I've found many of the claims of collateral damage to be from sites that I don't honestly feel were adding much value to our lives, even if they weren't strictly content farms.
I'd be interested to hear your specific story?
I'd be interested to hear your specific story?
I've never used any black-hat or even slightly questionable SEO techniques or means to publicize the site. It started being penalized April 11, which is the launch date of what (IIRC) is being called "Panda 2.0". I've made many changes in hopes of fixing whatever it is that's causing Google to decide that the site is low quality, but haven't seen any improvement in ranking since then. A (now outdated) list of those changes is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2664346 .
If that's true then an awful lot of sites I have heard about may have been wasting time SEO'ing for nothing. (most obvious is serverfault)
Does anyone know if it really is an infrequent labelling run or an algoithm change and or it's run frequency?
Edit: reference to waltergr added correctly
Try searching your site on Bing, Yahoo and see..
videowatchr.com uses Google video search and the youtube API to show youtube videos. So of course, it will have duplicate content.
If you use an API, you are getting someone's content most likely, does that make you a content farm? How about if you use an RSS feed?
Google should publish guidelines on this Panda - so we're not guessing.
There are definitely high quality sites that were hit by Panda.