How is the information relevancy to Google consumers calculated when a Google search is performed? Google would have you believe that an automated algorithm computes all these variables to ensure search results are tabulated perfectly during every Google search -- and consistent relevancy is key based on specific words, word combinations and actual phonetics of the way each search if performed.

All these searches result in a quantity that boggles the mind -- it's to the tune of hundreds of millions of searches per day in many different languages, with each result appearing in an uncannily sub-second speed in many cases.

So, who or what determines the programming that allows Google search results to be as relevant and useful to the Google searcher? Who tweaks the programming constantly so that relevancy is fair for all against those who would want to appear everywhere they can on the Google network, regardless of relevancy? Apparently, this effort is headed by Google employee Matt Cutts (which seems odd that only one person is in charge of anything at Google).

This web post points out that Cutts' extended vacation has shown itself in reduced relevancy of Google search results, although without specific examples and a statistically-significant sample, this is all just hearsay. Google insiders -- is there is kernel of truth to this alleged issue? Customers and investors want to know.

Insider Blogging looks at the employees blogs of our favorite companies, exposing the last legal way to get "inside information."

Matt Cutts at Gadgets, Google and SEO talks about the difficult interaction between Google and the webmasters of companies who are assessed penalties for their non-compliant SEO behavior. But what's more interesting is this quote: "The responsibility of picking 'Don’t be evil' as an informal motto is that everybody compares Google against perfection, not to our competitors," Cutts writes. I want to laugh but I think he's right, a bit.

The Scobleizer is excited about a little company called Eye-Fi, which adds a little wifi radio transmitter to your digital camera. He's a Microsoft guy, so of course he'd use it to transmit the photos to his Xbox and play them on his plasma screen (they must pay Scoble a lot! Boy he's got some nice toys). I'd use it to send my photos to flickr. Something tells me that Microsoft doesn't win from this technology, you tell me.