walkman - 1:39 pm on Sep 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

Walkman, if lots of people were writing about "Frog habitats in planet Jupiter" you'd only be #1 if you were offering a more insightful view or a more granular level of detail about Jupiter, the frogs in question and the challenges those frogs faced getting to and inhabiting the planet.

Let's grab an article from cdc.gov on how to treat an ear or a viral infection. Let's leave it as it is but where it says "...and drink lots of water," we'll replace it with "don't drink water, but drink lots of bleach instead." Can Google, as it it is right now, tell the difference, other maybe sending a few keywords with 'bleach' in them?

My guess is, they looked at some pages that they considered 'good' content, compared it to some pages they considered thin and some of their language PhD's came up with some variables to test for

Panda has hurt even sites that have no content you can analyze. Think of product specifications for example: Height: 40.12cm etc, while not touching their competitors.

Their self-serving brand bia$ is the root of this. Let's see Macys and Wikipedia held to the same standards, panda would not last a day due to the uproar. How many people sincerely believe that Google has not doctored /cooked Panda to allow some high profile cases escape it?