Reno - 8:34 am on Feb 25, 2011 (gmt 0)
From dickbaker... As for the photos, I get high-res images where possible
From Spencer... Our little art site that has been removed completely from the index
From Amit Singhal ...This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites...At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites... with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on.
I included the quotes from dickbaker and Spencer because both deal with the graphic qualities of a website, whereas Mr Singhal's quote is heavily slanted to the importance of text.
So it begs the question ~ are graphic rich websites seen by Google as "thin" unless there is a LOT of accompanying text? Suppose for example, your site is devoted to installing turntable cartridges ~ wouldn't a series of photos be considerably more effective than the proverbial "thousand words"? In actuality, such a site may require few words yet be immensely useful.
Web-1995 had to be mostly text because of slow dialup connections; Web-2011 can be graphics-rich because of broadband. Is Google taking this into account, or are they still measuring the depth of a site by the quantity of words? The Amit Singhal quote suggests that may be the case.
So for those that are seeing dramatic drops ~ Do you have an adequate quantity of quality text? Or, are you relying too much on quality graphics? (because in your estimation, quality graphics is in fact the better presentation).