Tuesday, November 19, 2024<\/p>\n
\n Earlier this year<\/a>, as part of our \n Since launching the policy, we’ve reviewed situations where there might be varying degrees of \n We’re clarifying our policy language to further target this type of spammy behavior. \n Site reputation abuse is the practice of publishing third-party pages on a site in an attempt \n When evaluating for policy violations, we take into account many different considerations \n It’s important to note that not all third-party content violates this policy. We go into detail \n Aside from site reputation abuse issues, we also have systems and methods designed to \n Our efforts to understand differences in sections of sites can lead to traffic changes if \n This clarification to our site reputation abuse policy will help surface the most useful search \n Third-party content is content created by a separate entity than the host site. Examples of \n No, having third-party content alone is not a violation of the site reputation abuse policy. It’s \n No, while freelance content is third-party content, freelance content alone is not a violation of \n No, the policy is not about targeting affiliate content. The \n This is when third-party content is being placed on an established site to take advantage of that \n No. You still need to reply to the manual action in Search Console and explain that the content \n Maybe, but it depends on where you move it to:\n<\/p>\n \n Remember if you move content, you need to also submit a reconsideration request to remove the \n If you move content that received a manual action, you shouldn’t redirect URLs<\/a> \n If you link from the old site to the new site, make use of the
\n work to fight spam and deliver a great Search experience, we launched a spam policy to combat
\n site reputation abuse<\/a>.
\n This is a tactic where third-party content is published on a host site in an attempt to take
\n advantage of the host’s already-established ranking signals. The goal of this tactic is for
\n the content to rank better than it could otherwise on a different site, and leads to a bad
\n search experience for users.\n<\/p>\n
\n first-party involvement, such as cooperation with white-label services, licensing agreements,
\n partial ownership agreements, and other complex business arrangements. Our evaluation of numerous
\n cases has shown that no amount of first-party involvement alters the fundamental third-party
\n nature of the content or the unfair, exploitative nature of attempting to take advantage of the
\n host’s sites ranking signals.\n<\/p>\n
\n We’re making it clear that using third-party content on a site in an attempt to exploit the
\n site’s ranking signals is a violation of this policy — regardless of whether there is
\n first-party involvement or oversight of the content. Our updated policy language, effective
\n today, is:\n<\/p>\n
\n to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n (and we don’t simply take a site’s claims about how the content was produced at face value)
\n to determine if third-party content is being used in an abusive way. Site owners who receive a
\n spam manual
\n action<\/a> will be notified through their registered
\n Search Console<\/a>
\n account and can submit a
\n reconsideration
\n request<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\n on our spam policies page<\/a>
\n about what is and isn’t site reputation abuse.\n<\/p>\n
\n understand if a section of a site is independent or starkly different from the main content
\n of the site. By treating these areas as if they are standalone sites, it better ensures a
\n level playing field, so that sub-sections of sites don’t get a ranking boost just because of
\n the reputation of the main site. As we continue to work to improve these systems, this helps us
\n deliver the most useful information from a range of sites.\n<\/p>\n
\n sub-sections no longer benefit from
\n site-wide signals<\/a>.
\n This doesn’t mean that these sub-sections have somehow been demoted or are in violation of our
\n spam policies. It means we’re measuring them independently, even if they are located
\n within a site.\n<\/p>\n
\n results, combat manipulative practices, and ensure that all sites have an equal opportunity
\n to rank based on the quality of their content. We encourage site owners to familiarize
\n themselves with this updated policy and focus on building high-quality websites that prioritize
\n content created to benefit people, not to gain search engine rankings<\/a>.\n<\/p>\nFAQ<\/h2>\n
What is third-party content?<\/h3>\n
\n separate entities include users of that site, freelancers, white-label services, content created
\n by people not employed directly by the host site, and other examples listed in the
\n site reputation policy<\/a>.\n<\/p>\nDoes the use of any third-party content violate the site
\n reputation abuse policy?<\/h3>\n
\n only a violation if the content is being published in an attempt to
\n abuse search rankings<\/a> by taking advantage of the host site’s
\n ranking signals. Our policy page<\/a>
\n has examples of third-party content use that doesn’t violate the policy.\n<\/p>\nDoes freelance content violate the site reputation abuse policy?<\/h3>\n
\n the site reputation abuse policy. It is only a violation if there is ALSO<\/strong> an
\n attempt to abuse search rankings<\/a> by taking advantage of the
\n host site’s ranking signals.\n<\/p>\nDoes affiliate content violate the site reputation abuse policy?<\/h3>\n
\n documentation<\/a> about the policy
\n notes that affiliate links marked appropriately<\/a>
\n aren’t considered site reputation abuse.\n<\/p>\nWhat does it mean to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the
\n host site’s ranking signals?<\/h3>\n
\n site’s ranking signals — which the site has earned primarily from its first party content
\n — rather than placing the content on a separate site that lacks the same signals.\n<\/p>\nIf I
noindex<\/code><\/a>
\n the content, does that mean the manual action automatically gets removed?<\/h3>\n
\n has been noindexed. We recommend doing this rather than letting the manual action remain against
\n your site.\n<\/p>\nIf I move content that’s received a manual action to a new location, will
\n that resolve the site reputation abuse issue?<\/h3>\n\n
\n doesn’t resolve the underlying issue and may be viewed as an
\n attempt to circumvent<\/a>
\n our spam policy, which may lead to broader actions against a site in Google Search.\n <\/li>\n
\n issue for the site it was removed from, as the site reputation of that site is no longer being
\n abused. However, it may introduce a site reputation abuse issue to the site the content is moved
\n to if the established site has its own reputation and the third-party nature is unchanged.\n <\/li>\n
\n domain has no established reputation and you follow our
\n spam policies<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n manual action.\n<\/p>\nIf I move policy-violating content, can I redirect from the old site to the new site?<\/h3>\n
\n from the old site to the new site, as this may introduce the site reputation abuse issue again.\n<\/p>\nIf I move policy-violating content, can I link from the old site to the new site?<\/h3>\n
\n nofollow<\/code> attribute<\/a>
\n for those links on the old site.\n<\/p>\n