I didn't mean to suggest that I have any answers or that my observations are correct but just reporting what I'm seeing in the hope that I might find one or two signals that I can either boost or reduce so that I can move up a place or two.
I find it difficult to believe that Panda is subjective. It must use objective assessment and it makes sense (to me at least) that if Google is using objective measures then we must be able to see them or at least the most important ones.
After Florida there was a massive debate here about what had caused problems for sites and what was the solution. In the end the debate fell into two main camps. The over optimisation penalty camp and the LSI (semantics camp). I had some pretty strong evidence that semantics was the issue because of unique language differences between UK and American English. I decided to stick with the semantics hypothesis and implemented changes based on this. I went back to #1 and have stuck there for most of the time since with a couple of notable exceptions.
What I am looking for now is a hypothesis I can believe in that will drive my activity over the coming months. To be honest although I would like to eventually be proved right in the strategy I select it is more important to me to have a clear strategy that I actually believe in.
It would be nice if folks who have evidence that shows that my observations can be ruled out because they are seeing other stuff to share that. Simply saying you are wrong doesn't add anything to the debate.