Precis of contending theories Google's Florida update - what really happened

Google's Florida update - what really happened: "Any pages that are found to exceed the threshold of 'allowable' seo, are dropped from the results. That's a summary of the theory.
At first I liked this idea because it makes very good sense for a search engine to do it. But I saw pages that were still ranked in the top 10, and that were very well optimized for the searchterms that they were ranked for. If an seo filter was being applied, they wouldn't have been listed at all.
People noticed that the filter was being applied to some searchterms but not to others, so they decided that Google is maintaining a list of searchterms to apply the filter to. I never liked that idea because it doesn't make sense. If Google can apply a filter to one search on-the-fly, it can apply it to all searches on-the-fly.
Another idea that has taken hold is that Google have implemented LocalRank. LocalRank is a method of modifying the rankings based on the interconnectivity between the pages that have been selected to be ranked. I.e. pages in the selected set, that are linked to from other pages in the selected set, are ranked more highly. (Google took out a patent on LocalRank earlier this year). But this idea cannot be right. A brief study of LocalRank shows that the technique does not drop pages from the results. It merely rearranges them a bit.
It was noticed that many search results were biased towards information pages, and commercial pages were either dropped or moved down the rankings. From this sprang the theory that Google is maintaining a list of 'money-words', and modifying the rankings of searches that are done for those words, so that informative pages are displayed rather than commercial ones.
Google sells advertising, and the ads are placed on the search results pages. Every time a person clicks on one of the ads, Google gets paid by the advertiser. "

Conclusion: every effect that the Florida update has caused can be attributed to a Hilltop-type, expert-based system.

I can see flaws in every theory that has been put forward thus far. The flaw in the seo filter idea is that there are highly SEOed pages still ranking in the top 10 for searchterms that they should have been filtered out for. The flaw in the LocalRank theory is that LocalRank doesn't drop pages, but a great many pages have been dropped. The flaw in the list of searchterms is that if a filter can be applied to one searchterm, it can be applied to them all, so why bother maintaining a list. The flaw in the money-words list idea is that, if it ever came out that they were doing it, Google would run the risk of going quickly downhill. I just don't believe that the people at Google are that stupid.

The expert-system, or something like it, accounts for every effect that we see. I am convinced that this is what Google rolled out in the Florida update. Having said that, I must also add that it is still a theory

What next: then the first thing to realise is that the system cannot deal with all searchterms, so targeting non-generalised and lesser search terms, using the usual search engine optimization basics, will still work.

For more generalised searchterms, the page needs to be linked to by multiple expert pages that are unaffiliated with the page. By "unaffiliated" I mean that they must reside on servers with different IP C block addresses than each other and than the target page, and their URLs must not use the same domain name as each other or as the target page. These expert pages can either be found and links requested or they can be created.