Back in March of this year, Google sounded an early warning about a new set of spam policies taking effect in May, including Site Reputation Abuse (sometimes known as "parasite SEO"), defined as:

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.

As promised, Google launched a surgical strike on Site Reputation Abuse, hitting third-party content with manual actions, particularly in the coupon and gambling spaces in the United States. While these actions were narrowly targeted, they hit big brands and major revenue streams.

What happened next got a bit messy. In Late May, Google confirmed that Site Reputation Abuse actions were not algorithmic. Then, in October, a second salvo hit a number of major brands with third-party content. Google was quoted as saying that this was not Site Reputation Abuse but instead was a result of systems designed to detect if a section of a site was radically different from the main focus of the site.

This felt like a mixed message, as it implied that the October penalties were algorithmic. Paradoxically, those targets that apparently weren’t hit for Site Reputation Abuse also seemed very highly correlated with Site Reputation Abuse.

Finally, yet another round of manual actions rolled out during the November Core Update (but seemingly disconnected from the Core Update). These actions were strongly connected to the October penalties, in many cases extending them.

What happened next got a bit messy, with overlapping events and comments from Google suggesting both manual and algorithmic actions. The major events from May-November look something like this:

• MAY 2024 — Targeted manual penalties (coupons, etc.)
• OCT 2024 — More manual penalties
• OCT 2024 — Algorithm update targeting off-topic content (?)
• NOV 2024 — More manual penalties
• NOV 2024 — November Core Update (into December)

Naturally, you might be confused. You might be worried. You might be looking for a new job. If not, you’re probably wondering how to assess your risk in this manual-but-possibly-algorithmic set of actions that might relate to third-party content abuse, or content that doesn’t match your site, and seemingly connected to affiliate content.

Manual actions can be tricky, and the truth is that this one got a bit personal. The first commandment of SEO is “Thou shalt not publicly embarrass Google.” Some big brands pushed the envelope too far (in Google’s eyes), and Google made an example of them.

On the other hand, there may be an algorithmic component in play — if not now, then one is very likely on the horizon. Assessing any site’s individual risk is complicated, but given what we know so far, we’ve developed a 5-point Threat Level scale, inspired by the DEFCON alert system (with 1 being the highest threat level) …

Given the confusion and concern about the events of the last few months, we hope this gives you some sense of  your current risk. Let’s examine each level, from the most vulnerable (currently being penalized) to the least threatened, based on what we know so far, including public statements from Google.

The threat level here is so high that we’re writing about it too late. These are the sites getting hit with manual actions. Here, the content is not only being produced and mass-distributed by a 3rd-party, but it’s being externally hosted on a subdomain or subfolder in most cases. It’s also clearly monetized and built to piggyback on the main site’s reputation for SEO purposes.

Back in May, I wrote about Google’s surgical strike on this kind of content. Here’s a sampling of sites that lost almost all of their presence in SERPs we track:

• coupons.usatoday.com
• coupons.businessinsider.com
• coupons.cnn.com
• coupons.thedailybeast.com
• coupons.cnet.com

Notice a pattern? If you can figure it out in 5 seconds, Google probably can, too. Remember, Google is a domain registrar, so your CNAMEs are hardly a secret.

As we step through each threat level, I’ll underline what changed from the level above. Level 2 is mostly a technological distinction. What if the content is licensed by a 3rd-party but you’re delivering it yourself? You might pull this off a while longer and be harder to detect, but this is a distinction without a difference.

While I can’t speak to the business arrangements of all of these sites, considering this sampling of sites that were hit with major losses in the past two months:

• forbes.com/advisor
• marketwatch.com/guides
• cnn.com/cnn-underscored
• usnews.com/insurance
• wsj.com/buyside

One of the keys here is that this licensed or partnered content is almost definitely being distributed to other partners, which means that it starts to look cookie-cutter. Slapping on your logo and brand colors hardly makes it original content.

Sleight of hand might buy you time, but sooner or later those doves will poop in your sleeve. That’s a terrible metaphor, and I apologize.

This is where the situation starts to get gray. What if you hire a 3rd-party to create completely custom content? There’s nothing wrong with paying people to write content (hopefully, you pay the people who write your content). For example, Google specifically mentions “columns, opinion pieces, articles, and other work of an editorial nature” as something not considered to be Site Reputation Abuse.

Google’s documentation provides a theoretical example of a movie review site with tailor-made-for-SEO content targeting “best essay writing services.” Even if someone is custom-writing this content for you and it only appears on your site, this content is clearly not targeted to your audience and not in your voice. You’re leveraging your brand advantage to get search traffic for direct revenue.

Google’s suggestion that off-topic content might be targeted by the algorithm made a lot of people nervous, and for good reason — “off-topic” is hopelessly (deliberately?) vague. Many sites legitimately cover a wide range of topics, while other sites hyper-target topics now in a way that’s clearly designed to maximize SEO benefits.

The danger here is when Site Reputation Abuse starts to get codified into the algorithm. I think we have to be honest about our intent. If you’re writing original, useful content on your well-known local sports news site about the best cash-back credit cards, and you have an affiliate relationship with those providers, then you’re probably breaking the spirit of the rules, regardless of who’s creating that content.

What if your video gaming review site published original content about the best gift cards for gaming platforms, but that content was sponsored? Google’s current guidelines seem to suggest that’s low-risk. They specifically state that third-party ad blocks and properly labelled affiliate links within original content are not inherently abusive. What we're talking about here is not individual affiliate links, but aggressive affiliate models that lead to gaming content purely for SEO.

Finally, should we worry that editorial or informational content that we write ourselves that happens to be off-topic will be penalized? It’s possible that Google could launch an algorithm update that goes too far, but I think the risk here is extremely low. Don’t be terrified of operating at the margins of your main topic.

One important warning here — you can’t just slap “Editorial Review” on third-party content and call it a day. Google recently called this out pretty harshly, saying that “no amount of first-party involvement alters the fundamental third-party nature of the content or the unfair, exploitative nature of attempting to take advantage of the host's sites ranking signals.” Game the system at your own peril.

To be blunt, you can’t abuse your site’s reputation if your site has no reputation. Google is trying to figure out when the power of brands goes too far and is being exploited. If you’ve got a new site, I think there’s an argument for having topical focus for broader SEO and audience reasons. By definition, though, you can’t commit Site Reputation Abuse. Something to aspire to, perhaps.

According to an official FAQ, “[this] policy is not about targeting affiliate content.” However, the content targeted for manual penalties so far is almost entirely built around affiliate content. Google suggests that affiliate links should be “marked appropriately,” but that doesn’t solve the primary problem that this content is using authoritative brands to piggyback third-party content for SEO purposes and cashing in on competitive keywords. The relationship between site reputation abuse and affiliate content is nearly impossible to disentangle

There’s a lot in motion right now, including a November Core Update that extended into December, and the last throes of the volatile Black Friday / Cyber Monday week as we head into the broader holiday season. Google seems to be working from the top down, hitting what they see (rightly or wrongly) as the worst offenders first.

The challenge comes when more of this is codified into the algorithm. At that point, this becomes a question of managed risk. If you’re operating in the Threat Level 1 or 2 space right now, I believe you’re in real danger. If you’re living around Level 3, then I think it’s time to ask hard questions about what’s going to happen in the next year and plan ahead, but that doesn’t mean deindexing content and killing your own revenue. Have the hard conversations, assess your risk, and keep your eyes open.