your credibility by using ^fake stories. It’s a short-term tactic and makes people trust you less in the future.