crobb305 - 8:51 pm on Oct 27, 2012 (gmt 0)
I think it's time we get past the notion that Google needs "concrete evidence" to do anything. It's clear that they can program their algorithm(s) using any parameterizations and filters that they choose. The prosecution, judge, and jury are computer programs. The appeals court is Matt Cutts and friends. There is no defense team to discredit the "evidence" or lack thereof. With respect to any questions about "penalty" vs. mere link discrediting, Penguinzed pages/sites that have been relegated to the supplemental body for snippets of their own content (in quotes) with scrapers ranking above, have been penalized. If the links were merely discredited, the snippets would still rank #1, as they did previously, but there would simply be a loss of ranking on the phrase(s) that appeared unnatural in questionable anchor text. Every Penguinzed/Pandalized site I have looked at doesn't even rank for their own content.
I keep saying over and over, please read the patent about spam detection. Please. It should be required reading :) We could build a whole thread just about that patent, and the elements that Google could be using in their attack on webspam.