Google is clarifying its site reputation abuse policy, a change in its search algorithm that has hammered some of the biggest sites on the internet.

Sites like Forbes Advisor saw their rankings plummet in recent weeks. Changes to how Google handles site reputation abuse is the reason, with the search giant cracking down on sites that abuse their status to push unrelated content.

The company clarified exactly what qualifies as site reputation abuse in a new FAQ.

This is a tactic where third-party content is published on a host site in an attempt to take advantage of the host’s already-established ranking signals. The goal of this tactic is for the content to rank better than it could otherwise on a different site, and leads to a bad search experience for users.

Google acknowledges there are some situations in which there may be first-party involvement, but that it doesn’t fundamentally change site reputation abuse.

Since launching the policy, we’ve reviewed situations where there might be varying degrees of first-party involvement, such as cooperation with white-label services, licensing agreements, partial ownership agreements, and other complex business arrangements. Our evaluation of numerous cases has shown 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.

The company says it takes a number of factors into consideration when evaluating a site, and that not all third-party content abuses the new policy.

When evaluating for policy violations, we take into account many different considerations (and we don’t simply take a site’s claims about how the content was produced at face value) to determine if third-party content is being used in an abusive way. Site owners who receive a spam manual action will be notified through their registered Search Console account and can submit a reconsideration request.

It’s important to note that not all third-party content violates this policy. We go into detail on our spam policies page about what is and isn’t site reputation abuse.

Google provides further clarification in the FAQ section of the document.

What is third-party content?

Third-party content is content created by a separate entity than the host site. Examples of separate entities include users of that site, freelancers, white-label services, content created by people not employed directly by the host site, and other examples listed in the site reputation policy.

Does the use of any third-party content violate the site reputation abuse policy?

No, having third-party content alone is not a violation of the site reputation abuse policy. It’s only a violation if the content is being published in an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals. Our policy page has examples of third-party content use that doesn’t violate the policy.

Does freelance content violate the site reputation abuse policy?

No, while freelance content is third-party content, freelance content alone is not a violation of the site reputation abuse policy. It is only a violation if there is ALSO an attempt to abuse search rankings by taking advantage of the host site’s ranking signals.

Does affiliate content violate the site reputation abuse policy?

No, the policy is not about targeting affiliate content. The documentation about the policy notes that affiliate links marked appropriately aren’t considered site reputation abuse.

Ultimately, Google provides a succinct explanation of exactly what constitutes site reputation abuse.

This is when third-party content is being placed on an established site to take advantage of that site’s ranking signals — which the site has earned primarily from its first party content — rather than placing the content on a separate site that lacks the same signals.

Google’s FAQ provides some much-needed clarity to its updated policy, while at the same time promoting a more fair internet where smaller sites don’t have to compete against giants in niche markets.