Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
But they never defined what low quality is.To me it is those pages that don't get hits as good as other pages on your site.It is not about thin content really but it is more relative to other pages on your site, in terms of traffic.
So, I'm wondering... What if the previous love from Google for our affected website was in significant part due to the sheer number of incoming links from this one site? If so, and this is something now taken into account in the Panda update, it seems reasonable that all those "votes of confidence" from a single source no longer weigh as much as they used to.
I am seeing a complete rollback since this morning.
Does anyone who's been adversely affected have a large number of forum signature links showing in Webmaster Tools?
1) Relevance is a measure of the page (pre panda)
2) quality is a measure of the site + the page. (post panda)
if the second one is applied on top of 1 and your site gets ranked poorly in quality, then your best pages do get pulled down.
It's everything people keep saying rolled into one.
But I don't recall any statements from Google suggesting that this was about links as opposed to content. I also don't see how a site like eHow would get a huge boost from such a change.
Further, if I look at the evidence available to me, for me this has not been a site-wide phenomenon. Portions of the site with the best and longest-standing links have been much more affected (@40% drop) than forum pages to which there are few to no outside links. Forum traffic has, in fact, increased by about 15%.
You're right. It may be out of desperation that I'm thinking *too far* outside of the box.
I am hearing about is the presence or absence of deep backlinks.
I suspect the source/quality of those backlinks to deep pages matter.
Meanwhile they certainly don't seem to have helped me in the Panda/Farm/Farmer update.
Wrong in every possible way. First, Farmer & Panda are the same thing. Second, Google SAID Farmer/Panda penalized content farms, but that has proven to be just PR spin unsupported by the facts. In reality a greater percentage of content farms weren't penalized than any other type of site. In fact many content farms benefitted from Farmer/Panda.
[edited by: Dan01 at 11:37 pm (utc) on Mar 23, 2011]