Google Revises Their Spam Policy Documentation
Google’s revised spam policy documentation features more detailed information, clearer explanations, and enhanced comprehensibility.
Google has revised their spam guidelines, introducing a new definition for site reputation abuse as the most significant change, along with more details on the consequences of manual actions. The final updates involve a content refresh designed to make the documentation clearer and more concise. Comprehending these alterations can offer insights into how you can efficiently refresh your content.
What's Different
Approximately eight types of changes have been implemented in the documentation to enhance its content. Those are seven methods to refresh older content.
These kinds of adjustments were made:
- More Information About Site Reputation Abuse
- New Details About Manual Action Consequences
- Changed Concept Of Thin Affiliate To Thin Affiliation
- More Appropriate Introductory Sentence
- Consolidation Of Words: Practices & Spam Practices
- Added The Concept Of Spam Abuse
- Improved Conciseness In General
- Improved Topic: Machine-Generated Traffic
Additional Details Regarding Abuse of Site Reputation
Site reputation abuse is defined as when a third party posts content on a reputable website “with little or no first-party oversight,” according to the prior documentation. However, the meaning of “first-party oversight” was not provided, thus a new definition was added in the spam documentation.
“Close oversight or involvement is when the first-party hosting site is directly producing or generating unique content (for example, via staff directly employed by the first-party, or freelancers working for staff of the first-party site). It is not working with third-party services (such as “white-label” or “turnkey”) that focus on redistributing content with the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings.”
Additional Details Regarding Abuse of Site Reputation
Site reputation abuse is defined as when a third party posts content on a reputable website “with little or no first-party oversight,” according to the prior documentation. However, the meaning of “first-party oversight” was not provided, thus a new definition was added in the spam documentation.
New Information Regarding the Effects of Manual Action Google clarified in a new phrase that violating Google’s spam policies can have more severe repercussions, such as having more parts of a website removed from the search results. While this is fresh information, the result is not.
The latest information regarding a website that persists in spamming is as follows:
“…and taking broader action in Google Search (for example, removing more sections of a site from Search results).”
This is an illustration of updating content by including new details that were omitted from the first draft.
Concept of Thin Affiliate Was Modified to Thin Affiliation
Google added a definition of “Thin affiliation” and renamed the part on “Thin affiliate pages” to “Thin affiliation.”
This is how the first iteration of the thin affiliate page article began:
“Thin affiliate pages are pages with product affiliate links…”
The new version starts like this:
“Thin affiliation is the practice of publishing content with product affiliate links…”
A More Fitting Opening Sentence
The first line was enhanced by Google’s documentation since it was better suited for the subject’s context. It clarifies what spam is now. The previous introduction sentence becomes the second sentence instead of being replaced by the new one.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
The initial sentence of introduction:
“Our spam policies help protect users and improve the quality of search results.”
New introductory sentence:
“In the context of Google Search, spam is web content that’s designed to deceive users or manipulate our Search systems in order to rank highly. Our spam policies help protect users and improve the quality of search results.”
As would be expected for documentation on spam, the new version begins with a definition of spam.
Word Consolidation: Techniques & Spam Techniques
The samples below demonstrate how Google combined synonyms for the same term (spam) into a single sentence that highlights the phrase “spam practices.”
With this modification, terms like “forms of spam” and “content and behaviors” are combined into the more straightforward terms “practices” and “spam practices.” I’m not sure why Google changed this, but stuff is easier to understand when terminology is used consistently.
The terms “practices” and “spam practices” are highlighted in the following examples:
1. A more condensed version of the second paragraph has been included.
This:
“We detect policy-violating content and behaviors both through automated systems….”
Is now this:
“We detect policy-violating practices…”
The sentence becomes easier to understand. <— This is important.
2. Around the fourth paragraph:
This:
“Our policies cover common forms of spam, but Google may act against any type of spam we detect.”
Becomes this:
“Our policies cover common spam practices, but Google may act against any type of spam practices we detect.”
Although the newly added sentence is somewhat repetitive, it does demonstrate a deliberate attempt to group related activities into a single activity category.
Idea Of Abuse By Spam
The next modification is to make more references to “abuse” in the updated spam policies. The term “abuse” refers to detrimental behavior. Google might be using the term in relation to SEO because it refers to a practice that purposefully misleads users and search engines.
The word appears 17 times in the new edition compared to 11 times in the old one. Although it’s a small adjustment, it greatly strengthens the idea that spam is an abuse.
Here are two examples of how Google added the concept of abuse:
- The word “doorways” is now “doorway abuse”
- The phrase “Hidden text and links” is now Hidden text and links abuse”
There are other changes to the documentation where they add the word “abuse” and what’s interesting about that is this is a change to how a concept (abuse) is introduced to make a series of seemingly different things related. This helps reader comprehension because “hidden text” and “doorways” are now connected to each other in the concept of “abuse” in the sense of spam.
Improved Conciseness
Another change which should always be considered in a content refresh is to make phrases more concise.
Google changed the following text:
“Google uses links as a factor in determining the relevancy of web pages. Any links that are intended to manipulate rankings in Google Search results may be considered link spam. This includes any behavior that manipulates links to your site or outgoing links from your site.”
It’s now significantly shorter:
“Link spam is the practice of creating links to or from a site primarily for the purpose of manipulating search rankings.”
Significant distinction, huh? I truly appreciate that adjustment since it suggests that someone read the original three sentences and thought about the main idea that was intended to be conveyed through them.
There is a lot of information in the first three sentences that isn’t particularly memorable. An excellent technique to approach a content rewrite is to ask yourself if a sequence of sentences communicates as intended. Simply read it and ask yourself, “What does this mean?,” and if the response is shorter, you might want to consider substituting that line for this one.
Improved Topic Communication: Machine-Generated Traffic
The following modification significantly enhances the section on machine-generated traffic by eliminating a portion that focused on Google and instead emphasizing the concept of machine-generated traffic.
These sentences:
“Machine-generated traffic consumes resources and interferes with our ability to best serve users. Examples of automated traffic include:”
Are now this:
“Machine-generated traffic (also called automated traffic) refers to the practice of sending automated queries to Google. This includes scraping…”
The section regarding resource use remains, however it has been shifted to the end of that section.
In other places in the documentation, two sentences have been condensed into a single, more clear, and brief statement.
For instance, one sentence that specifies misleading functionality is used in place of two in the section regarding misleading functionality:
“Misleading functionality refers to the practice of…”
The section about Scraped Content replaced three long sentences with a sentence that defines what scraped content is:
“Scraping refers to the practice of taking content from other sites…”
Updated Content vs. Rewritten
The improved spam documentation is a gradual refresh with some new material rather than a complete rewriting. It offers tips on how to improve your own material by incorporating fresh features and streamlining and clarifying already-existing content.
