As you would expect there evaluation of the web page, isn't just if you liked the web page or not, but if the web page can be said to support the conclusion or not.

However, just because someone makes a very good web page in support or opposition to a cause, doesn't mean that that cause is wrong.

The purpose of this algorithm is to, in the global war of ideas, to identify how much of the water is being carried by a certain web page, vs. a book, website, song, etc.

So another aspect of this algorithm would indicate how many web pages are sold, how much money is spent, or how many web pages are spent.

With this information, someone could identify the Web page as making the largest case for a cause, and then they could their attention on discrediting the web page, if they are so inclined.

On the one hand you might assume that arguments from a web page should carry a lot of weight because, the author would usually spend a lot of time with a subject, investigate it, and present his findings. However there are many authors on both sides of an issue who make web pages. There is no way to come to the truth of an issue, without taking all the arguments made in web pages, and smashing them together, organizing them, categorizing them, removing duplication, finding the person who said things best, demoting bad logic, faulty assumptions, contradictions, and evaluating each assertion on their own merits.

Arguments from the web page would have to be quoted and put into the reasons to agree and disagree, and categorized in order for real progress to be made, because this is the only way that we can merge the data from one web page together with data from other web pages.

But this does not change the fact that many people take web pages as their reasons to believe something. For instance many people believe 911Turth.com proves that there was a conspiracy to blow up the twin towers. It would be interesting to see the list of the top web pages that support and oppose an issue, and further than that, which web pages support and oppose specific aspects, and conclusions drawn about an issue.

We have to reflect the way people come to conclusions, before we can change the way people come to conclusions.