Google's mazey new Reputation Abuse policies seem to lead back to its own front door
Where does advertorial stop, and parasite SEO begin? Google's experts say "Do as we say, not as we do..."
Is it possible to willingly damage the reputation of your own site in order to attempt to increase your chances of making some extra revenue?
A resounding yes is obviously the answer - we know this has happened many, many times, either wittingly or unwittingly.
Yet ultimately such actions are the decision of the site owner, in whatever form that takes. Speaking directly, it is your reputation to besmirch and in a true commercial environment you live or die according to your own decisions.
Not so fast though.
That renowned arbiter of fair play, Google, has this week published its revised site reputation abuse policy - something which it has been background enforcing less publicly for some time.
To quote the document in defining such behaviour: "This is a tactic where third-party content is published on a host site in an attempt to take advantage of the host's already-established ranking signals".
It’s already hitting some very large sites very hard, as seen by SEO eagle-eye Glenn Gabe.
Err, isn't this, as one industry observer on LinkedIn noted "exactly what Google AdWords and Google AdSense are doing, taking advantage of sites with traffic to show their ads"?
Reading further into Google's spam policy documentation, examples given of such apparently egregious behaviour are:
A sports site hosting a page written by a third-party about "workout supplements reviews", where the main purpose of hosting the page is to manipulate search rankings
A medical site hosting a third-party page about "best casinos" that's designed primarily to manipulate search rankings by taking advantage of the medical site's ranking signals
Where does good old advertorial end, and "parasitic SEO" begin? Being that the advertising market is largely broken, if a medical site owner sees revenue in selling casino bumphery, then surely that is on them. If site users object, they can vote with their traffic and not bother with such sites. Likewise for a sports site, or any other site.
Being in possession of a YouTube premium subscription has made me ruminate on this already. I pay to not see adverts, and enjoy the benefits to my blood pressure that this provides.
However, nearly every single YT channel I subscribe to contains a short advertisement in their videos, usually voiced by the host or presenter. Whether these be for a VPN provider, a mobile gaming company, an "invest in gold" scheme or some dietary supplement, they're pretty standard now as creators seek to maximize their revenue outside of what Google-owned YouTube provides. They are easily overcome with the fast forward button.
Likewise, you would think, would be the case with the parasite SEO practices that Google is now going after. If you're looking up some education league tables from a reputable source, and you keep seeing advertorial site sections for Pay Day Loan schemes, then you can either ignore them, or take your eyeballs elsewhere.
If your commercial decisions trash your site's reputation and traffic, then surely it is your problem?
Ultimately, such a move limits the commercial space that site owners have to operate in, and Google have made it clear that even if first party production is involved in such content, then it will still be treated as spam and dealt with accordingly.
There's no special pleading either, as Lily Ray puts it, "basically, you can't say 'this isn't third party content because our own team is involved in the content creation/editing process.' This was an argument made by many sites involved in partnerships and white label relationships with external content providers."
It is no longer valid, according to Google.
This is from a company that spent the first half of the year surfacing Reddit and Quora content above everything else in search and crushing the traffic of long-established specialist sites. It's hard to see how such action has become a priority.
Nothing I have ever read in Google's official documentation has left me feeling I understand exactly what they require.
Such ambiguity suits them of course. It is necessary for them to offer the silhouette of a carrot, without actually providing a carrot.
It's hard to see the logic in this new stick they're beating site owners with, unless one is being cynical about Google wanting to control advertising under the guise of consumer protection.
Speaking of consumer protections, as a chaser to all this, the first inklings of what a possible Google break-up might look like were revealed this week, with suggestions that a first step will be the forced disbursement of the Chrome browser - a prodigious source of user and habits data to the company.
Speed up the pace of product development and new site launches with Glide Go, a pre-configured deployment of Glide CMS paired with a full-featured website hosted and managed by Glide.
Shift your focus to content and revenue while we manage the rest. Just add content and Go.
Request a demo to see Glide Go in action.
Draft AI Code of Practice open for feedback
Proposed US AI rules might be up in the air during the interregnum, but the EU is pushing on with its own. The bloc has released its first draft of a Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models, which outlines guidelines on transparency, copyright, risk management, and governance. Feedback is open until November 28th, and you can read more about it here.
Read
Bluesky: no user posts for AI training
After rapid growth following the US election, rising social star Bluesky pledged not to send user posts to generative AI training sets, and to protect user data from third-party scraping. Their stance to keep user posts from AI training - in contrast to rivals - sets an important precedent in the ongoing debate over data privacy and content ownership. Will this become its competitive advantage?
Read
Musk questions OpenAI as legal suits loom
The gloves are coming off in what's arguably the highest value question in business today: who "owns" OpenAI? Elon Musk comments on its shift from open source non-profit to a closed source for-profit organisation, placing Sam Altman's trustworthiness at the centre of his comments.
Watch
Election 2024: news traffic down, Substack and Axios up
News site traffic fell by 7.5% during the 2024 US election compared to 2020, highlighting the ongoing shift in news consumption habits. The rise of platforms like Substack and Axios indicates a growing demand for independent and niche journalism, while the decline of some outlets reflects changing audience preferences.
Read
Researchers reveal AI crackbots
It turns out that pairing chatbot AIs with a real physical robots is a recipe for disaster. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed RoboPAIR, an algorithm capable of jailbreaking robots powered by LLMs, allowing them to be manipulated into performing harmful actions. This study reveals a significant vulnerability in AI-driven systems - in this case robots, but in principle many other systems.
Read
AI Daisy to the rescue against scammers
Phone firm O2 has launched an AI chatbot granny called Daisy which combats phone scammers targeting the elderly by talking their hind legs off and boring them to the point they end the call empty handed.
Read
Biden's antitrust rush
As the Biden administration winds down, it is intensifying its antitrust actions against Big Tech. Despite facing challenges, there is little doubt the heightened scrutiny reflects rising concerns about monopolistic practices and their effects on consumers.
Read
OpenAI's continues content deals
OpenAI will pay $16 million annually to Dotdash Meredith to license its content for use in ChatGPT and other AI outputs. This deal is the latest in a series of deals of varying size with with major publishers, including Axel Springer and News Corp.
Read