petehall - 7:41 am on May 4, 2013 (gmt 0)
reverting to the EMD is likely something it would detect as manipulative, imo, so once you move, you may not be able to "just undo the 301" and return to the "status quo" of today. It's possible the change/reversion wouldn't "undo" the move so the site ranks the same as it did before the move
I notice you mention the manipulation patent quite frequently. It's just one if many patents, I wouldn't get too hung up over any one patent. Thanks for the reference though. To my knowledge I've read all of the patents that have been featured on here over the last 10+ years, including this one.
Having said this I do understand your point and consider it to be valid, however I would still revert the 301 because at that point I think it would be time to give up on Google and use the best name for customers. The EMD would be my preferred choice anyway if it wasnt for this update. A name which is descriptive and easy to remember is far better from a marketing point of view.
As far as I'm concerned if the penalty follows then its not the EMD to blame as this has now been removed from the equation. If G was to slap another penalty on the site for manipulation then so be it, the traffic was no use before the change and it won't be any use if the penalty returns.
I manage many sites including other EMDs which are fine. I've never been big on links so I think a link penalty is highly unlikely, however this term is more competitive than others and the name has attracted natural links using the EMD as anchor text. I'll not ever remove the links though as they have all been acquired naturally.