tristanperry - 11:34 pm on Mar 3, 2011 (gmt 0)
It also does seem like whilst there might be some tweaks here or there, the big changes are here to stay.
Wired.com: Do you feel that this update has done what you wanted it to do?
Cutts: I would say so. [...]
Singhal: Itís really doing what we said it would do.
Cutts: Which isnít to say we wonít look at feedback.
And also further proof/evidence that this is an algorithmic change and not a penalty:
Cutts: If someone has a specific question about, for example, why a site dropped, I think itís fair and justifiable and defensible to tell them why that site dropped. But for example, our most recent algorithm does contain signals that can be gamed. If that one were 100 percent transparent, the bad guys would know how to optimize their way back into the rankings.
Correct. I received an (automated?) email from Adsense today because they noticed that I'm running less than three ad units on my pages. They recommend to add more ad units. It sounds like a bad joke after I lost 40% of my US traffic, possibly because of too many ads in the eyes of Google's search team.
Ugh. I had that e-mail too. It contains specific information (estimtated number of pages running < 3 ad units, a specific URL etc), but overall it's automatically generated.
Might be something that the AdSense team may want to review if it's indeed true that the ad-to-content ratio is one of the factors in the Panda update.