[[["易于理解","easyToUnderstand","thumb-up"],["解决了我的问题","solvedMyProblem","thumb-up"],["其他","otherUp","thumb-up"]],[["没有我需要的信息","missingTheInformationINeed","thumb-down"],["太复杂/步骤太多","tooComplicatedTooManySteps","thumb-down"],["内容需要更新","outOfDate","thumb-down"],["翻译问题","translationIssue","thumb-down"],["示例/代码问题","samplesCodeIssue","thumb-down"],["其他","otherDown","thumb-down"]],[],[[["\u003cp\u003eGoogle's site reputation abuse policy combats using third-party content to unfairly boost rankings by exploiting a host site's established signals.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eRegardless of first-party involvement, leveraging third-party content to manipulate search rankings violates this policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eGoogle's systems now evaluate site sections independently, potentially impacting traffic if sub-sections previously benefited from site-wide signals.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eUtilizing third-party content isn't inherently a violation; it becomes one when used to exploit the host site's ranking for better search results.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eSite owners should focus on creating high-quality, user-centric content instead of manipulating search rankings for better placement.\u003c/p\u003e\n"]]],["Google is clarifying its site reputation abuse policy, effective November 19, 2024. The policy targets third-party content published to exploit a host site's ranking signals, regardless of first-party involvement. Actions against violations include manual actions and notifications via Search Console. The content also details that while not all third party content violates the policy, sub-sections of websites that differ significantly may be treated as standalone sites. Finally, it describes best practices for website owners who have received manual actions.\n"],null,["# Updating our site reputation abuse policy\n\nTuesday, November 19, 2024\n\n\nEarlier this [year](/search/blog/2024/03/core-update-spam-policies), as part of our\nwork to fight spam and deliver a great Search experience, we launched a spam policy to combat\n[site reputation abuse](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation).\nThis is a tactic where third-party content is published on a host site in an attempt to take\nadvantage of the host's already-established ranking signals. The goal of this tactic is for\nthe content to rank better than it could otherwise on a different site, and leads to a bad\nsearch experience for users.\n\n\nSince launching the policy, we've reviewed situations where there might be varying degrees of\nfirst-party involvement, such as cooperation with white-label services, licensing agreements,\npartial ownership agreements, and other complex business arrangements. Our evaluation of numerous\ncases has shown that no amount of first-party involvement alters the fundamental third-party\nnature of the content or the unfair, exploitative nature of attempting to take advantage of the\nhost's sites ranking signals.\n\n\nWe're clarifying our policy language to further target this type of spammy behavior.\nWe're making it clear that using third-party content on a site in an attempt to exploit the\nsite's ranking signals is a violation of this policy --- regardless of whether there is\nfirst-party involvement or oversight of the content. Our updated policy language, effective\ntoday, is:\n\u003e 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.\n\n\nWhen evaluating for policy violations, we take into account many different considerations\n(and we don't simply take a site's claims about how the content was produced at face value)\nto determine if third-party content is being used in an abusive way. Site owners who receive a\n[spam manual\naction](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175) will be notified through their registered\n[Search Console](https://search.google.com/search-console/about)\naccount and can submit a\n[reconsideration\nrequest](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175).\n\n\nIt's important to note that not all third-party content violates this policy. We go into detail\non our [spam policies page](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation)\nabout what is and isn't site reputation abuse.\n\n\nAside from site reputation abuse issues, we also have systems and methods designed to\nunderstand if a section of a site is independent or starkly different from the main content\nof the site. By treating these areas as if they are standalone sites, it better ensures a\nlevel playing field, so that sub-sections of sites don't get a ranking boost just because of\nthe reputation of the main site. As we continue to work to improve these systems, this helps us\ndeliver the most useful information from a range of sites.\n\n\nOur efforts to understand differences in sections of sites can lead to traffic changes if\nsub-sections no longer benefit from\n[site-wide signals](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide).\nThis doesn't mean that these sub-sections have somehow been demoted or are in violation of our\nspam policies. It means we're measuring them independently, even if they are located\nwithin a site.\n\n\nThis clarification to our site reputation abuse policy will help surface the most useful search\nresults, combat manipulative practices, and ensure that all sites have an equal opportunity\nto rank based on the quality of their content. We encourage site owners to familiarize\nthemselves 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](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content).\n\nFAQ\n---\n\n### What is third-party content?\n\n\nThird-party content is content created by a separate entity than the host site. Examples of\nseparate entities include users of that site, freelancers, white-label services, content created\nby people not employed directly by the host site, and other examples listed in the\n[site reputation policy](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation).\n\n### Does the use of any third-party content violate the site\nreputation abuse policy?\n\n\nNo, having third-party content alone is not a violation of the site reputation abuse policy. It's\nonly a violation if the content is being published in an attempt to\n[abuse search rankings](#abuse-search-rankings) by taking advantage of the host site's\nranking signals. Our [policy page](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation)\nhas examples of third-party content use that doesn't violate the policy.\n\n### Does freelance content violate the site reputation abuse policy?\n\n\nNo, while freelance content is third-party content, freelance content alone is not a violation of\nthe site reputation abuse policy. It is only a violation if there is **ALSO** an\nattempt to [abuse search rankings](#abuse-search-rankings) by taking advantage of the\nhost site's ranking signals.\n\n### Does affiliate content violate the site reputation abuse policy?\n\n\nNo, the policy is not about targeting affiliate content. The\n[documentation](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation) about the policy\nnotes that affiliate links [marked appropriately](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/qualify-outbound-links)\naren't considered site reputation abuse.\n\n### What does it mean to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the\nhost site's ranking signals?\n\n\nThis is when third-party content is being placed on an established site to take advantage of that\nsite'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\n### If I [`noindex`](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/block-indexing)\nthe content, does that mean the manual action automatically gets removed?\n\n\nNo. You still need to reply to the manual action in Search Console and explain that the content\nhas been noindexed. We recommend doing this rather than letting the manual action remain against\nyour site.\n\n### If I move content that's received a manual action to a new location, will\nthat resolve the site reputation abuse issue?\n\n\nMaybe, but it depends on where you move it to:\n\n- **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](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#policy-circumvension) our spam policy, which may lead to broader actions against a site in Google Search.\n- **Moving content to another established site**: This will resolve the site reputation abuse issue for the site it was removed from, as the site reputation of that site is no longer being abused. However, it may introduce a site reputation abuse issue to the site the content is moved to if the established site has its own reputation and the third-party nature is unchanged.\n- **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](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies).\n\n\nRemember if you move content, you need to also submit a reconsideration request to remove the\nmanual action.\n\n### If I move policy-violating content, can I redirect from the old site to the new site?\n\n\nIf you move content that received a manual action, you shouldn't [redirect URLs](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/301-redirects)\nfrom the old site to the new site, as this may introduce the site reputation abuse issue again.\n\n### If I move policy-violating content, can I link from the old site to the new site?\n\n\nIf you link from the old site to the new site, make use of the\n[`nofollow` attribute](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/qualify-outbound-links)\nfor those links on the old site.\n\nPosted by [Chris Nelson](/search/blog/authors/chris-nelson)\non behalf of the Google Search Quality team\n\n*** ** * ** ***\n\nUpdates\n-------\n\n- **Update on December 6, 2024** : Added [FAQs](#faq) to address some new questions we've had come in from site owners about our site reputation abuse policy.\n- **Update on January 21, 2025** : Based on feedback on the FAQ, we updated the [site reputation abuse policy](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation) language and [manual actions report documentation](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175#site-reputation-abuse&zippy=%2Csite-reputation-abuse) to include guidance from the FAQ. These are editorial changes to make the policy wording clearer; there's no substantive change to the policy itself."]]