Someone called my attention to this video (SiteProNews) and I thought that the information may be of interest to others here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=881l9...GDS89VBF_awNvA
The article that accompanies this video shout has the other half of the story and can be found at: http://www.sitepronews.com/2012/11/1...really-matter/
Only if enough of them mark a site as spam? Sounds more or less right, I mean, even with Google Chrome, you have a plugin that lets a general internet user mark a site as spam, and this data also is sent to Google. What gets me is, what stops a user from reporting a site as spam, when there is nothing wrong with that site apart from the fact that its direct competition, the same question is now asked with the raters. How impartial can they really be? They have an enormous workload (from what I have read) and under that kind of pressure, it must take a special sort of person not to make mistakes. Surely there must be some sort of backup plan in place to account for errors?
It still reinforces the same message though, keep it natural, unique and updated regularly.
Interesting.....
Sounds like... another Matts fable :)
Sounds like the same old. Keep it simple, to the point and authentic.