Google Enforces Site Reputation Abuse Policy with Manual Actions

Intro

Google recently signaled that manual actions would be taken against websites hosting third-party content, and evidence of these actions is reportedly appearing in search results.

What Are Manual Actions?

A manual action occurs when a Google staff member reviews a website to determine if it breaches Google's spam policies. This often results in partial or complete removal from Google's search index. In some cases, the offending pages are entirely de-indexed, while in others, they're just prevented from ranking.

Site Reputation Abuse Manual Actions

Google's Search Liaison tweeted on May 6th that the company had started implementing its new site reputation abuse policy through manual actions. This policy targets websites hosting third-party content with minimal oversight, where the third-party leverages the host site's reputation to gain affiliate sales. For instance, a news website might host coupon code content produced by a third party.

Which Sites Are Affected?

While Google notifies the website publisher when a manual action is issued, it's not generally publicized. This makes it challenging to confirm which sites have been affected unless they've been entirely removed from Google's search index. If only some pages are missing, it's not definitive proof of a manual action.

SEO expert Aleyda Solis noticed that some prominent brands have recently disappeared from coupon-related search results. She tweeted screenshots comparing the rankings before and after Google's site abuse policy enforcement, highlighting brands like CNET, Glamour, Reuters, USA Today, and CNN, which still have coupon sections but are no longer ranking. Other sites, such as the LA Times, Time Magazine, and Wired, have removed their coupon pages.

Aleyda tweeted:

“Google has already started taking action for the new site reputation abuse policy 👀👇 See the before/after for many of the most popular “promo code(s)” queries:

• carhartt promo code
• postmates promo code
• samsung promo code
• godaddy promo code

Sites that were ranking before and not anymore:

• In Orange (with still existing coupon sections): Cnet, Glamour, Reuters, USA Today, CNN, Business Insider

• In Red (with removed coupon sections): LA Times, Time Magazine, Wired, Washington Post”

Solis didn't claim these sites were hit with manual actions but pointed out their absence in relevant search results.

Reuters Example

Reuters, which once ranked number one for "GoDaddy promo code," no longer holds that position. Although their coupon page remains in Google's index, it's not ranking anymore.

Before Google's policy update, Reuters clearly disclaimed involvement with the third-party content, stating: "Reuters was not involved in the creation of this content." After the policy update, they revised their disclaimer to emphasize oversight, which may suggest compliance with Google's spam policy. This raises questions about whether the disclaimer change was intended to show oversight and avoid punitive actions.

Did the Reuters GoDaddy Page Breach Google's Spam Policy?

Google's site reputation abuse policy identifies a lack of oversight of third-party content as a key characteristic of abuse. The policy defines it as "Site reputation abuse is when third-party pages are published with little or no first-party oversight or involvement…"

The current disclaimer on Reuters' GoDaddy page emphasizes that their newsroom staff weren't involved in the production of the coupon content but confirms that it was verified by their coupon team at Reuters Plus in collaboration with Upfeat. This assertion suggests compliance with Google's spam policy through first-party oversight.

This is the current disclaimer:

“The Reuters newsroom staff have no role in the production of this content. It was checked and verified by the coupon team of Reuters Plus, the brand marketing studio of Reuters, in collaboration with Upfeat.”

However, there was a different disclaimer before Google's new site reputation abuse policy came into effect, raising questions about whether Reuters adjusted its language to create the appearance of oversight.

Fact: Reuters Changed the Disclaimer

Before March 11, 2024, the disclaimer explicitly disavowed involvement with the third-party content, stating: "Reuters was not involved in the creation of this content." This disclaimer clearly indicated a lack of oversight.

After Google's policy announcement and its subsequent core update, Reuters altered the disclaimer to indicate greater involvement, stating: "The Reuters newsroom staff have no role in the production of this content. It was checked and verified by the coupon team of Reuters Plus, the brand marketing studio of Reuters, in collaboration with Upfeat."

This is what Google’s site reputation abuse policy says:

“Site reputation abuse is when third-party pages are published with little or no first-party oversight or involvement…”

And this is the March 11, 2024 disclaimer on the Reuters coupon page:

“Reuters was not involved in the creation of this content.”

This shift in messaging may suggest an attempt to align with Google's updated guidelines. However, it remains uncertain whether Reuters received a manual action but avoided having its pages fully removed from Google's search index. The altered disclaimer may have helped Reuters comply with Google's expectations, or the change might simply reflect an effort to safeguard against potential penalties.

Reuters Previously Denied Oversight of Third-Party Content

A screenshot of Reuters' previous disclaimer clearly showed that the organization disclaimed involvement with third-party coupon content. This disclaimer remained consistent until Google announced its new site reputation abuse policy and conducted a core update.

Previous Disclaimer on the GoDaddy Coupon Page (2023):

“This service is operated under license by Upfeat Media Inc. Retailers listed on this page are curated by Upfeat. Reuters editorial staff is not involved.”

This disclaimer distanced Reuters from any association with third-party content.

Post-Policy Change:

Reuters revised the disclaimer approximately a week after Google’s core update and site reputation abuse policy announcement. The new disclaimer indicates some level of oversight, likely to align with Google's updated policies.

Why the Change?

The timing of this disclaimer update raises questions. Did Reuters change its wording to give the appearance of oversight and thus comply with Google's new guidelines? If Reuters was found in violation, did they receive a manual action but manage to avoid a full removal from Google's search index? These questions remain open, but the change certainly suggests an effort to align with Google's stricter oversight expectations.

Manual Actions Impact

Manual actions can fully de-index a website or individual pages, but the impact on major brands like Reuters and others highlighted by Solis appears to be a ranking demotion instead. Whether this is directly linked to Google's policy enforcement or coincidental remains uncertain.