Brinked: Excellent article which will help many people.
Incidentally, your findings - perhaps unintentionally - support Google's case for Panda.
Re-written content? The sludge of the internet; untold billions of pages that essentially add nothing (except a few Adsense clickers trying to escape).
Un monitored auto-generated pages? A total waste of space.
Poor page design? MFA in effect, though possibly not in intention; no more, no less.
And Panda goes to the heart of the problem - intention - as no update has done before.
Because it's effectively very cheap to produce 'content', and search engines have always favoured 'content rich' sites, there has been an explosion in totally pointless pages, just like the tonnes of pizza delivery leaflets I recycle each year, we have become buried in quantity, leaving quality at the bottom of the pile. Panda has sought to redress this.
I do accept - and always have - that there are some innocent victims of the collateral damage of the Panda process, but you have illustrated the awful truth that if people have nothing to say, they should shut up - not plaster the web with mind-numbingly dull, repetitive content. In fact the only place I would disagree with you, is that I advise people to simply lose those pages, not just try to 'pretty them up' in order to escape the Panda scythe - I suggest that your unsuccessful cases might try that approach with success.
If Panda really succeeds in letting a bit of quality shine through, then the price is worth paying.
Let's face it, if there was a $1.00 per page tax on URLs, 99% of pages on the web would disappear overnight, and no-one would miss them.