fathom - 6:28 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)
Talk about sitting on the fence.
You do understand, of course, that even if your experiences and anecdotal evidence covered hundreds, or thousands, or even ten thousand sites, it would still be statistically insignificant compared to the total number of sites or URLs out there, of every type and every topic.
It's really easy to fall into the trap of "because it's happening to me and these hundred other people, it must be universal" and I fall into that trap all the time myself. But it really gets in the way of trying to parse out what's going on, and how to navigate through it. And of course, to figure out what to do next if you can't.
Over the last 14 months, it probably falls into the "thousands" range. However, the aggregate knowledge/experience is from a wide range of sources, both related to me and also unrelated. Are you saying that all of these sources cannot be representative of a larger constituency of websites? Perhaps it's just a wild coincidence that all of these sources experienced the same types of demotions for sites that had zero SEO work done on them?
That would indeed be jarring & jolting news and would afford a huge class action lawsuit for unfair business practices.
I am positive wilburforce will seek legal counsel with that tidbit.
I agree, but I doubt it would ever be provable - the algo isn't open to any kind of scrutiny as we all know - how can you possibly "prove" something when the evidence isn't available to view?
First you suggest that all that stuff is evidence and cannot simply be wild coincidence and then you say none of it proves anything.
What you mean to say... you do not have the expertise to determine what is and what is not evidence and all the other references that are suggestive facts are not immediately available to you thus that is why you cannot conclusive prove anything to a preponderance of evidence which is all that is needed to file a suit of this nature.