Shared publicly  - 
 
We just published an update of our Webmaster Guidelines!

Check them out at http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35769 and feel free to let us know what you think. 
31
13
Rick Bucich's profile photoAshley Berman Hale's profile photoJess H's profile photoYuri Carlenzoli's profile photo
12 comments
 
I miss link spam/key stuffing in breadcrumbs...
 
Good to see that fake review snippets is now included ;)
 
Nice to see people can't give themselves 5 stars for their own SEO services now:)
 
Well, at least not with the initial profile.......
 
Comments sent. Thanks for keeping us all in the loop, JM!
 
The problem I see there is it kills off certain marketing avenues ... and standard/established practices.

Further, I'm pretty sure I've seen/heard Googlers say it's fine to send stuff to someone who will review it ... and the chances are that the review will contain a link.

The problem here is that there is a distinct difference between doing something to obtain a link, and doing something that may contain a link.

All because G built an economy they failed to monitor/controll properly, and now have to go in hard/heavy to clean up the garbage they let build up.

So - Questions :
* Is Google going to slap the various sites that are linked to from "Which?", or other such sites/review systems?
* Will google view "Guest Posts" as going against their newer link guidelines?
* Is submitting content/products to a site/service that may result in a link to be considered as "spammy" - regardless of whether the potential for a link is in question/not the objective?

All I see is less clarity and more fear mongering, utilising the recent campaigns to brutalise site owners further.
Jess H
 
schema.org markup will also work since it uses microdata markup format, correct?
Add a comment...