Google has issued new clarification for its site reputation abuse policy, launched earlier this year. It targets “parasite SEO” practices where websites leverage established domains to manipulate search rankings through third-party content.
Chris Nelson from the Google Search Quality team states:
“We’ve heard very clearly from users that site reputation abuse – commonly referred to as ‘parasite SEO’ – leads to a bad search experience for people, and today’s policy update helps to crack down on this behavior.”
Policy Clarification
The updated policy states that using third-party content to exploit a site’s ranking signals violates Google’s guidelines, regardless of first-party involvement or oversight.
This clarification comes after Google’s review of various business arrangements, including white-label services, licensing agreements, and partial ownership structures.
The updated policy language states:
“Site reputation abuse is the practice of publishing third-party pages on a site in an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals.”
Policy Details
What’s A Violation?
Google outlines several examples of policy violations, including:
- Educational sites hosting third-party payday loan reviews
- Medical sites publishing unrelated content about casino reviews
- Movie review sites featuring content about social media services
- Sports websites hosting third-party supplement reviews without editorial oversight
- News sites publishing coupon content from third parties without proper involvement
What’s Not A Violation?
Google acknowledges there’s a difference between abusive practices and legitimate third-party content.
Acceptable examples include:
- Wire service and syndicated news content
- User-generated content on forum websites
- Editorial content with close host site involvement
- Properly disclosed advertorial content
- Standard advertising units and affiliate links
Background
Enforcement of the site reputation abuse policy began in May.
The rollout is having a notable impact in the news and publishing industry, as documented by Olga Zarr.
Major organizations, including CNN, USA Today, and LA Times, were among the first to receive manual penalties, primarily for hosting third-party coupons and promotional content.
Glenn Gabe shared early observations:
Here's another example. The query "uber promos codes" yielded CNN as #2 yesterday and Fortune at #4. Both are now gone. I can't even find them. Wow. pic.twitter.com/0Oc48ggYeh
— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) May 6, 2024
The recovery process has shown clear patterns: sites that removed offending content or implemented noindex tags on affected sections have started seeing their manual actions lifted. However, ranking recovery takes time as Google’s crawlers need to process these changes.
BTW, here's a site that never dropped (must have slipped through the cracks when manual actions were sent out). But, they noindexed the coupons directory recently anyway. The site actually surges when others drop out due to manual actions. But again, that content is noindexed… pic.twitter.com/6lz8umfeBl
— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) May 11, 2024
Early Impact Reported
Major publishers are already experiencing the impact of Google’s updated site reputation abuse policy, with several high-profile websites receiving manual actions just days before Black Friday.
Glenn Gabe confirms that manual actions for “Site reputation abuse” are being issued, affecting properties like CNN Underscored and WSJ Buyside. “Just 10 urls indexed,” Gabe notes regarding CNN Underscored’s current status.
Lily Ray reports that Forbes Advisor has been significantly impacted, with entire folders penalized and deindexed, including their health section. The timing is particularly notable, just before the crucial Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping period.
Ray observes:
“Pretty wild how Google waited until days before Black Friday & Cyber Monday to issue Site Reputation Abuse manual actions, after ~7 months of warning & no action,” . “Affected sites were all preparing for their biggest week of the year right now.”
Analysis by Aleyda Solis reveals that more publishers’ review sections have seen drops in organic search traffic and rankings.
According to Solis, USA Today’s “Reviewed”, Newsweek’s Vault, and The Sun UK’s Shopping section have all experienced declines in visibility. These sections cover various topics, from financial advice and product reviews to fashion and technology.
Interestingly, not all publishers have been affected equally. Solis notes that The New York Times’ Wirecutter and The Telegraph’s “Recommended” section have seen little to no impact, with Wirecutter even experiencing increased organic search traffic recently.
Who’s Winning in the Wake of These Changes?
Solis’ analysis reveals that the sites benefiting most from these shifts are:
- Specialized review and comparison sites like NerdWallet, Bankrate, GoCompare, and MoneySupermarket
- Online retailers such as Amazon and Target
- Brand websites like Apple and Stanley
- Government sites, including the IRS and GOV.UK
- User-generated content platforms, particularly Reddit, followed by YouTube, Instagram, and Quora (more so in the US than in the UK)
These findings suggest that Google’s update may favor sites more focused on a specific niche or those with a strong brand presence and authority.
Don’t Move Penalized Content
Google warns against moving content that has been hit by a site reputation abuse manual action to a new location to circumvent the penalty. This falls under Google’s policy against “policy circumvention.”
The policy specifically calls out:
“(1) Using existing or creating new subdomains, subdirectories, or sites with the intention of continuing to violate our policies (2) Using other methods intended to continue distributing content or engaging in a behavior that aims to violate our policies”
Some publishers, like Forbes, have clarified that moving specific content folders happened before the site reputation abuse policy went into effect and was unrelated to attempting to avoid penalties.
However, if the content violates guidelines, Google may still view such moves skeptically.
Moving forward, site owners found in violation will receive notifications through Search Console and can submit reconsideration requests.
While enforcement currently relies on manual actions, Google has indicated plans for algorithmic updates to automate the detection and demotion of site reputation abuse in the future.
Is Google Overstepping?
Google’s recent crackdown on site reputation abuse has sparked debate in the SEO community.
Critics argue that penalizing sites based on business models rather than content quality is excessive.
There’s a call for Google to focus on content’s actual helpfulness and relevance rather than monetization methods. Some high-quality content may have been unfairly penalized due to algorithm limitations.
If content adds real value, should it be suppressed based on how the publisher profits? Many believe no. Google should improve its ability to recognize and reward quality content without unfairly punishing legitimate publishers.
Featured Image: JarTee/Shutterstock
