I'm not sure if Google will risk it in the EU, MrSavage. It would be quite stupid unless it doesn't plan to appeal the decision and there are two other cases underway.

At this stage, the vile Panda kludge and some others seem to have been aimed at shopping sites rather than at genuinely thin content websites. Google's FUDbuddies in the media seemed to swallow the line about it being targeted at thin content sites whereas in reality it was simply targeted at Google's competitors. How many more of Google's kludges were aimed at eliminating the competition?

Regards...jmcc

How many more of Google's kludges were aimed at eliminating the competition?

Maybe this explains why websites get in trouble even when they follow the "Google Webmaster Guidelines". It might explain why certain websites have good rankings on Bing, DuckDuckGo, ..., but not on Google.

the vile Panda kludge and some others seem to have been aimed at shopping sites rather than at genuinely thin content websites

It's true that many, probably most, price comparison sites now use affiliate links. Since many will be populated either from the "partner site" or from a generic content library, they will qualify as a "thin affiliate".

My gut instinct is that carpet-bombing a city to take down one factory is an inefficient tactic.

But the alternative narrative is that Google deliberately used disproportionate force in order to maintain plausible deniability as to the real target, and saw the collateral damage as entirely acceptable. Which would probably qualify as "evil", and certainly not "Do the right thing".

I don't buy it yet, but will definitely consider the possibility whenever Google does an update with significant collateral damage but little apparent quality improvement.

If such could be persuasively demonstrated to the public (who trust politicians significantly less than tech companies), imagine the PR nightmare!

But the alternative narrative is that Google deliberately used disproportionate force in order to maintain plausible deniability as to the real target, and saw the collateral damage as entirely acceptable. Which would probably qualify as "evil", and certainly not "Do the right thing".

That's the implication of the EUC decision. Google didn't give a damn about who was harmed as long as Google made money.

Regards...jmcc

@Shaddows, this was my line of thinking through reading this thread and also the comprehensive reporting on foundem and searchneutrality. I think as we all adjust to more "muscling in" of Google in the SERPs, we often forget that many of those small changes were made over years, and have now become what they are -- plastered with "big brands", near invisible paid placements (no more highlighting, no gold label, its now green to blend in, no sidebar ads, they are ALL clustered at the top), Google shopping widgets, "knowledge boxes" which scrape web content and display it purely to keep users on their site longer.

This is not yet another bashing on G, it is just a realization that we have all come a very long way to be able to even compete with such anti-competitive strategies over the last 2 years especially.

Many of these "mystery" updates that have been happening this year also may have something to do with either correcting, or obfuscating their search results even more. They deliberately withhold information about these "updates" from us, and which quite frankly are far more likely to impact smaller publishers, new innovative companies, and established brands which are still growing or have small niches.

Who knows how many excellent companies have got caught up in ridiculous penalties and not know what they've done wrong, why they're being suppressed, and how to escape it... it's not outside the realm of possibility that their real targets were quite specific or growing threats, especially when you read over the reports by Foundem about how Panda decimated smaller publishers, while Amazon and Googles own shopping service thrived.

Another realization that the "fan boys" don't seem to get is that Google is constantly acquiring new technology and companies to further propagate its monopoly. Look at what they've done with robots, AI, drones, their attempts to take a share of the social pie with G+ & buzz, Android, their own Google Pixel, Google home device, email, maps... Are you okay with Google being your bank, electricity provider, ISP, web host, domain host, shopping website? how much power should one company have?