Matt Cutts wrote to Edmondson that he might want to try subdomains, among other things. Matt Cutts isn't claiming here that subdomains are better than subdirec

Matt Cutts wrote to Edmondson that he might want to try subdomains, among other things. Matt Cutts isn't claiming here that subdomains are better than subdirectories, just that they are treated differently (which should come as no great surprise -- "different things are treated differently" isn't exactly a shock.) Suggesting to someone that they try something different when their first approach doesn't seem to be working out is hardly revolutionary or headline-worthy. But somehow this short quote manages to get a whole blog post hung on it, with the eventual conclusion that "the average webmaster is told to "sit and spin"". The author took the lazy way out, appealing to emotion and outrage, rather than actually doing the experiments to see how google differentiates between subdomains and subdirectories. Also: All we know is that it has been close to a half-year since Panda has been implemented, and in spite of massive capital investments virtually nobody has recovered. Well, of course. Panda was aiming to lower the rankings of certain kinds of content-suppliers. These sites weren't supposed to be able to just make a few changes and recover; they were supposed to be permanently affected. Panda wasn't an assault course that Google built just so that a few webmasters could test their skillz.