There are a number of cases where sites hit by the expanded Google site reputation abuse policy, where Google issued a number of immediate manual actions, are moving the directories that were hit to a new location on the domain name. It would be a mistake to do that in the long run and can lead to more penalties and potentially the whole site being penalized.
Google has another spam policy that it instituted two years ago to deal with this exact case. This spam policy is called policy circumvention and in that policy, it specifically calls out this practice.
The policy reads:
If a site continues to engage in actions intended to bypass our spam policies or content policies for Google Search, we may take appropriate action which may include restricting or removing eligibility for some of our search features (for example, Top Stories, Discover) and taking broader action in Google Search (for example, removing more sections of a site from Search results).
The specific examples Google provided include:
(1) Using existing or creating new subdomains, subdirectories, or sites with the intention of continuing to violate our policies
(2) Using other methods intended to continue distributing content or engaging in a behavior that aims to violate our policies
Yea, so "using existing or creating new subdomains, subdirectories, or sites with the intention of continuing to violate our policies" would fall under this.
As Glenn Gabe wrote on X, "For those trying to circumvent those manual actions by moving that content to another directory that's NOT impacted by the manual action, just realize that Google has clearly documented their view of 'policy circumvention'."
Heads-up for sites impacted by the latest 'Site reputation abuse' manual actions (based on Google's policy update). For those trying to circumvent those manual actions by moving that content to another directory that's NOT impacted by the manual action, just realize that Google… pic.twitter.com/RpR8DjM92P
— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) November 22, 2024
This was brought up a ton of social last week, here is just one example (note Forbes did not move this content because of this policy, Forbes moved it well before the policy was announced):
Thoughts on Forbes Advisor simply moving to Forbes.com/portfolio and already surging in the rankings?
@lilyray.nyc @glenngabe.bsky.social @rustybrick.com @searchliaison.bsky.social
— Zak (@zakali.bsky.social) November 21, 2024 at 3:17 PM
[image or embed]
I replied to that on Bluesky saying, "I suspect someone at Google was waiting for this..."
I suspect someone at Google was waiting for this...
— Barry Schwartz (@rustybrick.com) November 21, 2024 at 4:12 PM
This is cute. pic.twitter.com/Z7NRumy6J2
— Igal Stolpner (@igalst) November 22, 2024
Oh, Brian Wood, VP, Growth at Forbes Advisor, wrote on LinkedIn, "Forbes Advisor moved about a dozen URLs into the /portfolio folder from the end of Oct to Nov 6. The last URL was added two weeks before Google issued these manual penalties. It was part of an unrelated test and we have removed all of those test URLs." So this was not related to the site reputation abuse penalty.
'Site reputation abuse' update: Forbes explained on LinkedIn that it moved urls to the portfolio directory at the end of October *BEFORE* the latest manual actions were applied.
— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) November 23, 2024
Me: That was after the algorithmic demotion in late September based on Google's 'starkly different'… pic.twitter.com/fsgJq3XGGZ
Here is Jonathan Jones, the SVP of Strategy at Forbes and how he replied to some over on X:
Check the dates.
— Mr Jonathan Jones (@Jonny_J_) November 22, 2024
When did Google go out with their new policy and therefore handed out manual actions vs when we tested this out.
Use ahrefs like you have here.
Nothing to do with circumventing any manual action. https://t.co/aP0adsqP0L
FYI, Forbes moved that article(s) well *before* Google issued the new Site Reputation Abuse policy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
— Cyrus SEO (@CyrusShepard) November 23, 2024
And now it's all back
The "trying to fool Google" story didn't quite smell right for a large publisher that wants to stay in Google's good graces
Source: @Jonny_J_ pic.twitter.com/XZ8zL5MDZQ
"Everything" is not correct
— Mr Jonathan Jones (@Jonny_J_) November 23, 2024
Roughly 15 or so pages.
— Mr Jonathan Jones (@Jonny_J_) November 23, 2024
Not last minute but ok. We couldn't have predicted a policy change would have occurred in November.
— Mr Jonathan Jones (@Jonny_J_) November 23, 2024
A lot more complex than what you're making it sound in a large organisation. That's kind of where smaller organisations excel in moving quickly. Look, I can't go into detail…
There is a lot more but I can't embed everything.
Google, despite what many of you think, is really not that dumb. Nor is Forbes...
