更新滥用网站声誉政策
使用集合让一切井井有条
根据您的偏好保存内容并对其进行分类。
2024 年 11 月 19 日(星期二)
我们致力于抵御网络垃圾并提供卓越的搜索体验。为此,我们于今年早些时候推出了一项网络垃圾政策,以打击滥用网站声誉的行为。这种策略的具体做法是在托管网站上发布第三方内容,试图利用托管网站已建立的排名衡量因素。此策略的目标是让该内容的排名高于其在其他网站上的排名,而这会给用户带来糟糕的搜索体验。
自这项政策推出以来,我们对第一方参与程度各不相同的情况进行了审查,例如与白标服务合作、许可协议、部分所有权协议以及其他复杂的商业安排。我们对大量案例的评估表明,无论第一方参与程度如何,都无法改变内容的基本第三方性质,也无法改变试图利用托管网站排名衡量因素的不公平、滥用性质。
我们将阐明政策内容,进一步打击此类垃圾内容行为。我们明确指出,只要在网站上使用第三方内容,试图利用网站的排名衡量因素,无论是否有第一方参与制作或监督内容,均视为违反了这项政策。更新后的政策内容自即日起开始生效,具体如下所述:
滥用网站声誉是指在网站上发布第三方网页,试图利用托管网站的排名衡量因素来滥用搜索排名。
在评估是否存在违规行为时,我们会综合考虑诸多不同因素来判断第三方内容是否遭到滥用,而不会仅凭网站关于内容制作方式的声明就草率下结论。网站所有者会通过其注册的 Search Console 账号收到网络垃圾人工处置措施通知,并且可以提交重新审核请求。
请务必注意,并非所有第三方内容都违反了这项政策。我们在网络垃圾政策页面中详细说明了哪些是滥用网站声誉情况,哪些不是。
除了滥用网站声誉问题之外,我们还有专门的体系和方法来判断网站的某个版块是否与网站的主要内容无关或截然不同。将这些版块视为独立网站,能更好地确保公平的竞争环境,这样网站的子版块就不会仅仅因为主网站的声誉而获得更高的排名。我们会继续不断改进这些体系,这有助于我们提供各种网站中最有用的信息。
我们会努力了解网站各个版块的差异,如果子版块不再受益于网站级衡量因素,则可能会导致流量发生变化。这并不意味着这些子版块在某种程度上遭到降位或违反我们的网络垃圾政策。而是意味着即使它们位于同一网站,我们也会单独评估。
本次滥用网站声誉政策更新说明有助于呈现最实用的搜索结果、打击操纵性做法,并确保所有网站都享有根据其内容质量进行排名的平等机会。我们鼓励网站所有者熟悉这一更新后的政策,并专注于构建优质网站,优先制作旨在让用户受益而非专门提高其在搜索引擎中排名的内容。
常见问题解答
什么是第三方内容?
第三方内容是指由托管网站以外的独立实体创建的内容。独立实体的示例包括该网站的用户、自由职业者、白标服务、由非托管网站直接雇用的人员所创建的内容,以及滥用网站声誉政策中列出的其他示例。
使用第三方内容是否违反滥用网站声誉政策?
否,单纯使用第三方内容并不违反滥用网站声誉政策。只有在发布内容时试图利用托管网站的排名衡量因素来滥用搜索排名时,才会违反此政策。我们的政策页面举例说明了不违反政策的第三方内容使用方式。
自由职业者创建的内容是否违反滥用网站声誉政策?
否。虽然自由职业者创建的内容属于第三方内容,但单纯使用这类内容并不违反滥用网站声誉政策。只有在还试图利用托管网站的排名衡量因素来滥用搜索排名时,才会违反此政策。
联属营销内容是否违反滥用网站声誉政策?
否。这项政策并非针对联属营销内容。关于政策说明的文档指出,带有恰当标记的联属营销链接不被视为滥用网站声誉。
何为利用托管网站的排名衡量因素来滥用搜索排名?
这是指在信誉良好的网站上发布第三方内容,以利用该网站的排名衡量因素(主要通过第一方内容获得),而不是在缺少相同排名衡量因素的单独网站上发布该内容。
如果我向内容添加 noindex
标记,系统是否会自动撤消人工处置措施?
否。您仍需在 Search Console 中回复人工处置措施,并说明相应内容已添加 noindex 标记。我们建议您这样做,而非让您的网站受到人工处置措施。
如果我将收到人工处置措施的内容移至新位置,能否解决滥用网站声誉问题?
也许可以,但具体取决于您将内容移至何处:
- 将内容移至同一网站域名下的子目录或子网域:这样做无法解决根本问题,并且可能会被视为试图规避我们的网络垃圾政策,从而导致 Google 搜索对相应网站采取更广泛的措施。
- 将内容移至其他信誉良好的网站:这样做可以解决滥用网站声誉问题,因为移除这类内容后,网站的声誉就不会再遭到滥用。不过,如果信誉良好的网站有自己的声誉,并且第三方性质未发生变化,则可能会导致接收内容的网站出现滥用网站声誉问题。
- 将内容移至新网域:如果新网域尚未建立声誉,并且您遵守我们的网络垃圾政策,则这样做不太可能造成问题。
请注意,如果您转移内容,还需要提交重新审核请求,才能撤消人工处置措施。
如果我转移违反政策的内容,能否将其从旧网站重定向至新网站?
如果您转移收到人工处置措施的内容,不应将网址从旧网站重定向至新网站,否则可能会再次引发滥用网站声誉问题。
如果我转移违反政策的内容,能否将其从旧网站链接到新网站?
如果您要从旧网站链接到新网站,请对旧网站上的这些链接使用 nofollow
属性。
发布者:Chris Nelson,代表 Google 搜索质量团队
进行了几项更新
- 2024 年 12 月 6 日更新:新增了常见问题解答,解答了网站所有者一些有关我们滥用网站声誉政策的新问题。
- 2025 年 1 月 21 日更新:根据对常见问题解答的反馈,我们更新了滥用网站声誉政策的措辞和人工处置措施报告文档,以纳入常见问题解答中的指导。这些只是表述上的调整,旨在使政策措辞更清晰;政策本身没有实质性变化。
如未另行说明,那么本页面中的内容已根据知识共享署名 4.0 许可获得了许可,并且代码示例已根据 Apache 2.0 许可获得了许可。有关详情,请参阅 Google 开发者网站政策。Java 是 Oracle 和/或其关联公司的注册商标。
[null,null,[],[[["\u003cp\u003eGoogle's site reputation abuse policy combats using third-party content to unfairly boost rankings by exploiting a host site's established signals.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eRegardless of first-party involvement, leveraging third-party content to manipulate search rankings violates this policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eGoogle's systems now evaluate site sections independently, potentially impacting traffic if sub-sections previously benefited from site-wide signals.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eUtilizing third-party content isn't inherently a violation; it becomes one when used to exploit the host site's ranking for better search results.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eSite owners should focus on creating high-quality, user-centric content instead of manipulating search rankings for better placement.\u003c/p\u003e\n"]]],["Google is clarifying its site reputation abuse policy, effective November 19, 2024. The policy targets third-party content published to exploit a host site's ranking signals, regardless of first-party involvement. Actions against violations include manual actions and notifications via Search Console. The content also details that while not all third party content violates the policy, sub-sections of websites that differ significantly may be treated as standalone sites. Finally, it describes best practices for website owners who have received manual actions.\n"],null,["# Updating our site reputation abuse policy\n\nTuesday, November 19, 2024\n\n\nEarlier this [year](/search/blog/2024/03/core-update-spam-policies), as part of our\nwork to fight spam and deliver a great Search experience, we launched a spam policy to combat\n[site reputation abuse](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation).\nThis is a tactic where third-party content is published on a host site in an attempt to take\nadvantage of the host's already-established ranking signals. The goal of this tactic is for\nthe content to rank better than it could otherwise on a different site, and leads to a bad\nsearch experience for users.\n\n\nSince launching the policy, we've reviewed situations where there might be varying degrees of\nfirst-party involvement, such as cooperation with white-label services, licensing agreements,\npartial ownership agreements, and other complex business arrangements. Our evaluation of numerous\ncases has shown that no amount of first-party involvement alters the fundamental third-party\nnature of the content or the unfair, exploitative nature of attempting to take advantage of the\nhost's sites ranking signals.\n\n\nWe're clarifying our policy language to further target this type of spammy behavior.\nWe're making it clear that using third-party content on a site in an attempt to exploit the\nsite's ranking signals is a violation of this policy --- regardless of whether there is\nfirst-party involvement or oversight of the content. Our updated policy language, effective\ntoday, is:\n\u003e Site reputation abuse is the practice of publishing third-party pages on a site in an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site's ranking signals.\n\n\nWhen evaluating for policy violations, we take into account many different considerations\n(and we don't simply take a site's claims about how the content was produced at face value)\nto determine if third-party content is being used in an abusive way. Site owners who receive a\n[spam manual\naction](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175) will be notified through their registered\n[Search Console](https://search.google.com/search-console/about)\naccount and can submit a\n[reconsideration\nrequest](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175).\n\n\nIt's important to note that not all third-party content violates this policy. We go into detail\non our [spam policies page](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation)\nabout what is and isn't site reputation abuse.\n\n\nAside from site reputation abuse issues, we also have systems and methods designed to\nunderstand if a section of a site is independent or starkly different from the main content\nof the site. By treating these areas as if they are standalone sites, it better ensures a\nlevel playing field, so that sub-sections of sites don't get a ranking boost just because of\nthe reputation of the main site. As we continue to work to improve these systems, this helps us\ndeliver the most useful information from a range of sites.\n\n\nOur efforts to understand differences in sections of sites can lead to traffic changes if\nsub-sections no longer benefit from\n[site-wide signals](/search/docs/appearance/ranking-systems-guide).\nThis doesn't mean that these sub-sections have somehow been demoted or are in violation of our\nspam policies. It means we're measuring them independently, even if they are located\nwithin a site.\n\n\nThis clarification to our site reputation abuse policy will help surface the most useful search\nresults, combat manipulative practices, and ensure that all sites have an equal opportunity\nto rank based on the quality of their content. We encourage site owners to familiarize\nthemselves with this updated policy and focus on building high-quality websites that prioritize\n[content created to benefit people, not to gain search engine rankings](/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content).\n\nFAQ\n---\n\n### What is third-party content?\n\n\nThird-party content is content created by a separate entity than the host site. Examples of\nseparate entities include users of that site, freelancers, white-label services, content created\nby people not employed directly by the host site, and other examples listed in the\n[site reputation policy](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation).\n\n### Does the use of any third-party content violate the site\nreputation abuse policy?\n\n\nNo, having third-party content alone is not a violation of the site reputation abuse policy. It's\nonly a violation if the content is being published in an attempt to\n[abuse search rankings](#abuse-search-rankings) by taking advantage of the host site's\nranking signals. Our [policy page](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation)\nhas examples of third-party content use that doesn't violate the policy.\n\n### Does freelance content violate the site reputation abuse policy?\n\n\nNo, while freelance content is third-party content, freelance content alone is not a violation of\nthe site reputation abuse policy. It is only a violation if there is **ALSO** an\nattempt to [abuse search rankings](#abuse-search-rankings) by taking advantage of the\nhost site's ranking signals.\n\n### Does affiliate content violate the site reputation abuse policy?\n\n\nNo, the policy is not about targeting affiliate content. The\n[documentation](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation) about the policy\nnotes that affiliate links [marked appropriately](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/qualify-outbound-links)\naren't considered site reputation abuse.\n\n### What does it mean to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the\nhost site's ranking signals?\n\n\nThis is when third-party content is being placed on an established site to take advantage of that\nsite's ranking signals --- which the site has earned primarily from its first party content\n--- rather than placing the content on a separate site that lacks the same signals.\n\n### If I [`noindex`](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/block-indexing)\nthe content, does that mean the manual action automatically gets removed?\n\n\nNo. You still need to reply to the manual action in Search Console and explain that the content\nhas been noindexed. We recommend doing this rather than letting the manual action remain against\nyour site.\n\n### If I move content that's received a manual action to a new location, will\nthat resolve the site reputation abuse issue?\n\n\nMaybe, but it depends on where you move it to:\n\n- **Moving content to a subdirectory or subdomain within the same site's domain name** : This doesn't resolve the underlying issue and may be viewed as an [attempt to circumvent](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#policy-circumvension) our spam policy, which may lead to broader actions against a site in Google Search.\n- **Moving content to another established site**: This will resolve the site reputation abuse issue for the site it was removed from, as the site reputation of that site is no longer being abused. However, it may introduce a site reputation abuse issue to the site the content is moved to if the established site has its own reputation and the third-party nature is unchanged.\n- **Moving content to a new domain** : This is far less likely to be an issue if the new domain has no established reputation and you follow our [spam policies](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies).\n\n\nRemember if you move content, you need to also submit a reconsideration request to remove the\nmanual action.\n\n### If I move policy-violating content, can I redirect from the old site to the new site?\n\n\nIf you move content that received a manual action, you shouldn't [redirect URLs](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/301-redirects)\nfrom the old site to the new site, as this may introduce the site reputation abuse issue again.\n\n### If I move policy-violating content, can I link from the old site to the new site?\n\n\nIf you link from the old site to the new site, make use of the\n[`nofollow` attribute](/search/docs/crawling-indexing/qualify-outbound-links)\nfor those links on the old site.\n\nPosted by [Chris Nelson](/search/blog/authors/chris-nelson)\non behalf of the Google Search Quality team\n\n*** ** * ** ***\n\nUpdates\n-------\n\n- **Update on December 6, 2024** : Added [FAQs](#faq) to address some new questions we've had come in from site owners about our site reputation abuse policy.\n- **Update on January 21, 2025** : Based on feedback on the FAQ, we updated the [site reputation abuse policy](/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation) language and [manual actions report documentation](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175#site-reputation-abuse&zippy=%2Csite-reputation-abuse) to include guidance from the FAQ. These are editorial changes to make the policy wording clearer; there's no substantive change to the policy itself."]]