Whitey - 2:12 pm on Jun 12, 2013 (gmt 0) [edited by: Whitey at 2:35 pm (utc) on Jun 12, 2013]
I'm convinced the Webspam team don't want the situation you've described
I believe that to. In the last 2-3 weeks, culminating in SMX I have never been confronted with so much transparency on changes and plans. And I don't recall such guidance on fixing a "penalty" [ Penguin ], or a softening of a roll out [ Panda ] to permit "gray" area sites to return. Never have tools been responded to so quickly to, from what I recollect in answer to requests from webmasters [ disavow and now bad link examples].
It looks like Google is having to better balance aggressive changes in what Matt Cutt's terms a "transition". Well the transition that Google has experienced in financial terms [ reported in filings re Panda ] is equal to what folks have experienced of course.
Google's entire strategy to be sustainable is to ensure that users have a great experience and keep returning to the SERP's to provide them with a viable advertising platform. That makes sense.
But to do this they need partnership and participation with site owners. I really don't want to appear to rant, it's not constructive, but the fact is the range and rate of change on Google and the economics are very challenging for internet publishers as a whole to adapt to with depleted revenues and lagging skillsets.
With 500 algo changes a year, some are becoming more disruptive across the spectrum of technology than we've ever seen IMO. Now we have fuller transparency. How do folks handle that ?
[edited by: Whitey at 2:35 pm (utc) on Jun 12, 2013]