Navigating Google’s site reputation abuse policy: What publishers need to know

Google’s controversial site reputation abuse policy certainly ruffled a few feathers since its rollout last year.

• Some publishers, like Forbes, blame the policy for forcing devastating decisions in newsrooms – like the firing of all freelance journalists.
• Others argue that it’s yet another example of Google “abusing its dominant market position” to dictate how websites can and cannot generate revenue in an already fiercely competitive industry.

Well, like it or not, the policy is here to stay.

That’s why publishers must fully understand what is and isn’t allowed – and what Google is actually trying to achieve – before making any drastic decisions.

Acting too quickly without a clear grasp of the rules could do more harm than good and, in some cases, even put the jobs of journalists at risk. 

At a recent Association for Online Publishing (AOP) meetup in London, Google Search Liaison Danny Sullivan addressed these concerns and set out to clarify the policy.

What is site reputation abuse?

Are you still some confused about what site reputation abuse actually is?

Simply put, it’s when a site tries to take advantage of the ranking signals it’s earned primarily through first-party content by suddenly hosting significantly more third-party content to boost search traffic.

Instead of ranking on its own merit, this third-party content piggybacks on the reputation the site has earned through its first-party content, giving it an unfair advantage in search results.

Just to clarify, Google doesn’t have an issue with publishers using third-party content if that’s how your authority was built.

However, if your site ranks well for shopping queries due to historical first-party efforts (like staff writers), and you then flood your site with third-party shopping content simply because you see it as “low-hanging fruit,” that’s when Google will probably raise its eyebrows.

For instance:

• If a news site known for quality travel content – written both in-house and by third parties – hires a freelancer to write about the best cruises for families (even with affiliate links), that’s fine.
• However, if a respected business news publisher, known for its in-house stock market and financial reporting, starts covering gaming and assigns a freelancer to write this content, that could violate Google’s policy.
• If the same publisher were to task in-house writers with the exact same content, it would be acceptable.

How can I check if my content is violating Google’s policy?

The key is to determine whether you’re manipulating your site’s authority to boost third-party content that probably wouldn’t rank on its own.

If you’re unsure whether content you’ve commissioned is site reputation abuse, ask yourself:

• Have I always used freelancers for this topic, or is this a recent change? 
• Am I now relying more heavily on third-party content than before?
• Am I providing useful, trustworthy information that serves user intent, or am I chasing search traffic for “easy wins?”
• Would this content rank well on its own, or does it only perform because it’s on my site?
• Do my readers expect in-house expertise on this topic? 
• Would my audience be confused or disappointed to see third-party writers covering this rather than my in-house writers?

If your answers raise red flags, it might be time to rethink your strategy. 

Are freelance writers ‘third parties’?

Google classifies freelance journalists as third parties. Even if they write the content in your office, and the article is assigned and edited personally by you before publishing, it’s still considered third-party content.

Essentially, any source that isn’t a permanent employee is a third party.

That said, not all freelance content is automatically a violation of Google’s site reputation abuse policy, Sullivan emphasized.

The issue only arises when you assign content to freelancers on a grander scale, knowing it will rank well regardless of the authority your site has built historically through first-party work. 

Freelance content itself does not violate the site reputation abuse policy, nor does the policy single out specific freelance writers. Enforcement is based on a site’s overall behavior, not individual contributors.

When a penalty is issued, it applies to the site – not the writer. This means that if a piece of content leads to a manual penalty on one site, it does not automatically impact the writer’s work on other sites.

If you want to maintain flexibility with third-party content and avoid violating this policy, the best approach is to build authority using both in-house and freelance contributions from the very beginning.

Are centralized writing teams an issue?

In an effort to streamline operations, many news publishers now have centralized teams of writers, picture editors, and sub-editors who work across multiple sites. This can lead to the same author bylines appearing on different publications, which some fear may signal to external parties like Google that these writers are freelancers rather than staff. 

Despite some speculation, there is no list of freelancers that could trigger a site reputation abuse action. Instead, Google relies on a human review of your content to determine if there’s a policy violation.

All site reputation abuse actions are handled manually. 

There has been some debate within the SEO community about whether the site reputation abuse penalty is now algorithmic. However, Sullivan confirmed that it is still not the case. While this will eventually change, that specific update is not yet in the works.

Do staff writers rank better than freelancers?

This question was debated during the AOP meeting, and there may be some truth to the theory – but not because Google intentionally penalises freelance writers. It’s more about expertise.

Put yourself in the searcher’s shoes for a moment.

If you’re a new parent looking for reviews on baby car seats before making a purchase, what would you find more helpful: a review written by a trusted parenting editor you’re familiar with who has personally tested the car seat, or one by a freelance sports writer that you are unfamiliar with?

Exactly.

Now, if you were Google, which review would you prioritize in your search results?

Too often, we focus on what’s best for Google, when really, we should be asking what’s best for the reader.

When content serves user intent, better rankings should naturally follow. 

Is Google putting limitations on publishers?

Google isn’t saying your site can’t branch out into new topics or subtopics. In fact, during an interview with Aleyda Solis, Sullivan said quite the opposite:

• “If you are a small independent website and you start branching out into other things and you’re doing good work, you wouldn’t want the ranking system to say ‘I’m sorry, you started here, so you can never go there – or you started out as this publication and so that’s how it always has to be. Nothing is like that in the world. Nothing is static. It’s not a good thing for a search engine to say ‘you can only ever be successful in this area’.”

The site reputation abuse policy does not analyze what a site is known for in terms of coverage. It looks at whether you are known for first- or third-party content. 

If you’re a publisher wanting to branch into new topics with freelancers but don’t have a history of using them, your best bet might be to do this on a new site. Because a new domain wouldn’t have an established reputation from first-party content, this approach wouldn’t violate Google’s policy, allowing you to build authority organically with third-party content from scratch.

Manual actions: What to expect and how to recover

Like all of us, news publishers would appreciate a heads-up from Google before receiving a manual action. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works, and Sullivan explained that’s not going to change.

If Google determines that your site is breaking its rules, it will be penalized.

If you receive a manual action for site reputation abuse, you have several options to choose from to recover:

• No-indexing the offending content to exclude the content from Search indexing.
• Move the offending content to a new domain.
• Rewrite the offending content as first-party-content. 

After doing any of the above, submit an appeal to get the penalty lifted.

Other methods, such as disallowing via robots.txt or using canonical tags won’t work, as Glenn Gabe has previously explained. 

Google’s priority: Serving users, not publishers

We won’t always agree with some of Google’s decisions, but I believe Google’s top priority is delivering the best search experience for users. Google makes money by selling ads.

Google constantly tweaks its algorithms and rolls out new policies – not to make life harder for publishers (though it can feel that way), but to improve its product. 

Google may be an internet gatekeeper, but it doesn’t owe any website traffic. It owes its users the best results.

Ultimately, that’s the mindset news SEOs should have too: it’s not about pleasing Google, but serving our readers.