Google Reputation Abuse: FAQ Clears Concerns

Google has released an FAQ to clarify its policy on site reputation abuse, addressing concerns and providing much-needed guidance for publishers. The new information outlines the rules regarding third-party content and offers advice on how publishers can recover from penalties related to site reputation issues.

One of the key highlights of the FAQ is that third-party content on its own does not violate Google’s policy. However, if this content is used to manipulate or exploit a site’s ranking signals, it can lead to violations. This distinction is important for publishers looking to avoid penalties for including third-party content on their sites.

In addition, Google has confirmed that simply moving penalised content to subdomains will not resolve violations. The safer option, according to the FAQ, is to use new domains to avoid further issues. This provides clarity for publishers considering how to recover from penalties without jeopardising their site’s reputation further.

Lastly, the FAQ clarifies that affiliate content, as long as it is properly marked, remains acceptable under Google’s policy. This reassurance ensures that publishers can continue to work with affiliates without fear of violating Google’s rules, as long as they follow the proper guidelines.

Google has released an FAQ to clarify its site reputation abuse policy, offering much-needed guidance for website owners and publishers. The updated FAQ aims to address common concerns about the management of third-party content and provides a clear recovery process for sites affected by violations. This new guidance is crucial for those trying to understand Google’s expectations and the actions they need to take to avoid penalties.

One of the key points covered in the FAQ is that third-party content in itself does not violate Google’s policy. It’s only when this content exploits a site’s ranking signals inappropriately that it becomes problematic. Google also highlights that simply moving penalised content to subdomains is not an effective fix, with new domains being a safer approach for those seeking to recover their rankings.

Additionally, the FAQ reassures publishers that properly marked affiliate content remains acceptable under the policy. This clarification provides publishers with more confidence in navigating affiliate marketing while adhering to Google’s guidelines. By offering this detailed explanation, Google aims to help site owners better understand how to maintain a healthy reputation and ensure their content is in line with search engine guidelines.

 

Breaking Down Third-Party Content Rules

Google aims to clarify what constitutes a violation of its site reputation abuse policy. The use of third-party content, in and of itself, does not present an issue.

A violation occurs when that content is used to exploit a site’s existing rankings. As Google explains:

“Having third-party content alone is not a violation of the site reputation abuse policy. It’s only a violation if the content is being published in an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals.”

This clarification is particularly important for publishers working with freelance writers, white-label services, external content creators, or user-generated content. Understanding this distinction helps ensure that third-party content does not violate Google’s guidelines when properly utilised.

Google defines third-party content as:

“Content created by a separate entity than the host site,” which includes “users of that site, freelancers, white-label services, and content created by people not employed directly by the host site.”

This definition highlights the broad scope of third-party content, encompassing a range of contributors who may not be directly affiliated with the host site. It’s crucial for publishers to recognise that this category includes not only user-generated content but also contributions from freelance writers, third-party services, and even white-label content providers. As many websites increasingly rely on external creators to help generate content, understanding the boundaries of third-party involvement can help ensure that all content remains compliant with Google’s policies. By adhering to these guidelines, publishers can maintain their site’s reputation and avoid potential penalties related to search ranking abuse.

 

Recovery Options: What Works & What Doesn’t

Publishers who are looking to resolve manual actions now have clearer guidelines on how to handle their content effectively.

What Not to Do:

It is important to avoid certain actions that could worsen the situation. For instance, publishers should refrain from moving content to subdirectories or subdomains. Additionally, redirecting URLs that have received penalties should be avoided, as this can create further complications. Simply moving content without appropriate documentation is also not advisable.

As stated in the FAQ:

“Moving content to a subdirectory or subdomain within the same site’s domain name: This doesn’t resolve the underlying issue and may be viewed as an attempt to circumvent our spam policy, which may lead to broader actions against a site in Google Search.”

However, Google also makes it clear that:

“Moving content to a new domain: This is far less likely to be an issue if the new domain has no established reputation and you follow our spam policies.”

What to Do:

Instead of attempting to bypass the issue through subdomains or subdirectories, publishers should consider moving content to new domains that do not already have a strong reputation. Furthermore, using “noindex” tags and submitting proper reconsideration requests are essential steps in the recovery process. Applying “nofollow” attributes for necessary cross-linking is also recommended to maintain compliance with Google’s guidelines.

 

Affiliate Content Gets Green Light

Good news for publishers: Google has confirmed that affiliate content is not impacted by the site reputation abuse policy.

The official documentation clarifies this point, stating:

“The policy is not about targeting affiliate content… Affiliate links marked appropriately aren’t considered site reputation abuse.”

In order to comply with the policy, publishers must ensure that their affiliate links are properly marked. This means that publishers can continue to generate revenue through legitimate affiliate marketing strategies, while still adhering to the new guidelines.

 

Technical Implementation Guidelines

For websites that are currently under manual action, Google has provided a clear set of technical requirements that need to be followed in order to successfully resolve the issue and remove the penalty.

It is essential to note that simply applying a noindex tag to the affected content will not automatically lift the penalty. Instead, the site owner or publisher must submit a reconsideration request via Search Console to properly address the issue and inform Google of the changes that have been made. This step is critical to initiating the process of penalty removal.

Moreover, Google emphasizes the importance of thoroughly documenting each action taken to resolve the issue. This includes detailing the steps taken to remove or modify the content in question. The documentation explicitly states:

“You still need to reply to the manual action in Search Console and explain that the content has been noindexed. We recommend doing this rather than leaving the manual action unresolved on your site.”

In addition to this, Google’s guidance also includes advice on how to handle linking between old and new sites. If there are links pointing from the original site to the new one, it is advised to apply the nofollow attribute to those links. This ensures that they do not pass any undue ranking signals or create further issues during the recovery process. By adhering to these steps, website owners can better navigate the manual action process and ensure compliance with Google’s policies, increasing their chances of successfully recovering from penalties.