ken_b - 10:33 pm on Sep 21, 2011 (gmt 0)

I'll chime in here with a thought or two.

Panda wise, I've been clobbered, then beaten to a pulp by every new instance.

OK fine, I'm not especially surprised considering what I've read about "Shallow Content" here at WW.

Why? Because I made a deliberate choice years ago to publish mostly what appears to be the very definition of "Shallow Content".

Just the facts!

That means that most of my pages contain text that simply recites known facts, facts that are available on a lot of sites. Doesn't seem to matter how many facts or words are involved, just that they are available in a lot of places on the net.

Those facts only play a supporting role on the pages. They support the unique content on the page.

Unique content on my pages is in the form of images that I personally took at various events over the years. Doesn't seem to matter how many unique images are on a page. Seems the text is more important at the moment.

I could probably easily have come up with a few paragraphs of opinion about the subject of any of those images, but my opinion isn't what the site is about.

The result is that from a more technical point of view there isn't anything "unique" about my site, no "added value" so to speak.

I'm not especially happy with being Pandalized to a pulp. But it was a good ride up to that point and it's still doing ok due to Bing/hoo and direct traffic. And there's a distinct limit to how much I'm willing to change to accommodate G.

.