• http://www.essexportal.co.uk/ Jon

    It is interesting, and reassuring, to read some of those guidelines. I wonder though how often the quality rater does get it wrong? Some of the items that Google has emphasised could suggest that these are areas that in the past a manual reviewer has just got wrong – such as lots of adverts, using affiliate links etc.

  • http://www.arcticllama.com/blog/ Brian Nelson

    If Google forbids you from publishing it due to the fact that it is one of their copyrighted documents, then that makes it legit. Went and grabbed it straight away. I would advice anyone else who wants to see it do so as well.

  • http://www.justoutsourcing.com Nicole Miller

    @Brian Nelson, had searchengineline not published the copyright infringement tidbit, I would have never believed this document belonged to google since there’s nothing in it to support that claim. Nothing I could find, anyway.

  • http://www.thecasualvegan.com T.C.V.

    This is either the best link bait ever, or you really don’t know that you’ve published an article that links to nothing but a 404 page. No guidelines in sight. ;)

    Don’t spose you have a link for the PDF that still works?

  • http://www.masternewmedia.org/ Robin Good

    @Brian Nelson thank you for your recommendation. I would really like to research this document in depth but I got here too late to see it. If you want to reach out for me on Twitter or Facebook, I am always “RobinGood” and would very much appreciate your help on this.

    Many thanks

  • robinlmay

    Does anyone have a copy of this doc they could send over. I’d like it for light reading !! LOL I tried PotPieGirl, but google asked that it be removed from her site based on the same legal issues.. Anyways, if you want to share – email it on over !!

  • http://www.activetraffic.de Nicolas Sacotte

    @Barry, there was another one, leaked in 2009…. ;-)