Page is a not externally linkable
TheMadScientist - 9:17 am on Apr 24, 2011 (gmt 0)
[edited by: TheMadScientist at 9:39 am (utc) on Apr 24, 2011]
I really don't understand, because I've seen many of the sites that were 'wrongly demoted' and I didn't see anything 'special' there...
You're just assuming it is because Google says so.
If it's only an assumption, then it's a much more valid assumption than assuming the update is 'a step back', when they say it's an improvement and they're the ones with access to the data, isn't it?
Where's the logic in the assumption of 'great sites were demoted', and when Google looked at the visitor behavior data they realized their visitors were unhappy, so they left the update in place rather than rolling it back? There isn't any...
Caffeine and Big Daddy were incompatible infrastructures and could not be stored in the same place, yet Caffeine rolled and reverted numerous times (meaning we would 'see Caffeine' and then we wouldn't), which indicates (to me anyway) if the Panda Update was not providing 'favorable visitor reactions' as a whole, they could have rolled it back, but they didn't ... They said it's an improvement instead ... If you haven't, go have a look at the old update threads and see if their past behavior indicates they are in any way 'afraid' to roll back an update ... I've read almost everyone of them over the last 8 years, and they have rolled back numerous updates in the past, not left them in place after an initial 'oops' and called them a success, only to hope their visitors were somehow happier.
They didn't roll Panda back and they called it a success...
How many time in the past have they 'not quite had it right' when they pushed an update and rolled it back? Their past behavior indicates they are in no way afraid to say, either explicitly or implicitly, 'not quite right' and rolled back an update ... My 'assumption' based on their actions and statements seems fairly valid based on the information we have access to, doesn't it?
Ideally Google's view of what is good should also match the objective, INFORMED user view of what is good.
You seem to be saying Google should 'dictate' what their visitors want to see or need to see ... Is that the case? IMO it's the other way around ... Google's visitors dictate what Google should show more of or less of...