MrSavage - 8:53 pm on Oct 18, 2011 (gmt 0)
I disagree. Google will hire quality checkers. There you have groups of humans verify quality results. No getting around any algo in that respect. I'm sure every employee has a trash button they can press at any time during their day to say a site sucks and shouldn't rank where it is.
Also, they aren't using an algo as much because they have this thing called Chrome web browser. That can collect more than enough data about behaviour. They have 97% market share in mobile search so I'm sure there are many signals that will be used more and more.
In my opinion, it's more about "people powered" than "algo" powered. They could in theory hire 5,000 people who take the top keyword searches and do that 365 days a year, and ensure their quality results that way.
Because rankings make no sense now, it's the most feasible direction I see. For all anyone knows, a lot of humans could be the source of the recent flux. You can't figure it out because humans are actually controlling the results by saying which are good and which are bad. What are those recent hired in the UK doing with their time? Sure there are billions of sites, but I see only important searches getting Panalized.
Lastly, when you bang your head on a wall, you realize it hurts and you stop doing it. However, when you do something and it increases your profits, you aren't going to go back to the way it was before when you made much less money. As in, hey, if we keep doing this, we are increasing revenues. Something is working here, we just can't nail it down in the complex algo right now. Don't worry, don't hurry. All things are looking good right now. One little QA department really isn't calling the shots at Google. Be honest about that. Sure they are the face, but they aren't the boss.