Leosghost - 1:12 pm on Jun 25, 2012 (gmt 0)
I don't think it is "not enough traffic to be certain how people are reacting to them" ( in fact I know traffic wise that isn't the case because some are high traffic ) thus "Google can't Panda slap any site unless it has enough statistical data" doesn't apply ..
But I think that smaller sites are harder for them to get either their physical or algorithmical heads around from the point of view of assigning "average scores" and "weightings", I think smaller sites may well have to be appalling ( not that any of mine are ;-) to score badly, whereas with bigger sites, 10% of "meh" pages may be enough to ding them..
IME , smaller seems to be considered by G ( and MS etc ) to be more "focused" and "closer to the query" or "more relevant" than medium or big spreading sites..of course Ehow is an exception, but I really do think they apply a different set of rules to it than to others..
I am also convinced and always have been that EMDs are considered more "relevant" if all other factors are equal ..