Note: this is not a call for bloggers. I'm not looking for someone to write for this blog. If you want to do that, apply here. This is a call for developers.

If you're reading our tech blogs, you probably know someone — or are someone — who works on web applications. We're expanding our Weblogs, Inc. tech team, looking for web developers and technical web designers for full-time positions.

The exact skills are less important than these traits: bright, energetic, blog savvy, great communication skills (email, IM and in person), organization and problem solving. I'm not looking to fill a specific role like "MySQL developer". I want to find two or three people who know how to keep this giant blogging platform flying along and contribute to our always-changing stream of web projects.

But just so we don't get people expecting to work on something else we don't use, here are some real skills we need:

• Apache, PHP and MySQL

• ASP/VBScript, Microsoft SQL

• experience with blogs, blogging, feeds, tagging services, CMSes, forums, Web 2.0, Web 3.0

• Windows Server, Linux OS, Mac OS

• regular expressions, JavaScript, AJAX

• FTP, remote control (terminal services, ssh) and file management

• experience administering DNS and email servers (Windows Merak Mail corporate mail server, qmail on Linux)

Does that sound like you or someone you know? Let me know.

Some of our team members work from home and some work from offices. We're looking for people in the NYC area, but we'll consider talented people from other locations.

Back in August, The Unofficial Google Weblog published the contents of Playboy's Google interview, which was included as Appendix B in Google's SEC paperwork. Playboy's lawyers contacted our ISP and asked us to take the interview down, so we did.

We originally posted the interview using the logic that the contents of SEC filings are public domain, therefore copying the interview from their site was legit. But if the Google people didn't have proper authorization to include the interview in their IPO filing, then we would just be repeating Google's own copyright violation. It makes sense that you can't just go around violating copyrights by always being the second one to do it…

This is a well-researched article on how Google's recent "dance" has affected real estate Web sites. There are quotes from several SEO firms and one realtor in the Pacific Northwest who seems to sum up the blessing and the curse of the Florida Update:

Sanford says, "I have faired very well during the Google shake-out. I still retain the number one position in Google for the search term "Bellingham Real Estate," whereas my local competitors who were in the number two and number three positions on Google have completely dropped off the list. In my opinion the replacement sites are less relevant then my previous competitors, so right now I'm a happy camper.

If his direct competitors were a more relevant search result, then shouldn't they appear in the results list?