|Website Life Cycle as a Panda Quality Indication|
I've been giving thought to indicators that would identify quality. Life cycle or long term trends seem to be a method that could be used. Understanding how a sites life cycle may appear to an algorithm or plot on a graph could show a defined and measurable difference between a quality and low quality site. Google could manually rate sites within a classification, and see how differ for a given category.
Many quality indicators are often discussed as points in time. Making a change and waiting to see how Google reacts implies that Google Panda is looking at point in time. I don't know if Google views a site quality as a measure that can be turned on or off in Panda. Essentially, Google should have enough data over time to understand how a site was given birth, and how it evolved. Does it have similarities to the quality site or the low quality site?
So what I'm getting at is that, Google may be taking many indicators and not just using them at a snapshot point in time, but applying an algorithm to a site in order to grade it over its life, or as far as they may have data. This may indicate why some sites that may appear similar to others, but suffer from Panda and seemingly can't recover. They may have long term differences that appear a certain way to Google. A life cycle also implies a longer period of time, and sufficient reason that Google would not need to constantly reevaluate, unless they made algorithmic changes to the Panda filter.
We don't know all the indicators that Google is measuring, but there are many. Like trending performance of a server, a single current snapshot does not mean much, but a trend of changes over time tells the story. Google may be using long term trends as a quality measure in Panda. I doubt you can game them or "recover" by making a quick change if that is the case.
Not everything is data from a specific point in time and Panda may not be either.
example: your mid-term exams from 9th grade math class. Sure you can pinpoint the day you took them but in reality the results are timeless, they will never change unless someone reviewed the tests again.
Panda may be just such a website "score" and it doesn't seem to be one of the "continually re-applied" ranking factors.
Many people like myself were around way before the Google kiddies even went to uni, many of us spent a long time giving FREE assistance to these people over a long period of time testing all kinds of stuff when they were at Stanford.
I, and you, and many others, have to accept the reality that they have royally screwed-up, not just thousands, but maybe millions of totally innocent websites, and they don't give a $hit, a rat's a$$, they DO NOT CARE $ince they believe they are right and it doe$n't really matter to them now $ince they've been given the billion$ by their adoring Wall $treet Backer$.
Hi$tory will $show thi$ to be their bige$$t mi$take!...however it will not matter one $ingle jot to them and they will never, ever under$tand, $ad, but true.
there's a rule that is worth noting, it's called Ocam's Razor: “simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones.”
So we can go into complicated theory after theory...or just accept that Google may be lying to us.
The thing that gets me is the scale on which google is working. I believe we have heard comments from G basically saying they are happy with the results so far from Panda.
Does this mean that Panda may be looking at 1 billion websites when it is fully implemented? Are they happy with a 99.9% accuracy rate? If so, then that leaves a million businesses like mine down the f'ing tubes.
I never asked for Google to be my supplier of visitors. I've tried every opportunity in the book to widen my audience - even paid yahoo to include my site. Does that mean I have to go out of business when Google flips a switch? Answer is YES and that is the way a monopoly works.
After submitting about 700 DMCA requests over the last few years with a 95% take down rate. I suspect my content is deemed to not be my content by G.
I don't know where this number comes from but from what I see, they are a VERY LONG way from anything even remotely close to "99.9". In fact, if they ever got to "90%" accurate I would be quite impressed. No, they are doing now what they've been doing for some time now, and that is "trying this, trying that". And this time, "trying this" is screwing millions of siteowners.
But ya' know what, when you sit in the clouds, the ants below don't even register....