walkman - 1:10 am on Sep 27, 2011 (gmt 0)
I'd say that 'we' haven't figured out what signals Google is using to wham out Panda.
Te most obvious is that Google lied. You could have the site 100% like they said it's ideal and Panda would have destroyed it.
This is exactly what Google set out to accomplish ~ create a digital organism that is continually morphing, which makes it close to impossible for SEO types to quantify, identify, or even vaguely understand.
Thus, go back to square one, to the pre-Google days: Build entirely for your users, not the Googlebot........... and hope for the best.
Expect that they started with "good sites" and then set to destroy the other ones, not cause them to lose 10% or 25% of traffic, but essentially drive them out of business. And then we have the manual exceptions and the "eHow wasn't hit? Wow, let change the algo so they get hit next time."
Example: Google can't say that, say, Nordstrom.com is a bad site, or people would blame Google. Now if Nordstrom harasses you with pop-ups to put your email or take a survey, that's 'a plus' since Nordstrom.com is a 'good site.' If you do not do it, Panda will hurt you because that pop-up leaves behavior patterns that can be measured over tens of thousands of visitors. So, not hounding your visitors can cause you to go bankrupt thanks to the allegedly brilliant minds at Google. Why? Because they decided to give all to the winners that 'the world's biggest kingmakers' chose, or mostly big sites. Go ahead and emulate them, specially in certain niches. You can't. If a big site is caught by mistake, they will be saved, yours will not. It also serves Google'$ corporate purposes or panda would not be live today.
In the end, a monopoly that essentially controls the internet, reneged on their previous promises and decided what sites live and what sites will most likely die. All for its own benefit.