According to the world’s most enjoyable newspaper, the Guardian, web founder Tim Berners-Lee this week suggested that website quality should be factored into where they appear in search engine rankings. It sounds good. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to click the ‘feeling lucky’ button on Google? I know I never have. But assuming that Google’s super-secret algorithm could discriminate amongst good and trashy sites, what kind of quality would it be ranking?

The comments were made apropos conspiracy theories and rumours mushrooming on the web. The suggestion was that properly referenced articles and posts should be ranked more highly than stuff sucked from thumbs. But what’s the point of that, if the source is rubbish too? More recent references might be helpful, but not necessarily. Ditto for more references.

The bottom line is that quality is not something an algorithm can ever judge. Indeed, since there’s a powerful subjectivity factor at work, people aren’t going to be that much better. As long as it remains a human right to post unsubstantiated drivel on the internet, the problem isn’t going to go away.

Perhaps it’s a good thing. This way we get to make up our own minds about what’s quality and what’s not, without search engines deciding for us.