Wysz, thanks for the forum and thanks for listening.

While the update appears to have improved the results for many queries, I think its critical to understand which babies may have been thrown out with the bathwater...like QA content sites, for instance.

Probably not necessary for me to specify which site I represent, since it appears that nearly every QA site (with the conspicuous exception of Yahoo Answers) took a big hit - in the range of 40-50% traffic loss after the update.

Can't argue that our content isn't 'thin', but I would argue that 'quality' should be based on the query, and in most instances, QA sites provide concise and accurate answers to long-tail queries. Sometimes consumers want depth and detail, but often, they just want to know what the 'G' on the helmet of the Greenbay Packers means. And QA sites are great at delivering 'quality' answers to these types of queries.

I'd love to persuade you, in fact, that our site goes above and beyond the majority of community sourced QA content, because we actually train and pay people to provide accurate answers. Maybe in another couple years the algorithm will evolve to the point that it rewards 'accuracy'...then we'd be sittin' pretty!

Til then, please give some thought to those instances where 'thin' content doesn't necessarily imply 'low-quality'.

And for heaven's sake, why is it necessary to devalue the entire site? I'll accept that some of our content deserves to drop, but if you're going to devalue every single page, at least do us the courtesy of telling us why! If some content is objectionable, let us know and we'll remove it.

crossing my fingers on this one...hope somebody's listening