Another leaked version of Google's Quality Rater Guidelines appeared online late last month, which I finally took a look at this morning.
The guidelines are for Google staff who evaluate landing pages and rate whether those pages are quality, vital, useful, relevant (or not), off-topic, not spam, maybe spam and definitely spam.
In his latest newsletter, Allan Gardyne talks about an “alarming section” that pertains to affiliates and the use of ‘sneaky redirects' to qualify a page as probably being spam. You'll see it on page 38 of the report under the title “Recognizing when redirects are sneaky or non-sneaky“.
The example within the Quality Rater Guidelines of a sneaky redirect shows how a specific Commission Junction affiliate link redirects to a page on the JC Whitney site.
From an affiliate standpoint, I don't find that assessment the least bit alarming. Google is not referring to affiliate links on a bona fide affiliate page, ie. a link within a product review.
The point is that Google doesn't want affiliate pages that automatically redirect to merchant sites coming up in the search results. They also don't want keyword stuffed pages, frame pages used to cloak affiliate links or pages that contain hidden text and links. In a nutshell, they don't want to see pages that are designed and optimized merely to lure visitors.
From the perspective of a search engine user, that seems fair enough to me.
Once again, Google stipulates which pages do and do not rate as ‘thin affiliates'. Here is a quote directly from the report:
If a page offers some value in addition to its links to the merchant, then it is not a thin affiliate. For example, if the affiliate offers price comparison functionality, or displays product reviews, recipes, lyrics, etc., it is not a thin affiliate, and, therefore, not Spam.
In the report's Final Notes you'll find:
When trying to decide if a page is Spam, it is helpful to ask yourself this question:
If I remove the scraped (copied) content, the ads, and the links to other pages, is
there anything of value left? If the answer is no, the page is probably Spam.
A very good guideline for affiliates to follow indeed!
You may still be able to pick up a copy of the Quality Rater Guidelines here.
Paul Simister says
This all makes sense and as principled affiliate, I believe we should approve of Google taking a hard line on any underhand strategies.
After all if you buy a product, review it and then put in the effort to drive some traffic towards your site, you deserve the affiliate commission.
Rosalind Gardner says
Glad to hear that the information here at NPT is helpful to you, and thanks kindly for your good wishes. I’m feeling better everyday, thanks!
Dean B Spurgeon says
Dear Ms Gardner,
Hope your healing is going faster than you expected. Am enjoying your down to earth Web information that is very helpful for me.
I think google is right on it. If a page doesn’t contain any useful content without the added on links and copy, then it’s considered spam. Clear and concise! Just goes to show the real power of creating quality content! There are way to many junk sites out there in the first place. For example, a site that contains links only isn’t a site I’d purposely visit again. I don’t like clicking on a link to find more information about something, only to find more links. If I am looking for something, give me content!
There is no substitute for providing value and quality with content for your website, those who try to get around it are doomed to get slapped around by Google. Those who do provide are rewarded.
That seems pretty fair to me. It sounds like they just want quality pages to show up, which I think is a great idea. :]