martinibuster - 4:27 am on Jul 11, 2012 (gmt 0)

Is it possible that the tanking is the result of the links no longer working and that the new positions are pretty much where they should rank if those links did not exist?

Personally I don't think it's as simple as an abundance of the same anchors causing the drop, as a single factor causing the effect all by itself. Something I am familiar with contradicts the idea that a single factor (anchor text) alone is enough to cause a Penguin effect. I lean toward other factors on the linking page, possibly in concert with the abundance of similar anchors, working together to cause the effect.

Now we have to define what the effect is. Is the effect simply a site ranking where it deserves to rank (because of low quality signals)? Or is there a penalty that needs to be lifted first?

If the effect is the first scenario (site ranks where it belongs), then the suggestion to build better links may be the direction to take. If the effect is the second scenario (it has a penalty), then removing those links is imperative.