I’m probably late to the party on this (busy making sex films, y’know) but I had a thought: Is the priority that Google places on link quality (and the resulting rankings and revenues) an example of an effort to monetize social capital in action?

Conversely, is the social capital that Comstock Films enjoys in its little corner of the internet devalued by the larger company it keeps? Our outbound links are all either: a) People who have said nice things about us and our work, or b) People, places, or things we think are nifty. Isn’t that what the googlebot likes? Shouldn’t ComstockFilms.com be a “clean and trusted” site? (Sound sort of like talking about VD in the Forties, doesn’ it?)

I used to think we were “clean and trusted”, but in light of my recent sex-related searches, I’m not so sure. Maybe we’re bad company.Does our linking to Tramp Lamps help them or hurt them?

In fact, just now I’ve just revisited them and see they’ve added this bit on their link page, “Thanks for stopping by our little web site. If you would like to link up, and your content would not embarrass my mother, contact us about an exchange.”

Would Momma Tramp Lamp be embarrassed by Comstock Films? Hard to know, isn’t it?

P.S. Maybe this why Andrew Sullivan didn’t link to me when he quoted me. Maybe he’s afraid his clean and trusted blog might catch whatever I have. Is there such a thing as Valtrex for blogs? Blogtrex?