CainIV - 12:45 am on Feb 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

There is no human review to 950, Steveb is absolutely correct. Pages that were affected by 95o changed and moved up in rank once that methodology I wrote about was applied and the new page was cached in the index.

The problem is, knowing 'what part' of those changes tipped the scales. I doubt I will ever conclusively know, but the point was change - enough to tip the scales.

To say that human evaluation was a part of the process would be saying that Google engineers actually monitored and cared how my little piece of property at the edge of world was doing. Highly unlikely.

Since I don't think anyone can nail it down, here are descriptive phrases you might want to think about:)

-Automatic algorithmic evaluation of factors
-Not based on human review whatsoever
-Correct or "incorrect" tipping of scales on Google's part due to x number of factors

Re-evaluate again parts of you website that Google can and does "see".

For the most part my reasoning was at the time that if there are websites that have recovered without changing anything whatsoever on their website, then it could be likely that x off factors, which have resolved themselves, might have been the cause. Otherwise, by some deductive reasoning, since this is filter applied to something, then obviously something had to trigger it. (Hope that makes sense)