JS_Harris - 6:34 am on Aug 5, 2013 (gmt 0)
That's what you would expect with new content backdraft, like a rock thrown in water it draws people's attention, at least momentarily. How many eyes return depend on how deep the water was and how big the rock was. Big rocks in shallow pools are the most fun! But enough with the analogies... I'm seeing a lot of old tools being used to figure out issues they weren't built for.
example: If you write a 40,000 word article about wonderful widgets using only your own words and opinions it must be unique+thick, correct?
Not so. If your 40,000 words didn't convey new information about wonderful widgets that isn't found on a dozen other sites then it can be considered a thin page, it's not about word count. It can also be considered duplicate even if all of it is original by you because you probably describe the same features that other sites described already.
- wonderful widgets are fun.
- I have a lot of fun with my wonderful widgets.
- The fun factor on wonderful widgets is refreshingly pleasing, to wit I enjoyed mine all weekend long.
All three of those examples are duplicate since they are all about fun + wonderful widgets
You need to find a fresh angle on things, something others aren't discussing already in their articles. Relate wonderful widgets to non-wonderful widgets or describe what makes them wonderful with data to support your claims, perform research on what uses wonderful widgets have etc... all of these would have set the article apart.
Tools are good but panda has some interpretation built in that isn't easy to decipher, at least not with most common tools.
Edit: As I wrote this I was visualizing a Google rater looking at new pages while they were being created. "Oh look, Jeff is doing a Google search for wonderful widgets so he's about to write an article about exactly what's out there already, *yawn*".
"oh snap - Cindy just posted a youtube video about some of her experiments and she's probably going to do a writeup on her blog now, I can't wait, that was cool!"
I hope you see what I'm getting at about unique not being unique etc. If you could only read Matt Cutt's mind when someone says the have "unique content"... he probably grumbles inside :)