1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Big G's Quality Guidelines Leaked [TOP SECRET]

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by SuperLinks, Oct 20, 2011.

  1. SuperLinks

    SuperLinks Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,903
    Likes Received:
    847
    Location:
    New York
    Repost: I fucked up and linked to the wrong file host site, now we should be good to go.

    The Big G's Quality Guidelines training document was leaked this past week, some of you were looking for it after my previous thread got deleted.

    Let's do our best to get the juicy stuff from the doc in this thread, let's discuss some ideas, theories, etc. Obviously this isn't the blueprint to the Big G's algorithms but it is an insight into how the big G trains their human editorial team, which CAN affect your rankings. It also gives some insight on how the algorithms are likely setup to determine spam and low quality websites.

    Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?n8zci12def3w1b6
    VirusTotal: Detection ratio: 0/42
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  2. proweb

    proweb Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    144
    I read it. Unfortunately, it was mostly introductory stuff (like explaining what a keyword was and how to find the domain in a URL with subdomains etc.).

    The only interesting thing I read was the section on commercial intent. Pretty much if a sites only purpose is to make money (which I thought every site's purpose was to make money in some way??) it is considered Commercial Intent and is flagged by manual reviewers.

    There's another thread on here that talks about it a bit more but I can't post links yet.
     
  3. SuperLinks

    SuperLinks Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,903
    Likes Received:
    847
    Location:
    New York
    Thanks, while that's true I still think that the document is a great "overview" of how we should be designing our websites, especially if we utilize BH methods.

    I'll go through the doc tomorrow and add my $0.02
     
  4. skyjust

    skyjust Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks, I'm looking for it
     
  5. TheLinkGuy

    TheLinkGuy Power Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    Messages:
    627
    Likes Received:
    128
    Location:
    EU
    I look for this too after hearing about it.

    I will download now, thank you!
     
  6. tyler8541

    tyler8541 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    93
    Quite an interesting doc to say the least! Everyone will interpret some things different than others. Here are some of the major takeaways I got from it:

    1. This is incredibly subjective information and any human reading or training with it will interpret it differently. New employees, lazy employees, stupid/unintelligent monkeys could easily flag a site as "spam" or "PPC spam" or "thin affiliate" entirely on how they interpret commercial intent or quality of another.

    2. "commercial intent" from an affiliate or or PPC aspect is an instant "soft" red flag to any manual reviewer so in essence, if you monetize through adwords, affiliate, or PPC, your chances of being marked as "spam" seem to be MUCH higher than other sites! From the second they see PPC ads or an outside shopping cart (affiliate shopping cart not on same domain) they will be LOOKING for very specific signs to basically penalize/deindex OR save your ass. Yes most all sites have commercial intent and G recognizes this but after reading this document it is clear that G definitely favors the original retailer or product a zillion times of an affiliate! I'll let you read between the lines on that one as far as future and safer monetization vs. any type of affiliate or commission based marketing.

    3. This was 90% ON PAGE focused. Either off page factors are looked at by a higher level employee or G flat out disregards any of this as long as you meet all other on page quality guidelines which makes sense to me, why dig deeper unless you really had a hard on for this particular site. Again, something we've heard but could never confirm.

    4. Reviewers are trained to find dupe content by doing something as simple as copying a PARTIAL or whole sentence from the page and doing an "exact search" with quotes. How easy would it be even with a spun article at 60% uniqueness for them to be able to pick this up and mark as "copied content PPC"? Remember, the people doing these reviews are only doing what they are instructed!

    5. THERE is no mention of content lengths or structure of content that I could see. It's all about relevance to the query.

    6. Something caught my eye especially: G seems to train these people to flag what we would call an "SEO friendly" URL as URL spam further driving you closer to penalty. What I mean is something as simple as widgets.com/blue-widgets-san-diego.htm according to this doc, should be flagged as spam. They use almost identical examples in the doc. While it definitely does not mention if THAT is all that is wrong they would penalize your site, what it said to me is that something as simple as SEO friendly URL's could potentially start the process and make these reviewers initially suspicious which is what you DON'T want. Surely they could not penalize you just for this if everything else is good, just sayin', that surprised me as I see this as "relevance" and not spam.

    7. For affiliate marketers, PPC, CPA, etc take note: If you removed your ads, links, graphics, from your page and all that remained were text would it still help the user get what they were looking for? I know this is nothing new BUT it is new in the fact that this is some of the things mentioned in here that these employees are specifically instructed to think about when evaluating you and your sites fate. AND yes they talk about quality, readability, relevance AND KW stuffing (NO specifics, VERY subjective to individual reviewing your site).

    8. Almost all sites online would technically, in one way or another trip some of these flags however it is clear, if the site contains affiliate links, adwords/PPC, or products via a 3rd party retailer, the suspicion goes WAY up and they then look very hard to find what they can to penalize you. My own translation, make your own please:)

    9. If a reviewer marks your site as "might be spam" or "irrelevant" now you have more monkeys to fight over what is relevant or spam within the system. Fucking great!:) If any of you come from a corporate background like myself (cubichell) then you know that things like this can get dicey and political and the true goal is lost. All it takes is one lazy ass employee who doesn't give a fuck, hates their job,, their wife, whatever, to have a bad day to make yours worse. They know nothing of SEO, don't care, don't have an entrpenuerial bone in their body. Again, more reason to make sure your never in a position to have a manual review.

    I'm glad I don't do any form of affiliate marketing honestly after reading this and seeing what G has been progressively doing to many affiliate marketers since panda 1.0-2.6. I know it's hit many that have nothing to do with affiliate marketing but the key is here, your definitely in their crosshairs according to this doc and I wouldn't think it will get any easier by any means from here on out. Please save any flaming, I realize the smart marketers will always find ways and be creative, just saying that I get stressed out enough about my clients sites and it would be 2x the stress if I knew my clients were on G's radar to begin with. I also realize that the Panda algo is electronic and this has to do with manual human reviews via quality guidelines but you have to think that the electronic algo has to be in line with the same thinking at some level right?

    It's funny too cause you can see the propaganda that G feeds these reviewers as well through this doc. If these reviewers knew the true hypocrisy... Kind of like my cousin who is a debt collector and lectures me about my credit, she just spews what her company tells her yet she herself has never been caught up in the US "credit system" and hence why I tell her to eat a dick yet she has the power to make my situation worse.