How can I filter reviews that use profanity while using schema markup?
-
Google released new guidelines last year governing how schema markup is to be deployed on a website. One of those guidelines states that reviews on your site must not be filtered or altered to receive the benefit of schema markup. After my client was slapped on the wrist by Google for ignoring their Webmaster guidelines (and our advice ahem) they removed all filtering from the websites.
However, being a family friendly company it is a requirement that no profanity be displayed on the website. Google's guidelines are not entirely clear about what to do. They state:
"Profanity and vulgar language are discouraged. Reviews should be appropriate for a broad and diverse audience. Consequently, reviews containing vulgar or profane language may be ineligible for use."
and...
"Critic reviews must allow for customers to express both positive and negative sentiments. They may not be vetted by the business or restricted by the content provider based on the positive/negative sentiment of the review before submission to Google."
The issue is that we need to vet the reviews to remove profanity, yet that may be triggering for Google. Any thoughts?
Source: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/reviews -
Hey Brett!
Thanks so much for updating this thread. I like the answer you received, but I wish very much that it was coming directly from a Google staffer. I don't in any way doubt that what the volunteer is saying is true ... I'd just have preferred it if he mentioned he took the issue to staff to get an official answer. Hmm ... this is not an easy one!
-
I received a response from Barry Hunter who said pretty much what I suspected: that the devil is in the details.
"Critic reviews must allow for customers to express both positive and negative sentiments. They may not be vetted by the business or restricted by the content provider based on the positive/negative sentiment of the review before submission to Google."
I've bolded the distinction he had made which is that it's acceptable to vet reviews as a profanity filter.
What he did not address, though he did acknowledge, was that there may still exist some confusion as the reviews most laden with profanity are likely to be angry, negative reviews. While I'm not 100% satisfied with this answer, I think it's likely to be the only one I'll get.
For those interested in the discussion: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/k24p4fPf404/3e7D7hjxEwAJ
I'm tempted to <nofollow>that link until I get a satisfactory response </nofollow>
-
I'm glad you decided to post to Google, Brett. This is the first time I've ever seen this issue you've raised, and I'm very impressed that you've voiced it. It really does deserve and answer from Google, and I'd love it if you could let our community know if you hear from a staffer or volunteer there. Thanks!
-
Thanks Miriam, I've posted the question in Google's product support forums as well to try and find a resolution. If anyone nibbles I'll update the Q&A here as well.
There is a caveat in the wording that I've noticed where it states "Critic reviews must allow for customers to express both positive and negative sentiments. They may not be vetted by the business or restricted by the content provider based on the positive/negative sentiment of the review before submission to Google."
This may give us wiggle room to vet the review based on profanity, though I don't know how Google would be able to make the distinction since any review using profanity is more likely by its nature to have a lower rating, and therefore is likely to trip Google's alarms.
-
Wow, I would love to see John Mu address this. You've brought up a really good topic Brett, for which I don't have an answer. Can anyone in our community help Brett out?
Before coming to Moz, I worked at a forum where any profanity was autocorrected by the platform. I'm not sure how that worked technically, but the issue you've raised is that Google is specifically stating that they don't want website-based reviews to be altered, while at the same time they want to safeguard their own review base from being degraded with profanity. It's a mixed signal, for sure. Google can choose to filter out a vulgar review on their own platform (or any review they feel doesn't meet their quality guidelines), but they apparently don't want you to have the same ability on your own site. This is definitely a conundrum and one I'd love to see a Google staffer address.
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
-
1st party reviews
Hi, I would like to add 1st party reviews to a website that promotes a software application using schema code to display ratings in search results. I have not been able to find any examples of software app schema being on a single page. Wondering how others have applied this and displayed on the website. Thanks.
Reviews and Ratings | | SaddleOak0 -
Reviews for Plastic Surgeons and Other Businesses where Anonymity is preferred
Howdy, fellow mozzers. I would like to hear some thoughts on how to go about review generation for industries, where anonymity is preferred - like plastic surgery, DUI/DWI law, even intimate-related stores etc. Far not everyone would want to have their profile attached to a plastic surgery procedure, especially in private areas; or have their face by a review about them getting out of jail for drunk driving etc. We have clients in those industries and many clients of theirs would love to leave reviews, as long as they don't have to login with Google or other accounts. We sure use those testimonials on the website, but, again, faceless testimonials can look fake. Any advice?
Reviews and Ratings | | DmitriiK1 -
Rich snippet not enabled, on aggregated review pages
We have a website where you can book on restaurants, and afterwards you can review the restaurant you visited. So we have this page: https://www.r2n.dk/restauranter/restaurant-bonjour-vietnam (We have one for each restaurant). English version https://www.r2n.dk/en/restauranter/restaurant-bonjour-vietnam The page is marked up in microData, and when I test the site in google structured data it shows no errors https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.r2n.dk%2Frestauranter%2Frestaurant-bonjour-vietnam . But the page does not show up on google with a rich snippet (The review stars). I am thinking it might be one of the following things. Either it is because there is multiple "Restaurants" on the page, where the others appear in recommended restaurants, where we also marked them up as much as possible. Or else it could be because the reviews are hidden behind the "Anmeldelser"(Reviews) button, where they are retrieved via a ajax request, but if this was the case I don't get why this other site where the reviews does not appear is working fine: https://www.just-eat.dk/restaurants-bonjourvietnam Also it is a week since we finaly correctly implemented the structured data on the page, so I don't know if I should wait a longer time(Though the page has been cached by google multiple times since we updated the code)
Reviews and Ratings | | Christian_T0 -
Google Review Guidelines update.
OK Moz peeps... Right then, I have just been reading an article over on SEO RoundTable from Barry Schwartz. NEW Local review guidelines for businesses - take a look. It in effect alludes to Google stamping all over review schema and snippets, third party review solutions/providers and really trying to limit how they are used. I have interpreted the new guidelines to say that you can no longer mark up and use external stats on your own site in the form of aggregate ratings from the likes of TrustPilot, Feefo, Revoo (some uk review sites) and more.... These were the two key lines for more Only include reviews that have been directly produced by your site, not reviews from third-party sites or syndicated reviews. Aggregators or content providers must have no commercial agreements paid or otherwise with businesses to provide reviews. What does everyone else think? and how soon before people get penalised (if ever) for marking up external stats to make your own site and services look more favourable... Could definately be a slap in the face for Serp CTR and onpage conversion optimisation. Also how do people expect this to affect PPC review rating going forward. Will Partner sites become a thing of the past? Looking forward to a good discussion here 🙂 PS - I am not staff at Moz just have a t-shirt which is my avatar. I am not sure why below my avatar it suggests I am Staff due to the tag added to it. Is anyone else getting that on their profile too?
Reviews and Ratings | | TimHolmes0 -
Best process for asking customers to leave reviews?
This might be too off-topic for Moz, but I think many of us might face the same issue, so I thought I would ask. Love them or hate them, we get 90% of our business from being #1 on Trip Advisor. My biggest competition is trying very hard to take over that #1 spot, so we are working to keep it. Has anyone found a seamless way to ask customers for TripAdvisor reviews? We email, text, ask over the phone. But here the problem, Trip Advisor is not the easiest site to leave a review on. If you are on your phone, they want you download the app. Some people don't like to download apps. Or, if they have the app already and click "yes" to open the site in the app, it goes to the app store instead. There doesn't seem to be as much of an issue on the PC, but most people do everything from their phones now. And if something is a little bit hard, people are less likely to go out of their way to leave a review. So, here's my question. Has anyone found a better way? Maybe a form on my website? Or a process that seems to work better? This does have some SEO implications in that my Trip Advisor page does show up in search results quite a bit as well as much home page. Sometimes they are #2 and #3 together.
Reviews and Ratings | | CalicoKitty20002 -
Customer Reviews inputted by a single person
We send out a product review survey through an email after a purchase has been made. It is okay that we input those in manually ourselves when they are returned? They are legitimate reviews. I want to make sure it doesn't send a red flag to search engines since the same person inputs them from the same computer and IP address. Thanks in advance for your inputs.
Reviews and Ratings | | jwanner1 -
Publishing testimonials on your site that are from your Google + (or other review sites page)
Ive got a site with some good Google + Reviews and some other good reviews on other sites that id like to be able to publish on a testimonials page on our website, but im worried about being penalised for duplicate content. Any idea of the best way to get these reviews on to our website, i was thinking about placing the text in as an image, but id prefer to do something semantic if at all possible. (I know that some review sites have javascript widgets you can use to pull in your reviews but for most of the sites we are reviewed on they dont)
Reviews and Ratings | | Sam-P0 -
Google plus review - how to ask
I found a way (finally!) to find out which of my customers who have a gmail account have also a Google plus account. That helps a lot. We use to send handout reviews or video instructions about how to create a Google plus account...and it didn't go to well. Now that we know they have a G+ account , all we have to do is ask for a review; how to do this?
Reviews and Ratings | | echo1
What are the latest strategies so that the review will stay there? have them log in, search for the business name and write the review? give them the direct link? is the searcher's path important? should we look for users who are engaged more in their circles? Thanks!0