Re: 4 more days


First, I'd like to thank you for the time, effort and energy you have put
into the group. I appreciate it and have learned a lot from the Credible
Web. You are a good leader Sandro.

Second, I'd like to express my belated interest in leading the group
towards two goals, one from Sandro's earlier email:

1. *Endorsed Credibility Signals*.  This would be a relatively small
document, describing 5-20 signals where we have consensus within the group
that they are pretty good. I'd expect it to change over time with new data.
The RDF schema for these signals would be published on It would
intentionally be kept small enough to be manageable, unlike the Exchange as
past "Signals" drafts. I think some of the NewsQ highlight signals
<> are good options here,
and there are also some that are doable by hand (like these

2. Developing a lightweight demonstration product that translates the
endorsed signals into a user facing browser toolbar, maybe called the

I think these are the two best steps forward for pragmatic and selfish
reasons. Pragmatically, I think this is the best possible way to build on
the credibility signals the group has already identified without committing
to the gargantuan research task of standardization or development challenge
of an API. Formally endorsing a set of signals, publishing schema, and
releasing example code all sound like plausible next steps. Selfishly, I
want a tool like this every day and see this group as the most trustworthy
way to get there.

For the long term, I think this is also the best way to start to educate
consumers that these signals are out there. People in the SEO industry like
me frequently use tools <> to
evaluate if Google thinks a website is trustworthy. My vision is for the
Credibility Web to develop the standards and supporting materials to make
digital trust information consumer-facing.

*About drew Wallace*

Marketing guy <> who has deep SEO
experience and is fascinated with digital trust questions; In college I was
obsessed with the fact that big news outlets consistently reported
different casualty counts for Bush I's drone strikes. Since then I have
worked at a lot of startups, including attempting to launch a news site
that matched conservative and liberal news stories by topic so users could
choose their preferred bias (while being briefly exposed to the other
side). The search engine optimization experience has allowed me to work
with some synthetic digital trust scores over the years, like domain and
page authority.

I have worked at many startups including electric bikes, fuel cells, lots
of software, a pre-IPO HubSpot, and as a Google contractor on the YouTube
Search Quality Team.

There appears to be a gap in the market where news consumers have become
more sophisticated but aren't being supplied the tools or information they
now understand is necessary. Were I to obnoxiously pitch you my vision for
the Credibility Web Group in an elevator, I would tell you that we're going
to close that information gap by building the foundation for an open source
B2C SEO Moz that empowers real people with actionable, endorsed credibility
signals; and that the eventual downstream impact of the group's work is
restoring public trust in digital news.

In addition to a compelling vision I'll sweeten the deal by term-limiting
myself to a period of at most one year total: three to six months focused
upon release of a formally document of Endorsed Credibility Web Signals
<> and the next three to six
months leading a team publishing a reference toolbar while urging adoption
of credibility signals by others.



On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 11:03 AM Sandro Hawke <> wrote:

> Given some of the posts a few weeks ago, I was expecting there to be
> more people announcing an interest in leading this group.
> Deadline is Aug 3.
>        -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 30 July 2021 16:36:22 UTC