Content_ed - 7:23 pm on Dec 8, 2011 (gmt 0)
Whether we were talking about different things or not, I don't see any data to back your theory.
On repetition, I'm talking about what would be perceived as repetition, not a "home" link appearing on every page. There are websites that pick a theme and beat it to death with pages that differ only in the choice of title and the particular keywords they are written around, when all are really the same subject/formula. That's something Panda should have gone after, and might have to some extent. It's not us.
I don't think either of us believe that Panda targets, much less understands, quality. But it's impossible to have a discussion about websites without refering to quality. When it's not in quotes, it's the plain meaning of the word as understood by humans, quality.
People who tell me to look for flaws are just talking to themselves. No CMS, no script (other than Analytics), pure, simple HTML. If you want to call that a flaw, knock yourself out. Amazon and Wikipedia are full of flaws. The only flaws I'm interested in today are Panda flaws, and if I can detect them and adapt without compromising on the quality of my work, I will.
I don't need any more wembaster reviews, thank you. It's not about SEO with us, it's about quality content. Everybody isn't interested in reading SEO articles, I couldn't name a single SEO blog unless you count Cutts, and I rarely look at that.
I do read the posts here when I'm actively working on Panda, and it seems to me that there are a limited number of people sharing data and a lot of people sharing hypothesis. And discussions like the one you and I are having can't help anybody:-)