hyperkik - 9:39 pm on Mar 18, 2011 (gmt 0) [edited by: tedster at 11:52 pm (utc) on Mar 18, 2011]
However, it's content that is not readily available anywhere else, is shared a lot, generates a fair amount of return visits, and is doing fine in the search engines; growing every day, in fact. Panda had no discernible effect on it whatsoever.
I would deem that "The eHow Effect" - "thin" (or even "wrong") isn't a problem as long as the content is unique. When I've investigated the pages with which I've had the biggest traffic drop-offs, I'm finding either (1) huge amounts of scraping and plagiarism with Google having difficulty figuring out that the content originated on my site (they were much better at figuring that out, or perhaps it was that they were not "punishing" my site by accident, before this update), or (2) due to the nature of the content there's similarity between the pages and what you might find in similar articles and that's dragging down the "uniqueness" quotient.
While some people speak of a site-wide effect, I'm seeing a page-by-page effect. I think this algorithm change was the algorithmic equivalent of a shotgun, not a scalpel, so I think it's possible for pages and sites to potentially hit in any number of ways.
[edit reason] fixed the quote box [/edit]
[edited by: tedster at 11:52 pm (utc) on Mar 18, 2011]