Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
This was already debunked by ezinearticles and other that looked at stats.
Did the level of accuracy change after Panda? :)
Searchmetrics analysed Google results in response to a range of keywords, both before and after the Panda update.
Alongside Ciao's 94% reduction in visibility, it found that hubpages.com fell by 85% and eHow.co.uk dropped 53%.
A similar analysis by Sistrix found a 81% drop in visibility for Ciao.co.uk, 72% reduction for hubpages.com and an 84% fall for eHow.co.uk.
While a sharp drop in visibility may constitute a crisis for some websites and their search engine optimisation (SEO) engineers, it does not necessarily spell disaster.
Technology news website Electricpig.co.uk was downgraded by 94% by the Panda update, according to Searchmetrics.
Site editor James Holland told BBC News: "We haven't seen an immediate impact.
"Comparing our traffic from Google for that week, we're actually only down 0.5% versus the week before Panda took effect. [bbc.co.uk ]
Has anyone considered Panda literally stands for UNIQUE content?
to a computer doing content analysis
[edited by: tedster at 3:09 pm (utc) on Apr 17, 2011]
Google did say they were targeting "shallow content".
Do you find that any of those sites don't contain high quality content? Because I don't.
That one definitely does not fit the mold.
Not all of these sites in the list are doing that though. Unless you're counting scrapers? One thing about all of these sites is they are HEAVILY scraped by content thieves.
what about a site that reproduces great content and that content then gets copied all over the web? Is it there fault for others copying them?
We do keep slipping away from the content itself - and that was the expressed target - "shallow content" or, as the rest of the world named it, "content farms."
Google must have a version of that technology. They may be doing direct textual analysis of some kind on pages. It may even be the area where "the breakthrough" occurred.