As anticipated, Kent Newsome didn't believe my concerns around viral link tagging were valid, saying he saw them as another way to help balance an uneven playing field. He writes, "For me, the (tags are) a small attempt to end run around the fact that, despite writing hard for years, I simply cannot get many of the popular bloggers to allow me into the conversation.", adding, "The blogosphere isn't a perfect place, but it's the only one we have."

For perfect transparency's sake, I had been thinking for quite some time around this issue of external hyperlink padding, and was absolutely concerned that by using Kent as the example, that he would see it as a personal attack. My thoughts around this post had been ruminating for weeks, as I saw the practice spread. But what I truly want to get across is that while I still believe the practice is bogus, that I think the onus now falls on the search engines, like Technorati and Google, to close the holes in the way they tabulate these results. Kent is a great guy and his blog has some outstanding content, which is why we've traded links and comments for months. That's not up for debate.

If there's a better example of a prominent blogger who I respect who uses this practice, I'm happy to add them to the discussion, but for now, that hasn't happened, and Kent is on whom the sword fell. Be sure to see Kent's response here: Fear and Loathing in the Blogosphere. As he and I discussed before, blogs are about conversations. So what do you think?

You name a statistic, and people will try to game it. You find a ranking, and people will learn how to cheat their way to the top. Online or offline, there is a push/pull relationship between those people who cheat and those people tasked with finding and exposing the cheaters. Some of the most annoying examples of this cat and mouse game today can be seen with the abuses of Technorati's "Authority" metric, which gauges how many individual blogs link to one site in a six month period.

A number of bloggers, including some otherwise-respected individuals, have engaged in a "viral tag" game that invites people to link back to them, and virtually, virally, pass it on. As with any good pyramid scheme, the guy at the top gets the best benefits, and those later to the game get less. Over the last month or so, I've seen some individual's Technorati "Authority" skyrocket, as they've moved from an arguably accurate 100-200 external links through 300, 400, 500 and beyond, catapulting them from B-List blog status to garnering a "Top 5k" badge from Technorati, even though the overwhelming majority of recent links are a fraud.

This practice, if it grows, threatens to eliminate any credibility Technorati has in this space, and will erode trust in the company and its statistics. I can see right-minded bloggers who do showcase this statistic honestly, like I do, to start removing the widget from their blogs as it loses value and becomes an object of scorn.

At the risk of ticking off or losing one of my more engaged and loyal readers, Kent Newsome of Newsome.org is one of the most high-profile showcases of this practice. As you can see in his Technorati profile, he is listed among the top 5,000 most popular blogs that Technorati scours, a diamond in the rough emerging from the tens of millions who do blog. But his count is completely bogus. (Just check out the "reactions") The Viral Tags link exchange has, like a virus, taken over his results page, spawning more and more and more sites to latch onto this sultry practice.

This started from Andy Coate's call to game the results of Google's PageRank, and was later spread by the Founders' Cafe, who is keeping tabs on those who have jumped in headfirst.

The practice of viral tags is not a case of intelligent search engine optimization, as is claimed. This is simply Web link spam aimed at artificially giving credibility where there is none. And now that Kent and others have engaged in the practice, it cannot be undone, unless Technorati, Google and others who track these sorts of things put a stop to it cold.

I'm not saying that people like Kent should be wiped out of Technorati and Google, as he actually tends to have some strong content on his blog. I like his posts and have enjoyed commenting and seeing his reactions here. But I find his move here to lack any of the "accountability" and credibility he expects from other prominent bloggers. (See: It's About Choices and Accountability) It's time to lead by example, Kent, and find a way out of this mess.

I started to get the e-mails last week. From one former colleague: "R U camping out to get your iPhone? Will you be on the Apple store’s doorstep at 6 PM sharp?" and then another came. "Have U ordered your iPhone?" they asked. Then I started getting text messages. My little sister hit me up... "Are you excited about the iPhone? Getting one?" And this doesn't even take into account the many repeated questions I've received in person and on the phone.

It's as if everybody expects me to be walking out of an Apple Store on day one with an iPhone in tow. I've even had to make a standard response to the inquiries, either by saying I can wait until version two, or explaining that I really don't need a new phone all that badly, that my Blackberry works great, and doesn't cost me a dime. One person, thinking along the same lines, wrote me, saying, "I am actually holding out. It is tempting, but I bet they release a higher capacity model come Christmas time." And maybe he's right? Who knows?

It's no secret that Apple, despite all the interest in the current iPhone models, will continue to innovate. It's no secret that hard disk capacities and flash memory capacities are increasing. And it's no secret that software or firmware updates will be upcoming to the iPhone, just like they have for the iPod and Apple TV. One could arguably wait around forever for the next version of anything. Any time I make a purchase, I run the risk of finding myself left with the previous generation shortly thereafter, and there's something to be said for not having buyer's remorse for products, so long as they're working.

With that said, I'll spell it out here, and look forward to any debates in the comments. I do not, at this time, plan to buy the iPhone tomorrow or next week, or for the foreseeable near future. I am extremely intrigued by its capabilities and how it could impact not only Apple but the entire mobile phone industry, but I don't need one. I will more quickly buy a next-generation iPod before I buy the iPhone. My Blackberry is paid for by the office and comes with a company number. Buying an iPhone would require a new number, a second phone to carry, and a new rate plan from AT&T, who is nobody's favorite. I may be an Apple fan. I may have a solid track record for early adoption of the company's products. But I'm trying to let logic win out over emotion in this case, and I will let this initial wave pass me by. And if I do give in, like a fool, and buy an iPhone at any point in the next six months, please do refer back to this post and mock me. I know I would.

Apple is certainly doing a lot of things right in their breakneck promotion of the iPhone's release later this week. As people are already getting in line in anticipation of Cupertino's latest offering, with days to go, the company has turned over their home page to a detailed tour of the iPhone and its features.

But oddly enough, Apple hasn't found a way to get the iPhone video into iTunes. For a company usually so good about connecting each of its wares, that seems strange.

Apple's "iPhone - A Guided Tour" page offers three ways to stream the video, and one "Large" way to download the video. And that's it. Searching for "iPhone" in iTunes doesn't uncover anything of the sort.

I'd think downloading the iPhone's guided tour from iTunes would be logical. Even weirder, Apple advertises the file as 175 megabytes, yet the download actually appears to be almost twice that size, weighing in at 318 megabytes, even though Apple so very nicely wrapped it in a .zip casing to reduce file size. (See the disparity on the left)

So what's the deal? Is Apple saving bandwidth costs by not putting the iPhone tour in iTunes? It doesn't seem to make much sense.