Full Text of Google's General Guidelines for Remote Quality Raters from April 2007

[tbp]

Found this on SEO Book today, apparently it's been leaked on to a number of sites.

It's an interesting read, as it gives a glimpse into Google...

http://www.mauriziopetrone.com/blog/...lines-2007.pdf

[ep90]

"Not all affiliates are thin" and just you remember that

[thomashine]

Nice to see that Google classes affiliate links as "sneaky redirects"... arrrgghhh... :eek:

Recognizing when redirects are sneaky or non-sneaky (P.38) 3. Compare the domain registrants for each URL. If you find that the two URLs have the same domain registrant, you will conclude that the page is not Spam. If they are different, it is probably Spam. Example of a Sneaky Redirect: htp://ww.kqzyfj.com/go65biroiq57A8E7A6577BDAA6 redirects to htp://ww.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/StoreCatalogDisplay/c-10101/s-10101/TID-101?AID=1157440&PID=1428140 (links removed) Using a whois provider, you will see that the domain registrant for the first URL is Commission Junction, while the domain registrant for the second URL is J.C. Whitney & Company. Please note that “whois” may also be used when trying to determine if a page is a thin affiliate.

Pages which have "sneaky redirects" are to be classed as Spam, which must have some effect on your rank in Google.

Start cloaking your affiliate links everyone, although even that might not be good enough.

Tom

[Azam.net]

Gripping reading indeed (I know, I'm a bit sad). Yes, I noticed the CJ link being classified as "sneaky".

The document reiterates that Google are doing their level best to filter out thin affiliate sites. Even if one doesn't have a thin affiliate site, it is a wise move to hide affiliate links.

[drivetowin]

Interesting read but probably to be taken with a pinch of salt.

a) Some parts of it don't quite ring true to me to be original Google documentation.

b) Even if you accept it is all 100% true, the document is from April 2007 so those rules have already been in place for a year - so to take action now could well be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[TVIDesign]

Exceptions: Pages should generally not be marked Spam if they provide added value. Added value refers to original or other useful content on the page, regardless of whether there are PPC ads. Examples of content that provides added value include: • Price comparison functionality: Even though the user has to go to another site via the affiliate link to place an order, there is value to have price comparisons right there on the page. • Product reviews: Pages that provide original reviews offer added value. Items that are commonly reviewed are books, electronics, and hotels. • Recipes: Pages that provide recipes offer added value. • Lyrics and quotes: Pages that display lyrics or quotes offer added value. • Contact information: Pages that provide contact information, especially physical addresses and phone numbers, offer added value. • Coupon, discount, and promotion codes: Affiliate pages that provide coupon, promotion, or discount codes for the consumer offer added value.

So, next time you're making a PPC search site about credit cards, make sure you provide a receipe for a cheesecake on the same page, you'll be fine.

[sgpratley]

I think it's important to distinguish between a redirect, and a page containing a link which goes via a redirect

htp://ww.kqzyfj.com/go65biroiq57A8E7A6577BDAA6
and
htp://ww.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/StoreCatalogDisplay/c-10101/s-10101/TID-101?AID=1157440&PID=1428140

These both go to the same page, so there's good reason for Google to remove one from its index, but that's not the same as a page of useful unique content about car parts, recipes using engine oil, and the lyrics to the 'we like trucking' song, that links to J C Whitney via a CJ link.