diberry - 3:09 pm on Jun 29, 2012 (gmt 0)
A quick note for anyone wanting to understand, well, anything.
Ignore anyone telling you to ignore dissenting opinion
Here's how I'm reading this thread:
--Claarky has discovered the importance of various user metrics, which many of us have been studying for years, but perhaps not in quite the same way he's looking at them.
--Claarky is claiming these metrics are key to Panda, and others are offering both support and dissent on the details of this theory.
--Claarky is advising people to ignore others in the thread who offer dissenting (or even dissimilar) opinions, and to rely entirely on Google for traffic, because Google wants to save us time and money.
The metrics discussion is awesome. There's no question UMs can help you determine user satisfaction, and that's the key to long-term success with or without Google. I love UM discussions because someone may be getting more info out of their stats than I am, and by learning what they know, I can sharpen my ability to please visitors.
The theory that these metrics=Panda is interesting, but it has some flaws. People have been very fair and positive in pointing out these flaws. The way to make a theory iron clad is to refine it until it accounts for all recognized flaws. Then, even if it's completely morphed from where it started, you have a valuable theory that will serve you well in business. I think that's what the majority of us want from the discussion of whether these metrics are the key to Panda. (And again, even if they're not key to Panda, it's certainly helpful to study them the way Claarky is doing.)
Telling people to ignore dissenting opinion is not good business. People often wonder why huge, successful companies suddenly crash and burn, and sometimes the answer is "They stopped listening to dissenting opinion."