Google has updated its spam policy on site reputation abuse. The change impacts penalty practices in Europe, and gives more clarity to publishers worldwide. Publishers with sections on their site featuring external content should take notice. The new guidelines detail what Google looks for. They also specify what practice it tends to overlook.
What Site Reputation Abuse Means
What is parasite SEO? Parasite or SEO abuse refers to practices where thirds parties publish content on the websites of others. The idea is to leverage a domain’s authority to gain prominence. A poor-quality page would not rank on its own. But when put on a respected domain it often succeeds. Google refers to this practice as site reputation abuse, and coupons, casino reviews and affiliate pages are typical examples of such content.
What Has Changed in Europe
Google has changed its enforcement of this spam policy in the European Economic Area (EEA). The change follows consultation with the European Commission. Starting from 30 August, manual actions will be applied differently, depending on the location. Outside the EEA, a manual action by Google will directly impact the ranking of the section. Elsewhere on the domain, nothing is changed. However, within the EEA, manual actions no longer impact rankings. Instead, Google may separate the given section on its systems. Over time, the affected section will start to be ranked on its own merit.
That said, some practices remain the same. For instance, search console notifications still allow site owners to identify manual actions. This gives them an opportunity to request reconsideration. Eligible website owners in the EEA can also take disputes to mediation. Google will also lift previous manual actions of this nature in the EEA.
How Google Assesses Site Quality
The way Google approaches such issues is worth knowing. Google generally assumes that any of the pages on a domain are representative of the quality of the entire domain. As such, new pages can often rank quickly and easily. But this can allow an SEO parasite to exploit a strong domain’s reputation. A weaker section can use the domain to outrank others. Google notes that human reviews of this spam issue are rare. But when they occur, the reviewers assess one primary aspect. This is whether the host site provides sufficient input, editorial oversight, or contribution to truly integrate the content as its own. The assessment is applied globally.
The Four Factors Google Weighs
Google has identified four factors for such reviews, although they do not apply in isolation.
- Presentation: Does the design, formatting, and UX match those of the host domain?
- Quality: Is the content significantly below that expected from the main domain?
- Authorship: Does the item explicitly name an author or assign responsibility?
- Duplication: Does the content duplicate elsewhere on the web?
Passing one test does not mean a site passes the spam test. Rather, Google will weigh up the entire situation. It will seek to identify if an outsider is piggybacking on the host’s reputation for rankings.
When Google Is Unlikely to Act
Not all third party practices are likely to be penalized by Google. The company gives two examples of situations where action is unlikely. The first is a coupons and deals section run in conjunction with a partner. The publisher arranges the deals for its audience. It makes the commercial nature of the section clear, and takes editorial responsibility. The section is also linked into the site’s navigation. Users can flag issues up to the publisher.
The second example is affiliate content written by a freelancer. Consider a news publication including a cooking section with interviews with celebrity chefs. The freelancer is attributed as the author. But the publisher retains responsibility, and clearly labels affiliate links. The content is unique, and matches the site’s presentation. A freelancer may also write for other publications, but the piece is crafted specifically for this publication. As such, it does not appear to be a generic article that has been republished across several domains.
The takeaway is that a third party’s involvement is not the issue. It is whether the content lacks true editorial oversight.
When Google Is Likely to Step In
Google provides an example of a situation where parasite SEO is likely to incur penalties. Consider a business publication, which includes an article about CBD oils. The page features a link to a marketplace. Several warning signs can be seen on this page.
- There is no author or editor named.
- There is no indication of the commercial nature of the article.
- The article is outside the usual sections of the publication.
- It is not linked to via the main navigation.
- Its presentation and quality do not match the publication’s standards.
- The text replicates content from a third party’s marketplace.
In this example, Google will be likely to take action against the ranking of this content, if it is outside the EEA. But in the short term, the content has no connection to the publication’s editorial responsibilities.
What the New FAQ Explains
Google has added a FAQ about how enforcement differs between regions. These are the key points.
- A manual action outside the EEA does not impact rankings within it.
- Publishers are not required to no-index content which has received a manual action.
- Pages which have received a manual action within the EEA will not be penalized.
- Google can treat a section as separate from the domain it is on.
- A section will not have all of the signals of the wider domain immediately applied to it.
- Separation in itself will not act as a ranking signal.
This helps honest publishers to recover their domain’s reputation. An SEO parasite has lost the benefit of the domain’s reputation.
What Site Owners Should Do Now
Publishers with sections on their sites featuring external content should audit them all now. Ask yourself this question. Would a reader believe that this content was genuinely created for this domain? If you are unsure, then changes should be made. Authors and editors should always be named, and affiliate links labelled. The section should be linked into the main navigation, and the design and quality should match the overall site.
Newcomers to publishing often wonder whether this practice still works. But cheap tricks on borrowed domains now come with greater risk. Sections with no editorial input risk losing their borrowed reputation. This can be via manual actions outside the EEA, and separation within the EEA.
The Bigger Takeaway
Google’s changes appear less dramatic than they first seem. Manual actions continue to be applied outside the EEA. But within it, Google now separates out weaker sections. Either way, the message is that content needs to earn its place on a domain. Those who ask what is parasite SEO can now see. It is all about content borrowing the reputation of a domain, without earning its place on it. Publishers which invest in good editorial oversight have little to fear. Those who rent out their domain’s reputation now face more risk. How Google reacts to its first cases will show how rigorously it will enforce this spam policy.
