randle - 2:50 pm on Jul 11, 2012 (gmt 0)
But if you're amassing ranking signals, it's not a bad thing to have as many kinds of signals on your side as you can.
Well put, but what I saw with Panda and Penguin was that the results left in their wakes were more a function of the assessment of "negative signals of quality" and subsequent penalties/demotions than from positive ones being rewarded.
I know some will say its a matter of semantics, but its really not. (winning because your opponent defaulted before a single point was played, is not the same as beating him outright).
Sure, if some sites fall, other rise - however thats not the same as a site rising, and deliberately being placed above other sites due to an assessment of its positive qualities.
Panda punished those with poor content profiles - did anyone truly feel like their site rose because of excellent content? No, it was "whew, whatever Google didn't like about some peoples content i'm glad I didn't have whatever it was".
Penguin punished those with suspicious looking back link profiles - did anyone truly feel like their site rose because of their back links? No, it was "whew, glad I stopped with the paid paid links a few years ago".
90% of the post Penguin and Panda discussions were about recovery, not the fruits of having specific "signals of quality" Google wanted to reward.
Penalties/demotions and punishment have become much more ingrained in the ranking computations of the algorithm over the past few years.
Getting back to thinking about, and implementing "signals of quality" on ones sites would be a real welcomed breath of fresh air.
The problem is Google just seems focused on planting land mines every where and how to avoid getting zapped in the first place- and how to recover from it are really whats on people minds these days.