As an SEO, you’re no doubt aware that the definition of spam changes over time. Thanks to black-hat SEOs, search engines are constantly updating their definitions of spam. Even worse, these definitions may vary between major search engines like Google, Bing, and Yahoo!.<\/p>\n
To be an effective SEO, avoiding spam is key. Because of the severe penalties associated with spamming search engines, it’s always best to play it safe. But to play by the rules, you need to know what the rules are.<\/p>\n
This article identifies SEO standards that stand the test of time. It defines the most common types of spam you should be aware of. Then we go over some essential ways to optimize your site and its contents without<\/em> relying on tricks.<\/p>\n We’ve divided this article into a few sections so you can skip around as needed:<\/p>\n It’s the SEO who is responsible for making sure that you do not have spam<\/a> on your website or in your website strategy. SEOs work to protect and build your website’s experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-E-A-T<\/a>), make sure there are no penalties, and repair the site should they appear. Spam runs counter to all of those goals.<\/p>\n The definition of SEO varies. We have an entire SEO Guide that dives into the specifics of how to do search engine optimization<\/a> and gives you a good foundation.<\/p>\n To start off our discussion of SEO standards, let’s pose a situation.<\/p>\n Site A is quite well written and exceptionally relevant for the search keyword \u201cW.\u201d Site B is not as well written, not as content-rich, and nowhere near as relevant. The search engines will not like B.<\/p>\n Site B uses search engine optimization (SEO) technology and a few borderline spam tricks. Suddenly site B outranks site A for the search \u201dW.\u201d This hurts the user experience and lowers user satisfaction with the results from that search engine. Search engines see this as a slap to the face since their job is to ensure that visitors see relevant content and are happy.<\/p>\n Is it any wonder that search engines are always tightening down on spam rules? It is one matter to improve the quality, presentation, and general use of keyword phrases on a webpage. It is a different matter to trick the engines into higher rankings without editing the site content.<\/p>\n It is the position of the search engines that the role of the SEO practitioner is to improve the quality, quantity, clarity, and value of content. Quality content allows search engines to select worthy sites based on their unique relevancy factors. SEO practitioners should help search engines by making sites more relevant, clear, and accessible. SEOs should not use spam techniques to inflate the perceived relevancy of inferior sites.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t disguise an inferior site \u2013 fix it. Don\u2019t make site B appear to be more relevant than site A; actually make it more relevant.<\/p>\n While some search engines reward off-page SEO technologies, the improvements are often short-lived and of diminishing benefit. The cutoff for what is acceptable is also changing each day. Tricks that work today can get you unlisted tomorrow. Pages that are informative and contribute to the content, usability, and indexability of any site are the goal of SEO.<\/p>\n For too long SEO practitioners engaged in an arms race. Some saw their role as inventing more and more devious technology to trick search engines and beat competitors. Today, search engines have aggressive anti-spam programs, making this strategy ineffective. The news is out \u2014 if you want to get search engine rankings for your clients, you have to play well within the rules. And those rules are \u201cno tricks allowed.\u201d<\/p>\n Simply put work on honest relevancy and win. All others will fade away.<\/strong><\/p>\n At one time, the \u201cdoorway page\u201d was used as a portal to dynamic content. At one point, several major engines even endorsed them as a way to organize and display content on your site. However, by 2002 the search engines had reversed their opinions of doorway pages. Today, search engines now consider doorway pages to be spam.<\/p>\n This proves that what works today may not work tomorrow. If you play with fire, you will regret it.<\/p>\n Our advice is to always play in the center of the acceptable area. We also advise you to not experiment with new ways to fool the engines and earn overnight rankings. Even research for the purposes of self-education can cause long-term issues with your page rankings.<\/p>\n There are many different technologies and methodologies used by SEO practitioners. It is not the intent of a Code of Ethics<\/a>\u00a0to define HOW the code is met, but rather to set the bounds of compliance. Search engine acceptance depends upon meeting these codes plus SEO standards defined by each search engine. In general, if actions are in compliance with the Code of Ethics and meet the SEO standards of the search engines, then they are allowed.<\/p>\n But remember that what is an allowable trick today may be blacklisted tomorrow. It is better to focus on honest SEO than waste your time on something that will need to be abandoned soon.<\/p>\n These are general guidelines that may vary from search engine to search engine:<\/p>\n Each search engine must support at least the Robots Exclusion Standard<\/a>. This is not always the case, but it should be.<\/p>\n Guidelines for a search engine or directory may further discuss the relevance, spamming, cloaking, or redirection. Usually, these will be discussed in a way that relates to user experience. In general, revising or adding content is good if it improves the user experience. This is the subjective area we must all interpret and is why rules change so often.<\/p>\n We recommend reading Google\u2019s Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines<\/a> document for specific examples of what the search engine considers high- and low-quality web content for search visitors.<\/p>\n There are three main players when it comes to search engine optimization:<\/p>\n Unfortunately, if the rules change, sites may be dropped from SE\u2019s. If algorithms change, sites may be lowered in the rankings. If competing SEO firms are successful in finding a new trick within the rules, site rankings may fall. If new competing client sites enter the market, site rankings may drop. If the client site uploads altered pages or changes server technology, site rankings may drop.<\/p>\n There are four main page-centric SEO processes used by search engine optimization firms:<\/p>\n The primary methods used to\u00a0improve search engine ranking<\/a>\u00a0are discussed on our site. This section lists a couple of areas that are affected by current SEO standards, and are called-out for special notice.<\/p>\n What makes a bad search engine optimization practice? When asking SEOs this question, spam and cloaking seem to be the leading answers. We present these items as bad practices and encourage others to submit ideas for this list as well. Some of these SEO practices were once accepted by the search engines but have become \u201cbad\u201d over time as the search engines have evolved to combat their individual notions of webspam.<\/p>\n Transparent, hidden, misleading and inconspicuous links<\/em><\/strong> \u2014 This includes the use of any transparent image for a link and the use of hidden links (possibly in div\/layers). It also includes any link associated with a graphic without words\/symbols that can be interpreted as representing the effect of taking the link. Also included are inconspicuous links like 1\u00d71 pixel graphics or the use of links on punctuation. All of these would be considered \u201cspam\u201d and a cause for removal from a search engine index.<\/p>\n \u201cMachine generated\u201d pages<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 While many content management systems do create webpages, this entry refers to deceptive content pages generated to alter search engine results. These pages are typically created through software that takes keywords and uses them to assemble a high-ranking page. Pages like this are unconditionally spam because of their low quality and relevancy to any search.<\/p>\n Cloaking<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 When cloaking is used to deceive search engine user-agents for the purposes of ranking, it violates SEO standards and is considered spam. The only exception is when there is no impact (deletion, formatting, or insertion) on content delivered to the visitor versus the search engine spider. Where the stated objective of the tool [filtering by IP number or user agent] is to facilitate the delivery of differing content based upon visitor\/search engine identification processes, the implementation of cloaking technology is considered BAD.<\/p>\n Search engines may remove cloaked sites from their index where deception is involved.<\/p>\n Content Farms\/Article Directories<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 Before Google’s “Panda” update in 2011, article directories were a common way to increase PageRank. An article directory is a site that collects content about a specific subject. While collecting articles on a particular subject is not bad, many sites were “content farms.” These content farms churned out low-quality content on a particular topic to trick SE’s into increasing their PageRank. The Panda update removed sites that engaged in this practice. Today, search engines continue to filter out these low-quality pages as part of their core algorithms.<\/p>\n Spam<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 Spam runs from white-on-white to overloading the web with free webpages\/sites developed to boost popularity through links. This category needs a clear definition, but it is the most easily defined in \u201cblack and white\u201d rules.<\/p>\n External factors such as sites with numerous, unnecessary host names may also be caught. Some other common spam techniques include excessive cross-linking sites to inflate perceived popularity and the inclusion of obligated links as part of an affiliate program.<\/p>\n Google frequently updates its definitions of low-quality pages and webspam in its Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines<\/a>. The latest edition also discusses low-quality pages that are not spam and simply miss the mark. For the purposes of this article, we will continue to focus on the definition as it relates to spam and not poorly made, well-intentioned pages.<\/p>\n Google has directed quality raters to rate a page as “low quality” if it contains low-quality MC (main content) or if the “title of the MC is exaggerated or shocking.” This specifically cracks down on clickbait types of headlines, which are less likely to gain a spot on the Google front page. Google provides additional context on this, noting that:<\/p>\n Exaggerated or shocking titles can entice users to click on pages in search results. If pages do not live up to the exaggerated or shocking title or images, the experience leaves users feeling surprised and confused.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Further explanations of low-quality content focus on whether there is “an unsatisfying amount of website information or information about the creator of the main content.” So contact information for the site owner should be easy to locate on a site, such as the business name, address, and phone number. And if an author is named for an article, enough background information should be shown to establish the person\u2019s credibility and support the quality of the content.<\/p>\n More resources are available here:<\/p>\n Bing defines spam as pages that “have characteristics that artificially manipulate the way search and advertising systems work in order to distort their relevance relative to pages that offer more relevant information.” Bing has stated that if pages are found to contain spam, Bing may remove them at their discretion. They may also adjust the Bing algorithms to focus on more useful information and improve the user experience. Yahoo gets its search results from Bing, so any spam standards that apply to Bing will also apply to Yahoo.<\/p>\n Bing information and reporting tool: https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/concern\/bing<\/a><\/p>\n Sites that are not in compliance with SEO standards of quality are in danger of being removed from the search engine indexes. Should all search engines enforce the same standards, many websites will be scrambling for honest SEO firms to optimize their sites. This creates an opportunity for SEO practitioners to set a standard for the future.<\/p>\n\n
<\/a>Who Fights SEO Spam and Penalties<\/h2>\n
<\/a>Situation: A Story of Two Sites<\/h2>\n
Case in Point: Doorway Pages<\/h3>\n
<\/a>General SEO Standards to Practice<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/a>The Players<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/a>SEO Processes<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/a>Editing Focus\/Methodology<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/a>Bad Practice Issues<\/h2>\n
<\/a>What the Engines Think Is Spam<\/h2>\n
Google<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Bing<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/a>Summary<\/h2>\n