ladymacbeth - 3:52 am on Apr 28, 2012 (gmt 0) [edited by: Robert_Charlton at 6:13 am (utc) on Apr 28, 2012]
as an SEO provider and as a site owner, the changes Google has instituted lack merit and certainly fail dismally at offering better content in place of those sites they removed. One site in particular, owned by a friend of mine sat on the top of the serps for several months pulling a few thousand searches a day That site, <snip - an exact match domain>, offered good quality content as well as excellent products to the searcher. Each item was well written and he worked hard to ensure that all of his content was completely original. There were to my knowledge and to his, no spammy links involved in the sites growth. That site, today is completely gone in search with one or two exceptions which are ranking on page 5 and 7. In it's place-- ironically, since Google says that the reason for this update is to showcase better content and give the searcher good quality options... lies <snip>, a free tripod site with little to no content to speak of. Interesting exchange and what benefit the replacement site can hold to the searcher is well past me. I've actually saved several examples from clients. one used <an online link building site>, not realizing what it was. In many cases, the sites which have been replaced far and away outstrip the quality of the content that the replacements hold and most have little to no inbound links that might be even remotely considered spam. It is my feeling that about ten percent of the changes google made could be considered spammy links or black hat SEO, while the other two or three percent of the affected sites are quite likely collateral damage.
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 6:13 am (utc) on Apr 28, 2012]