# Editorial oversight counts again, and that is the news

Everyone reported the European carve-out. The same update rewrote the policy worldwide and reversed what Google closed off in 2024.

Published: 2026-08-28T16:00:00.000Z

Canonical: https://thatseoagent.com/en/blog/site-reputation-oversight-counts-again

On August 28, 2026 Google published a short post about its site reputation policy, and the
industry read it as a European story: Google stops penalising in the EEA, the Commission wins,
publishers in Europe are off the hook. That is a fair summary of the post. It is not a fair
summary of the update, because the policy page changed the same day and the more consequential
edit is in there, applies everywhere, and undoes something Google spent November 2024 explicitly
closing.

## The three dates

**March 5, 2024.** Google announces site reputation abuse alongside the March 2024 core update,
effective two months later, on May 5. The target is third-party content published on a strong
domain to borrow its ranking signals.

**November 19, 2024.** Google tightens it. The post is unusually direct about what it is ruling
out:

> 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.

And then the rule, in the same post: a violation "regardless of whether there is first-party
involvement or oversight of the content." Publishers had been arguing that their coupon and
affiliate sections were edited, branded and supervised by their own staff. Google answered that
this did not matter.

**August 28, 2026.** The policy page is rewritten. The human review now has this as its stated
purpose:

> Our overarching goal is to determine whether content on the relevant portion of the site is
> created with sufficient input, editorial oversight, or contribution from the host site to be
> considered fully integrated with the main site.

Oversight, the thing declared irrelevant in 2024, is now the thing being measured. And the page
says of that review: "This review applies globally."

## What the review looks at

Four factors, named on the page, aimed at "the degree to which the host domain exercises control
over the page content":

- **Presentation.** Are the graphic design, formatting, typography and UX consistent with the
  host domain?
- **Quality.** Are there quality issues on the page that do not appear on the main domain?
- **Authorship.** Is there an explicit acknowledgement of ownership or responsibility? Is there
  anything contesting the stated authorship?
- **Duplication.** Does the content appear on other sites in identical or near-identical form?

Google then hedges the list, and the hedge matters: "not one of these factors is either
necessary or sufficient on its own."

The page also carries two worked examples, and they are more useful than the list. A coupons
section built with a partner, on a different CMS, is *unlikely* to draw action when it is linked
from the homepage, categorised for that publisher's own audience, disclosed as commercial, and
cross-referenced from the publisher's own editorial and newsletters. A product page is *likely*
to draw action when it sits outside every thematic section, is reachable from no menu, and
duplicates a marketplace listing.

Side by side they describe one test, and it is not about who typed the words. It is about
whether the section is a working part of the publication or is parked on the domain.

## The European half, stated precisely

From August 30, a manual action under this policy does two different things depending on where
the searcher is.

Outside the EEA, nothing changes: the affected pages are demoted, the rest of the site is not.

Inside the EEA, the manual action's impact does not apply. Instead the section "may be
categorized as separate from the main domain", which switches off a presumption Google otherwise
applies everywhere: that a page inherits the quality of the domain it sits on. Google's own FAQ
says previous EEA manual actions under this policy will be lifted, that a manual action taken
outside the EEA is not used as a ranking signal inside it, and that there is no obligation to
noindex the affected content.

Two things follow from that. The separation mechanism is not new, and Google is not
inventing a European penalty: the November 2024 post already described treating starkly different
sections as standalone, and said plainly that this "doesn't mean that these sub-sections have
somehow been demoted." What is new is that in the EEA it is now the only instrument.

## Two descriptions of one event, and they do not match

The European Commission's spokesman, Thomas Regnier, called it a repeal:

> We welcome the repeal of this policy, which unfairly penalised publishers.

Google's post calls it "adjusting our enforcement approach within the EEA", says it remains
"concerned that an overbroad application of the DMA could prevent us from addressing real threats
to the integrity of our search results", and closes with "we are committed to our site reputation
policy". A spokesperson added that European users are "no less frustrated by parasite SEO and
other deceptive, pay-to-play tactics that degrade search results".

The policy text sides with Google's description. The policy exists in the EEA, the review happens
in the EEA, sites are still notified. What was removed is one enforcement instrument in one
territory. Whether that amounts to a repeal in practice is exactly the thing nobody can answer
yet, which is why the Commission said it "will now monitor the application of the new policy".

## What we would watch

The reported win for European publishers has a shape that should make anyone uneasy. A manual
action is visible: it lands in Search Console, it names the affected section, it can be appealed,
and now eligible sites can take a dispute to mediation. Algorithmic separation is none of those
things. Google's FAQ says the categorisation "isn't automatic", that the section does not
immediately lose the main site's signals, and that "over time, our ranking systems learn to rank
these parts of a site independently", which "may lead to changes".

So a European publisher trades a notification it can read and contest for a gradual change it
has to infer from its own numbers. The worst case is milder and it is also much harder to see.

The Commission was answering a real harm. Demoting a legitimate newspaper's supervised coupons
section costs a publisher money for running a section its own editors run, and that is what the
four new criteria are written to prevent. But "Europe is exempt now" is the wrong thing to file
away. The checklist is, because the checklist applies to your site wherever your readers are.

## The number to watch

If you run a section on your domain that somebody else operates, compare it against the rest of
the site rather than against itself. In Search Console, pull clicks and impressions by page for
the last 90 days, split into two groups: URLs under that section, and everything else. Record the
ratio week by week.

A section being ranked independently does not look like a cliff. It looks like the section
drifting away from the site's own trend while the rest holds. That is a comparison, not a
reading, which is why a single line chart of the section alone will not show it to you.

If you have Search Console connected to That SEO Agent, that split is a question rather than an
export: clicks and impressions by page, last 90 days, weekly, filtered to the folder. It queries
the Search Console API and hands back the two series. We cannot tell you whether a separation
happened, because Google publishes no signal for it and we will not invent one. We can put the
two lines next to each other, which is the only evidence available from outside.

## Frequently asked questions

:::faq
### Does this mean site reputation abuse is allowed in Europe now?
No. The policy applies in the EEA, the human review happens there, and site owners are still
notified in Search Console. What changed is the consequence: inside the EEA the manual action's
impact does not apply, and the affected section may instead be ranked independently of the main
domain.

### I have a manual action under this policy. What happens to it?
Google's FAQ says previous manual actions under this policy will be lifted for pages appearing to
users in the EEA, and that having had one is not used as a ranking signal there. Outside the EEA
the manual action still applies as before.

### Is the old advice to noindex the affected section still right?
Google now says explicitly that there is "no obligation to apply a noindex tag to content that is
subject to a manual action outside the EEA", and that not doing so is not treated as evasion.
That is a narrower statement than it looks: it is about EEA ranking, not about the manual action
outside it.

### Did anything change for sites outside Europe?
Yes, and this is the part the coverage skipped. The criteria the human review applies were
rewritten on the same day, and the page says that review "applies globally". Editorial oversight
and integration are back at the centre of the test after being ruled irrelevant in November 2024.

### How would I know if my section was separated rather than penalised?
You would not, directly. There is no report for it. The available evidence is comparative: the
section's Search Console trend against the rest of the site's, over weeks rather than days.
:::

## Sources

- [Update to the Site Reputation Policy](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2026/08/update-site-reputation-policy) — the announcement, August 28, 2026, posted by the Google Search Quality team
- [Spam policies for Google web search: site reputation policy](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies) — the rewritten policy, the four review factors, the worked examples and the FAQ quoted above
- [Updating our site reputation abuse policy](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2024/11/site-reputation-abuse) — November 19, 2024, where first-party involvement and oversight were ruled irrelevant
- [Google Search's March 2024 core update and new spam policies](https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2024/03/core-update-spam-policies) — the original announcement and the May 5, 2024 effective date
- [Google changes spam policy in EU to avert antitrust fine](https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2026/0828/1589545-google-changes-spam-policy/) — Reuters, carrying the European Commission spokesman's "repeal" quote
- [Google won't respect manual actions for site reputation abuse in the European Economic Area](https://searchengineland.com/google-wont-respect-manual-actions-for-site-reputation-abuse-in-european-economic-area-486055) — Search Engine Land, with Google's statement to press