Google updated their spam policy to reflect changes to their Site Reputation abuse policy. The biggest change is that manual actions for site reputation abuse are phased out and replaced with a different system for sites in the European Economic Area (EEA). The new guidance removes examples of site reputation abuse and replaces them with more detailed examples of how Google identifies site reputation abuse, including four site reputation abuse factors.
Google trimmed their list of site reputation abuse examples and left a note that the list was not exhaustive and that they may not take actions on some instances.
This is the new wording on that topic:
“These examples are non-exhaustive. There will be other instances where we don’t take action.”
Quality Changes On A website
The next change is interesting because it gives some insight into how Google determines whether site reputation abuse content is affecting the quality of a site. The main insight is that Google presumes that new pages added to a site will have the same general quality as all the other pages. It also says that the response will vary depending on the location of the website.
This is some of the newly added content to the site reputation policy:
“Google generally applies a presumption that individual pages (including new pages) match the overall quality of other pages on the domain.
If we detect that a portion of your site may be out of line with this policy, a site will be subject to human review. As part of this review, if the site is found to be inconsistent with the policy, the consequences for the way the site’s pages appear in search results will vary depending on the location of users.”
Manual Actions Outside of European Economic Area (EEA)
The next part states that Google’s enforcement of this policy is becoming more granular in that pages outside of the European Economic Area (EEA) will only drop off the search results to users that are outside of the EEA.
The new policy is explained:
“Outside the EEA: If a site is found to be out of line with this policy, the relevant pages may be subject to a manual action when they appear in Search results shown to users outside the EEA.”
Search Result Actions Inside The European Economic Area (EEA)
The next part covers manual actions to content that originates from within the EEA and notes that these pages will not be subject to manual actions.
This part reads:
“Within the EEA:
When pages appear in Search results shown to users within the EEA, the relevant pages may be categorized as separate from the main domain but won’t be subject to the impact of manual action. Additionally, users in the EEA will be able to mediate their disputes with Google.This will allow the different parts of the site to rank independently of each other, on their own merits. This ensures that content is ranked in a consistent way against other content of the same nature (for example, casino content ranks against other casino content), so that users get the best possible results for their query.
If your site is affected in this way, we will notify you in the Manual actions report and in the Search Console message center. All sites will have the opportunity to address this issue or appeal via a reconsideration request.
Eligible sites will, following the reconsideration request, also have the opportunity to bring disputes to mediation.”
More Detailed Guidance
Google also published a new section titled “More Detailed Guidance” that explains that their goal is to determine whether content in a given section is created with enough input from the site that is hosting the content. Interestingly it says that human reviews are rare.
The new section explains:
“On the rare occasions where we perform a human review, our overarching goal is to determine whether content on the relevant portion of the site is created with sufficient input, editorial oversight, or contribution from the host site to be considered fully integrated with the main site. This ensures that a page’s rank reflects the way it is presented to and understood by users.
This review applies globally and takes into account a number of objective factors, aimed at understanding the degree to which the host domain exercises control over the page content.”
Four Site Reputation Abuse Factors
Google names four factors that are considered when a site undergoes a review for site reputation abuse. These new factors should prove useful to website owners, publishers, and SEOs who may want to understand how to avoid a site reputation abuse manual action.
These are the four new site reputation abuse factors:
- “How the content is presented, meaning are the graphic design, formatting, typography and UX features of the content consistent with the host domain?
- The quality of the content, meaning, are there quality issues present on the page that don’t appear on the main domain and otherwise suggest a departure from the standard of quality of the main domain?
- Its stated or implied authorship, meaning, is there an explicit acknowledgement of ownership or responsibility for the content? Are there indications that contest the stated authorship of the content?
- Does the content appear on multiple other sites in identical or near-identical form, meaning, the same identical or near-identical content appears on multiple other sites?”
Google’s new documentation explains that these four factors are not like a checklist where if some factors aren’t in evidence that it means the site is safe from a manual action. Google explains that it’s looking at the overall situation to determine if a third-part is exploiting the website for ranking purposes.
Unlikely To Take Manual Action
Google’s updated documentation provides two examples of site behavior that is unlikely to lead to a manual action for site reputation abuse.
Unlikely Manual Action: Coupons And Deals Example
Google then lists examples of how it would approach a determination. The first example is of a coupon site that likely will not result in a manual action.
The new documentation explains that it is unlikely to take action against a third-party coupons and deals section when the publisher has meaningfully integrated it into the website.
In this example, the publisher does the following:
- Organizes and curates the deals for its own audience.
- Clearly discloses the commercial partnership.
- Takes editorial responsibility for the section.
- Integrates it into the site’s navigation and other editorial content.
- Collaborates with the third party rather than simply publishing whatever the partner supplies.
- Gives users a way to report problems through the publisher.
The common point is that third-party involvement in itself is a problem. What does matter is whether the publisher is actively involved and responsible for integrating the content into the website.
Unlikely Manual Action: Affiliate Content Written By A Freelancer
The updated guidance says that Google is unlikely to take action against affiliate content written by a freelancer when the publisher has editorial oversight over the content and it is genuinely created specifically for that publication.
Google uses the example of a news site that’s expanding with a new cooking section that includes content written by a freelancer that’s interviewing celebrity chefs.
In this example, the publisher:
- Clearly identifies the freelancer as the author.
- Takes editorial responsibility for the content.
- Publishes primarily original material created for its own audience.
- Uses branding, formatting, and presentation consistent with the rest of the site.
- Clearly identifies the affiliate links.
- Can use a freelancer who also works for other publishers, as long as the specific content is tailored to the host publication rather than simply duplicated across sites.
Likely To Take Action
In this section of the documentation Google outlines a scenario where it is likely to take action. The trigger is when the publisher does not appear to exercise meaningful editorial control and the content is not genuinely integrated into the publication.
In this example, the article:
- Does not identify an author or responsible editor.
- Does not clearly disclose its commercial nature.
- Is not part of the publication’s normal editorial sections.
- Cannot be reached through the site’s main navigation or related sections.
- Does not match the publication’s usual presentation, UX, or quality.
- Duplicates content supplied by a third-party marketplace.
The main point is that Google is likely to take action in search results outside the EEA if the content is disconnected from the publisher’s editorial control, lacks clear editorial responsibility and disclosure, and is essentially copied from a third party.
Here is the exact wording:
“Likely to take action: unauthored affiliate article not integrated in publication
A globally recognized business publication hosts an article including links to a marketplace selling CBD oils. Neither the author of the article nor the responsible editor is identified, nor are there disclaimers about the commercial character of the content. The article isn’t part of any of the thematic sections of the publication, and no links or menu are available to reach the article from the main page or thematic sections of the publication. While the page is made available on a portion of the publisher’s main site, there is evidence that the specific article is purely duplicating the same content provided by a third-party digital marketplace illustrating such a product.
In this case, and without prejudice to any other policy that may be applicable, because the content is unrelated to the editorial sections of the publisher, and because the presentation, UX features, the quality don’t match the business publication, including appropriate disclaimer or marks of commercial character of the content, and authorship and the responsible editor are unclear, but rather content is copied from another site, we would likely take action for search results that appear outside the EEA.”
FAQ On EEA And Non-EEA Enforcement
Google’s updated guidance adds new FAQ section that explains that site reputation abuse enforcement will work differently in the EEA than outside it, and that pages in the EEA may instead be separated from the main domain and ranked more independently.
The new FAQ explains:
- Manual actions applied outside the EEA will not affect how the same content ranks within the EEA.
- Publishers do not have to noindex content that received a manual action outside the EEA.
- Google will remove previous EEA manual actions under this policy.
- Pages previously affected will not be disadvantaged because of their past manual-action status.
- In the EEA, Google may instead categorize a section as separate from the main domain.
- When that happens, Google stops assuming that those pages have the same overall quality as the rest of the domain.
- The section does not immediately lose all ranking signals associated with the main site, but Google says its systems can learn over time to rank it independently.
- The fact that Google has separated a section is itself not used as a ranking signal.
The big takeaway is that Google’s new spam policy is replacing manual penalties for site reputation abuse in the EEA with a system that can separate sections from the main website that are out of line with the policy and rank them on their own merits.
