caveman - 9:32 pm on Oct 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

2by4, that fact that we have one plausible theory that so far explains what we're seeing, and no other theory that satisfies us, does not render the one that we have useless.

I tend to judge new theories with my own personal smell test. The test includes questions like:
- Is the theory all new, or is it more an extension/expansion of known SE behavior? (I shy away from "all new" most of the time; most changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary.)
- Do others see similar issues/patterns, or am I conjuring up something related only to my own little world?
- Can I find a way to disprove the theory?
- etc.

So far, what I'm thinking still feels right to me personally.

That said, nothing in your post above feels necessarily wrong to me. In fact, it may be that what I'm theorizing is a part of a new algo that you are brave enough to wonder aloud about. Honestly I don't know, and I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to sort that out. ;-)

The one aspect of the new algo post I disagree with is the conclusion that "beta issues than mature algo tweaks." I believe that that statement is ONE potential view of the problems wer'e seeing. But I also believe it is quite possible that G is accepting an ever increasing level of collateral damage, and that with the tweaks of roughly 9/22, they may have just underestimated how much collateral damage there is.

The algo's these days are so complex, that I sometimes wonder how many people can fully understand or predict the impact that even a small tweak can bring.