TheMadScientist - 1:28 pm on Mar 21, 2011 (gmt 0)
They all have really good pages, but also tons of pages that are *REALLY* poor. User profiles with no content, inane forum topics, pages about small towns with no content, etc, etc, etc.
Unless of course, part of your definition of quality is 'real' and not 'simulated', then all your pages could be considered higher quality, because a real forum or large website will probably have those characteristics, but a 'simulated' one won't ... Everyone seems to think 'quality' is an 'easily definable characteristic' and imo they have more of a 'big picture' view than mot give them credit for, and contrary to popular belief really really try to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, without getting gamed at the same time.
The key to this imo is longer-term patterns, not the 'today's view' we're all so used to seeing and many try to manipulate. By looking at the longer-term picture of a site on a whole you can more reliably differentiate between sites 'built to rank' and sites that are 'built for visitors'.