I shouldn't have said that the poster owned that site, that was a mistake, and it detracts from my point. I should have left it as an example of a thin-content page that doesn't really add anything to the web. Of which there are many at MetaFilter. That the view that MetaFilter pages are all quality and deserve to rank well is not realistic. That it isn't a mistake to derank a site when user metrics and a/b tests show that that increases user satisfaction.
>but to downgrade the whole site because of it?
I do not think this happened. I do not think I found the single page on MetaFilter that deserved a downgrade of the whole site. It is but a symptom of a deeper underlying problem with the site's quality. Best of the web? Nope. Clear-cut spam? Nope. Somewhere in between? Yes. The rankings reflect that.
>Links to spam sites will be flagged & then squashed by the moderators in short order.
Except they aren't. Google reports followed links to spammy sites. I found a link to an Indian pharmacy in a few seconds of searching. Moderators ought to work. Nofollow will work.
The problem is not the old links, though they are accompanied by old stale content, which IS a problem. Also these are todays links:
- "Everyone On Wall Street Is A Dick."
- Is Using Lotion a Black Thing?
- #basketball #trickshots
These link to other websites like vine.co or b3ta.com. They are followed by some comments that new visitors can not join in on, lest they pay. This is fluffy content that ranked well around 2006, it doesn't anymore. Why are these comments so special that they deserve a top 10? When 100s of other sites also put up a link and have a small discussion? Where is the unique quality content of MetaFilter? In the comments?