Google issued a new definition of *Site Reputation Abuse*
"An established first party site branches out into a new area primarily using freelance content because this content will rank better on the first-party site than it would have otherwise"
This seems to apply to vast swaths of publishers
"An established first party site branches out into a new area primarily using freelance content because this content will rank better on the first-party site than it would have otherwise"
This seems to apply to vast swaths of publishers
Comments
I was under the impression that SRA was established/understood?
3rd party content, that doesn't match the primary sites
(by topic, and/or by nature/purpose),
with the intent to benefit from the primary sites standing.
The whole "freelance" thing is "off",
but G refuse to acknowledge
:(
Basically anything not deemed 1st party "created", that's a flag, so we'll go after it.
It's been 1q years since Matt "put a fork in it". They're still shit at detecting it without the grasses.
Not a single tickle on their organic traffic.
Why?
Adhering to the "current" rules of the road.
Although there some fun technical workarounds.
3rd party / external / freelancer / guest post / UGC
or take submittals from miniature giant space hamsters (Boo!).
The spam team are meant to be hitting content that is "bad",
not simply because it's not in-house.
So the question is ...
... are they?
1) The spam team are a bunch of thick lazy turds
2) They are following instructions for some agenda
3) They are doing the right thing, and that content is MFA+OOL (=SRA?)
(It's really sad that all 3 are actually possible!)
I've got blatant PBNs, paid links, scaled content and SRA in my serps... those forms do nothing!
I will file on behalf of a client, if I must ...(2019?).
But as far as I'm concerned, it's one of the wastes of time in SEO.
Since 2006, I've seen them take action (within a year) 3 times (I've filed over 60)
Those are unpaid freelancers, right?
"They are my rules"
Get to fuck with yours.