I have sat quietly in this forum taking in the many arguments and more often the not itching to let my two cents be heard, yet at the same time having no desire to enter any frivolous debate. I often tend to be rather blunt hence my reservation.
Having read the various comments and arguments the following has peaked my interest
I am not sure why people aren't understanding that panda is not an algo that has been run on all sites and all keywords.
If you have a dormant site targeting popular keywords (in terms of traffic) and doing well now as some of you claim, you are lucky to have escaped it so far.
if your dormant site doesn't target any popular keywords, panda may not have acted on it at all.
Panda is an algo run on more active sites (sites that publish fresh content on a regular basis) which get some decent traffic for some decent keywords.
I am in agreement with your statement that Panda is specific to the more competitive niches which have been plagued by brand infringements and other practices to gain an "unfair" advantage. For this reason "content farms" were heavily affected because they cut across several verticals. It would be interesting to take a cross section of the niches in which the various that are affected sites compete. I have read person attributing their decline to "scraped content" but for me it does not have merit. If it did it would also affect the offending site ranking.
Additionally it suggest that so the so called big players are not subject to content infringements.
The very nature of the Internet makes it subject to duplication it happens in real life why not the virtual world?
I remember at recent googlewmc presentation Matt Cutts stated that content duplication was not so much a issue in Panda. This does make sense why it is not a huge factor in rankings.
I have read persons prescribing the removal of tags yet Cutts did admit to using tags on his personal site. He did however caution against abusing that facility.
Persons are going through the motion of fixing but what are you fixing if you don't know what is broken. It is an exercise in futility in my humble opinion. It is all a guessing game.
In closing I would recommend that you should proceed with caution and don't be so hasty to implement everything you read. Take some time, analyse and determine whether it has merit and seek other opinions.
Lest I'm accused of monopolising the thread I now make my hasty exit