Have Google's claims ever been proven?
Google claims to have quality detection algorithms -- panda -- which they use to penalize web sites in the search engine rankings and so forth. But nobody seems to have any hard evidence that this is true. Only claims and hear-say. Are we all victims of Google's "Big Lie" ???
@ Peanut Butter . . . NO, we're talking about proving if Panda actually works the way they say it does. Have Google's claims been substantiated?
@ Duncan ... NO, they're still merely hear-say, and do not offer any hard evidence. Both are still masked in the claimant's "opinion" and/or suppositions.
The Search Engine Watch article is not believable. Much of the account leaves a lot to be imagined. Like did they REALLY generate 200 web sites each with 150 pages of "quality" content???? That one is near unbelievable.
CNet's test prooved nothing. That is not "hard evidence" . . .
Besides, we're more interested in Penguin.
TO BRAVEHEA ...
Yes, we've been in web development since the mid 1980s, having also been an original forum developer for America Online (AOL) and eWorld, before graphical interface browsers.
You did not answer the question, nor offer tangible evidence beyond hearsay. To be correct, you should have cited specific examples that could be validated.
The sites that got devaluated could have been so because of many other reasons other than a new "Penguin" . . . they could have been targeted by Google all along, or intentionally devaluated because they were making too much AdSense revenue, or were usurping the rankings of a "favored" advertiser of Google. At the time of the launch, when you say so many were devalued, we were watching, and many of the resulting sites DID NOT COMPLY TO PENGUIN RANTIONALLE ... so, in other words, Penguin did not devalue them because of the "published" function of Panguin