nickreynolds - 6:23 pm on Jul 2, 2012 (gmt 0)
I've dipped in and out of this thread a few times and would like to sum up my thoughts:
1. I think Claarky might be on to something here but I don't think it's the whole picture
2. When some of my sites were pandalised in 2.1 I was outraged. My sites all have unique, decent quality content. Content farm? No way! However if we start looking for a metric that is suggesting to Google, low quality, even though to a real person it may be decent quality, then that makes sense.
3. What we're looking at is "how is Google measuring sites to be panadalized". The fact that a site can be good even with a high exit rate is not actually relevant to this discussion
4. I think Panda is FAR more complex than mere bouncerate or exit rate. It could include + or - weightings for number of words, uniqueness of content, whether the user goes to a checkout page, where the person goes next, how long the page takes to load etc etc etc. This means that for SOME people the exit rate is only one factor.
5. It may be that Panda doesn't use exit rate per se, but that for some sites the results of measuring exit rate coincides quite accurately with the metrics that Google does use and that therefore the raw exit rate data is a useful indicator in these cases.
5. I always think of Google as a blunt instrument. There always seems to be collateral damage - websites that get hit that shouldn't. I have sites that were affected by Panda that did have a high exit rate and so would fit the theory here. However others didn't have an unduly high exit or bounce rate and I'm still puzzled as to what was wrong with them.