Excerpts from Google Reviewer Guidlines

Google is now more of a human assisted algorythm than it ever has been before. That has led to a reduction in the amount of spam in the SERPs and has, in fact, changed the game.

But what do these thousands of human reviewers look for in a spam site? What can you get away with? If much of the banning is now done by hand, wouldn’t it be great to see what instructions these reviewers have?

Well, here are interesting quotes from the Google guide:

Exceptions (Scraped Content that is not Spam) Lyrics, poems, ringtones (that the user programs rather than downloads), quotes, and proverbs have no central authority. When you see pages with this content, you cannot judge it to have been copied, and the pages should not be assigned a Spam label. Unfortunately, some content is written specifically for Spam pages and you will not find it on another source.

Although you may be convinced that the intent is to deceive, if the content makes sense and appears original, you will not be able to label such pages Spam.

and this on the same page:

thin affiliate is a page that exists to deliver a visitor to a page on another domain with a different owner. Keywords deliver visitors to the affiliate page, and links on the affiliate page deliver visitors to the second page, which is owned by a real merchant.
This is a revenue-sharing situation in which the thin affiliate is paid a commission by the real merchant for any activity generated on the merchant’s site. Usually the activity will be a sales transaction, such as a product purchase or a hotel booking. The thin affiliate site contains text and perhaps images copied from the merchant site. It offers no (or very little) value-added service while earning its commission. The thin affiliate may also earn PPC revenue by providing PPC links on its page.

But you don’t need me to read the whole thing for you. Members can just go to the thread in our private forum and see where someone posted the entire Google Guidelines for Raters.


Both comments and pings are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Excerpts from Google Reviewer Guidlines”

  1. […] Excerpts from Google Reviewer at SEO Blackhat (and good for you if you have a membership to read the whole thing!) […]

  2. ryancaldwell says:

    and Google is probably outsourcing this to people with poor discernment abilities, resulting in loads of false positives.

  3. deviant says:

    this is a tad worrysome for MFA sites.

  4. Google Sucks says:

    I cannot prove that this was from Google, but whilst trolling CraigsList I found a posting for a gig where you would review SERPs. You can read about it more at: http://googlesearchsucks.com/google-human-review-cought-red-handed/

  5. […] For organic search junkies the Google Gods have tossed us another gift. An SEO Black Hat member discovered an April 2007 Google Evaluation Guidelines document, referenced here. […]

  6. […] Il blog SeoBlackHat ha annunciato pochi giorni or sono di essere entrato in possesso di un documento di Google, che avrebbe dovuto essere confidenziale e ad uso esclusivo dei Quality Rater – anche Aaron Wall ha ripreso la notizia. […]

  7. MORO says:

    Just wondering if anyone knows the extent to which Google is applying the “ratings” to rankings.

  8. […] Als eerst zag ik SEO Black Hat die erover ging praten en hoe je het in hun peperdure forum kon vinden voor download (natuurlijk tegen een betaling van 100 USD, seriously? – maar gelukkig bij deze kwam de aap snel uit de mouw). Daarna zag ik (ja, bijna overal eigenlijk) Aaron Wall die erover sprak, en toen nog ’s (daarna nog vaker zelfs). Toen ook deze website en ja, ik dacht van, waarom ik ook niet – vooral voor de achter het net vissers? […]

  9. […] Another alterantive is that Google is relying more and more on human reviewers to police the content of it’s index and make adjustments. This then brings a human element to the placement of your web page in the index. Here’s a link to a couple of excerpts of the reviewers guide. […]