TheOptimizationIdiot - 1:18 am on May 5, 2013 (gmt 0)
I still don't think this is the type of signal that a good algorithm should be using. Some novice could be playing around with different titles as new ideas occur to him. What Google should be focusing on is creating an algorithm that is inherently immune to SEO practices and attempts at manipulation. That would be a much better approach.
Uh, I may have had an adult beverage today, but I really don't see any plausibility in the idea of Google being inherently immune to SEO (manipulations).
Rhetorically: How can anyone possibly be inherently immune to being manipulated when others have complete control over ever single bit of data they have to use try to decipher/categorize/organize web pages when that data can be changed at any time and a change to the data must have an impact in some way on it's interpretation?
Closing Statement On the Point: They don't control the content on webpages. They have to attempt to decipher the content to determine what a page is about. The content can be changed at any time. A change to the content they have to decipher will change the way the content is interpreted in some (possibly small) way but may change the intended meaning, much the way a change to this post could change the way it's understood by people. There is no way they can be inherently immune to changes in the information they have to interpret and categorize to be a search engine. It's not possible.
Beyond That: The point of this thread isn't what they "should or should not" use, but rather what they "do or do not" use, so I hope we can back to "do they or don't they" and "if they do to what extent and in response to what events", thanks.