Paying for Reviews Penalty?
-
Hello, recently came across a company that has been paying people directly for reviews. I of course do not recommend this and realized the ethical implications and even the lawsuits that can come from this, but does Google have a manual penalty for fake reviews or do they just algorithmically discount ones that raise red flags? I have never really had to worry about this in the past. I know you can flag fake reviews to them on an individual basis, but does anyone have history of knowing specific situations where a company was manually punished for doing this? Just curious and I kind of wanted to give them strong documentation to knock it off. Thanks in advance.
-
Joy's advice actually provides point #5, Jeremy. Personally, I wouldn't recommend outing your own client for review spam, but in addition to consumers realizing reviews are fake, your client's competitors and their SEOs may realize it and report the reviews to the GMB forum or to a Top Contributor like Joy, etc.
So, that would be a 5th point to raise with your client.
-
If you have evidence, feel free to add it here and I can send it over to Google. They remove reviews for businesses that do this provided there is proof of it.
-
Hi Jeremy,
Good questions, and unfortunately, the bad news is that review spam on Google is rampant, and unfortunately, does not appear to be well-policed. Technically, yes, Google could both remove spam reviews and penalize the listing that is engaging in them (either manually or algorithmically), but as Mike Blumenthal has recently been documenting, Google does not seem overly interested in devoting resources to catching or penalizing review spammers (definitely read: http://blumenthals.com/blog/2017/04/17/the-largest-review-spam-network-ever-or-who-is-shazedur-rahman-and-why-should-you-care/)
There seem to be thousands of fake reviews in the network Mike has been tracking which violate not only Google's guidelines but also, likely, FTC regulations. Unfortunately, this state of affairs with Google appearing to ignore massive review spam calls into question the trustworthiness of their review product and it's something I would hope to see them crack down on in future.
Google's situation provides good background as to the famous stringency of Yelp's review policies. Yelp is highly invested in ensuring that reviews on their platform are legitimate. This is why they remove 28% of the reviews they receive and why they have publicly shamed erring accounts from time to time.
So, for now, if you're trying to convince a business not to spam Google's review product, you are likely to have to use something other than the immediate threat of penalties as your argument. This might include:
-
The possibility of a future Google crackdown at any time, with consequences that could be as mild as a soft penalty with loss of the fake reviews, to as severe as being banned with all of the traffic and revenue your GMB listing used to drive for your brand vanishing overnight.
-
The possibility of consumers discovering spam on their own and causing permanent damage to the brand's reputation via Word-of-Mouth, social sharing, etc., as well as the obvious loss of the customer and his network of friends if they are disgusted enough.
-
The possibility of FTC actions, lawsuits, etc. This should startle any business on the review spamming road: https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2296366/fake-online-reviews-cost-19-companies-usd350-000
-
The weakness of a marketing strategy that relies of faking success instead of actually achieving it. You can't use fake reviews as a benchmark of growth, gains, quality control or anything like that. You're just fooling yourself, instead of putting in the work to achieve a genuine reputation for excellence.
You may think of other discussion points, but these four should be enough to convince any legitimate business with even a small amount of concern for staying in business that these risky shortcuts are a hazard rather than an asset.
Hope this helps!
-
-
In 2016 Google sent out a batch of new manual penalty notices that mostly hit bloggers. Bloggers were penalized for accepting free products in exchange for a review with a link to merchant’s website or accepting paid reviews with such links.
It’s a well known fact for years now that Google doesn’t like to see paid reviews or reviews paid through free product or free service pass PageRank.
Online stores who were buying lots of links that pass PageRank would get hit by a manual penalty or even worse, by the Penguin algorithm.
Google now decided to focus on those who enable merchants to get such links – the bloggers. So Google sent out manual penalties to bloggers who didn’t listen to this guideline.
Impact can be both positive and negative, depending on how good you were in obeying Google’s guidelines in past. Till now, if you only obtained a few links with this method where you give a free product or pay for review to a blogger, Google would be unable to figure out that you’re doing something wrong on a massive scale and you wouldn’t get penalized in any way.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Beware of Fishy 4-Star Reviews
Hello to all our folks who market local businesses! I came across something this week that I felt was important enough to share. Hopefully, if you're a Moz blog reader or a Moz Local customer, you're already well aware of the importance of monitoring your Google My Business reviews on an ongoing basis, responding to them as they come in, whether they're positive or negative. And, you know to be on the lookout for spam reviews. But a strange new form of spam seems to be emerging that might be really easy to overlook at first. We're all familiar with the spammer who leaves you fake 1-star reviews for the purpose of harming your brand. But you might not immediately be suspicious of a 4-star review, or even a string of 4-star reviews until you realize your former 5 star rating has been whittled down by a succession of less-than-perfect, fake reviews. The worst thing, I think, about this tactic, is that it can be overlooked. Jason Brown has captured this phenomenon in his recent post: http://reviewfraud.org/4-star-negative-review-attacks/ and I highly recommend reading it and paying extra attention to any 4-star reviews companies you market may be receiving. I'd suggest, if you find this going on with any of the GMB listings you manage, you report it to Jason so that he can continue to track this activity. He's a Google forum TC, and, perhaps, with enough evidence, he might eventually be able to make a case to Google about this practice.
Reviews and Ratings | | MiriamEllis5 -
Structured Data Reviews in Knowledge Panel
I need help with getting my site appearing in the knowledge panel for reviews. Our reviews are appearing in the search snippets but not on the knowledge panel when our competitors with far fewer reviews are. We’ve labored over best practices in perfecting our markup but would love a second opinion to see if there’s something we’re overlooking. For example take this venue on our website: https://www.eventsource.ca/cathedral-centre It has 136 of our own reviews. https://www.google.ca/search?q=cathedral+centre We are the 1st result and it shows our star rating, reviews and price range. However, we don’t appear in the knowledge panel - this is happening for almost every business we have listed on our site. In this particular example, the knowledge panel has en Ville Catering with 45 reviews. I cannot find any errors in our structured data but I see it in our competition: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eventsource.ca%2Fcathedral-centre https://enville.com/saint-james-cathedral-centre-wedding-catering/ Example 2: Search: https://www.google.ca/search?q=burlington+convention+centre US: https://www.eventsource.ca/burlington-convention-centre
Reviews and Ratings | | Neumarkets.com
SDTT: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eventsource.ca%2Fburlington-convention-centre Competitor in KP: https://www.weddingwire.ca/wedding-banquet-halls/burlington-convention-centre--e12513
SDTT: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weddingwire.ca%2Fwedding-banquet-halls%2Fburlington-convention-centre--e12513 Example 3: US: https://www.eventsource.ca/mississauga-convention-centre
SDTT: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eventsource.ca%2Fmississauga-convention-centre Search: https://www.google.ca/search?q=mississauga+convention+centre
Competitor 1 in KP: https://www.facebook.com/MississaugaConventionCentre/
SDTT: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FMississaugaConventionCentre%2F (I know it’s Facebook. However, there’s about 6-8 competitors appearing in the KP with Schema issues and we aren’t. We’ve compared ourselves against each one of them and cannot determine what the issue might be.) Competitor 2 in KP: https://www.weddingwire.ca/wedding-banquet-halls/mississauga-convention-centre--e8086
SDTT: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weddingwire.ca%2Fwedding-banquet-halls%2Fmississauga-convention-centre--e8086 Competitor 3 in KP: http://www.eventvenues.ca/b/54/mississauga-convention-centre-on-mississauga-75-derry-road-west/
SDTT: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eventvenues.ca%2Fb%2F54%2Fmississauga-convention-centre-on-mississauga-75-derry-road-west%2F CMxg9Z10 -
Potential Ethical Conflict: Google My Business Paid Reviews
I've been sitting on this for a while due to The Busies. So if this is nothing new, feel free to lash me several times with a somewhat moist noodle. And in that event, I promise not to make it weird. 😉 I use the Rewards application, from Google. Long story short, you fill in some demographic information and you receive Google Play credit when you complete surveys. It's a nice way to get a book, app, or music for little effort. But after giving a friend of mine a ride to a local hotel, I've received multiple survey requests that relate to that hotel brand. And it asks me to drop a local review, for extra Google Play credit. How is that ethical? Their own docs clearly state there is no way to pay for better local ranking, but they also admit reviews can improve local ranking. So isn't soliciting reviews, for any sort of compensation, at least a bit unethical? What are your thoughts? Attached are screenshots of the solicitation and GMB documentation. w4hEe
Reviews and Ratings | | Travis_Bailey1 -
Should I change to new URL after going through a period of bad reviews
A couple of years ago we had a series of bad reviews due to our billing company. We have not been able to recover from this and are unable to appear in Local listings due to the horrible reviews even though they are from years ago. Would it be a good idea to change domains and google+ accounts in order to start over with reviews and local citations?
Reviews and Ratings | | OhYeahSteve0 -
New building ownership and NAP - strategies for removing old listings with bad reviews
I have a question based on this scenario: An apartment building changes ownership. Previous owners were terrible and online listings have had terrible reviews. Since the apartment building now has a new brand name, new office address and phone number, the new owners want to create new online listings instead of claiming the old listings with the bad reviews. Also they want to report the old listings as "closed". They would like to remove the old listings with bad reviews from the old management and old brand name and start fresh, since they plan many improvements. Has anyone tried this strategy? How much luck has anyone had rebranding an apartment building and reporting old business listings as closed?
Reviews and Ratings | | DragonSearch0 -
Fixing Google Review (it's technical, not about an unhappy client)
We have six 5 star reviews for our Tampa office...but for some reason, our rating is a 4.8. Why is that? And, more importantly, how do I get it fixed? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=kemp+ruge+green+tampa+twiggs&lrd=0x88c2c48aec26ee65:0xaa2e3a3569ca3602,1 Thanks, Ruben
Reviews and Ratings | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Bing Local Lists Yelp Reviews From Another Business At Shared Address
Hi everyone, I am having a problem with Bing local listings and am hoping someone might be able to help me out. Basically I am working with a business that shares an address with another (separate legal entities, different owners, different phone, different domain). Both are bathroom remodelers, but one uses the space as a storefront/showroom, the other is strictly a service area business and uses the space for storage/office space (this is the one I am working with). I have claimed their listing on bing local and set it to hide the address. The problem I am having is that for whatever reason, Bing local is associating the yelp page of business 1 (showroom) with business 2 (business 2 is not currently on yelp). My question: what options do I have to remedy this? Is there a way to request a manual review of sorts to have this fixed? Would it be sufficient to create/verify a yelp page for business 2 and hope that Bing picks up on this?
Reviews and Ratings | | rbmac0 -
Do schema review numbers have to be manually updated?
Hi! I've had success with review schema rendering in SERPs but have had to manually code the numbers and update those numbers as more reviews come in (which is a bit time-consuming). Is there a way to use auto-generated numbers that will still render schema or do those numbers have to be manually added? I've looked at the schema for sites like IMDB, and their schema numbers seem to be manually added, which seems like a huge lift. Advice/input is appreciated!
Reviews and Ratings | | 199580