Thanks for sharing this with us. Cheers!

It’s basically the same set of responses that Googlers have been using for 5 or so years. Strip out the details, switch a few words/phrases – and it reads the same as responses from JM or MC.

That said, the points made are valid. Far to often people focus on things that aren’t generally worth the time effort.
Why do so many people chase algo’s? I seriously doubt most are smart enough or have the resources to reverse engineer even a fraction of the algo. Even if they do, what good will it do them?
Far better to focus on what we do know, and what we know works, and what increases the bottom line.

The PAnda bit was partly interesting. The implication is that they are moving even further towards a page>term impact, rather than a site-wide impact (which would be fairer, but also suggests that their resource consumption has been refined to enable such degrees of granularity). It also suggests that the vast majority of the “work” has already been done – now it’ more a matter of maintaining rather than rating an responding (4.5 years or so to crawl and rate the larger % of the web, and to re-rate those previously hit … that’s quite scary).

As for the links and disavowing … this has always made me laugh.
Even before Penguin, G had systems for hitting bad links and a sites rankings.
And the issue back then was the same as it is now.
If yo have removed a % of links, then you will not benefit from that % of links. This Will influence your rankings.
Why do people seem to think that after disavowing a bunch of bad links, their rankings will go back to anything like they were?
(If you have 100 red balls, and I know you stole 20 of those balls and take them away, are you going to have the same number of red balls? No. Right!)

This is really interesting! Lots of doubts cleared about HTTPS, Phantom and other Google updates. Thanks! :)

Regards
Miraj Gazi

Good catch — updated! Thank you :)