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

Check them out at and feel free to let us know what you think. 
Tuesday, October 02, 2012 at 10:26 AM. Webmaster level: All Today we're happy to announce an updated version of our Webmaster Quality Guidelines. Both our basic quality guidelines and many of our more...
Josh Mangum's profile photoLyndon NA's profile photoJess H's profile photoJohn Mueller's profile photo
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 markup will also work since it uses microdata markup format, correct?
Add a comment...