Around ten years ago when we introduced a policy called “First Click Free,” it was hard to imagine that the always-on, multi-screen, multiple device world we now live in would change content consumption so much and so fast. The spirit of the First Click Free effort was - and still is - to help users get access to high quality news with a minimum of effort, while also ensuring that publishers with a paid subscription model get discovered in Google Search and via Google News.
In 2009, we updated the FCF policy to allow a limit of five articles per day, in order to protect publishers who felt some users were abusing the spirit of this policy. Recently we have heard from publishers about the need to revisit these policies to reflect the mobile, multiple device world. Today we are announcing a change to the FCF limit to allow a limit of three articles a day. This change will be valid on both Google Search and Google News.
Google wants to play its part in connecting users to quality news and in connecting publishers to users. We believe the FCF is important in helping achieve that goal, and we will periodically review and update these policies as needed so they continue to benefit users and publishers alike. We are listening and always welcome feedback.
Questions and answers about First Click Free
Q: Do the rest of the old guidelines still apply?
A: Yes, please check the guidelines for Google News as well as the guidelines for Web Search and the associated blog post for more information.
Q: Can I apply First Click Free to only a section of my site / only for Google News (or only for Web Search)?
A: Sure! Just make sure that both Googlebot and users from the appropriate search results can view the content as required. Keep in mind that showing Googlebot the full content of a page while showing users a registration page would be considered cloaking.
Q: Do I have to sign up to use First Click Free?
A: Please let us know about your decision to use First Click Free if you are using it for Google News. There's no need to inform us of the First Click Free status for Google Web Search.
Q: What is the preferred way to count a user's accesses?
A: Since there are many different site architectures, we believe it's best to leave this up to the publisher to decide.
(Please see our related blog post for more information on First Click Free for Google News.)
Thus far in 2015 we have seen a 180% increase in the number of sites getting hacked and a 300% increase in hacked site reconsideration requests. While we are working hard to help webmasters prevent hacks in the first place through efforts such as blog posts and #NoHacked campaigns, we recognize that our reconsideration process is an important part of making recovering from a hack faster and easier. Here's what we've been focussing on:
1) Improved communication
2) Better tools
3) Continuous feedback loop
1. Improving communications with webmasters of hacked sites
Last year we launched the "Note from your reviewer" feature in our reconsideration process. This feature enables us to give specific examples and advice tailored to each case in response to a reconsideration request. Thus far in 2015 we have sent a customized note to over 70% of webmasters whose hacked reconsideration request was rejected, with specific guidance on where and how to find the remaining hacked content. The results have been encouraging, as we've seen a 29% decrease in the average amount of time from when a site receives a hacked manual action to the time when the webmaster cleans up and the manual action is removed.
Example "note from your reviewer" with detailed guidance and a custom example of hacked text and a hacked page
We have also completed our second #NoHacked campaign, with more detailed help on preventing and recovering from hacks. In the campaign, we focused on ways to improve the security on your site as well as ways to fix your site if it was compromised. You can catch up by reading the first post.
2. Better tools including auto-removal of some hacked manual actions
Last year we launched the "Fetch and Render" feature to the Fetch as Google tool, which allows you to see the website exactly as Googlebot sees it. This functionality is useful in recovering from a hack, since many hackers inject cloaked content that's not visible to the normal user but obvious to search engine crawlers like Googlebot.
This year we also launched the Hacked Sites Troubleshooter in 23 languages which guides webmasters through some basic steps to recover from a hack. Let us know if you have found the troubleshooter useful as we're continuing to expand its features and impact.
Finally, we're beta testing the automated removal of some hacked manual actions. In Search Console if Google sees a "Hacked site" manual action under "Partial matches", and our systems detect that the hacked content is no longer present, in some cases we will automatically remove that manual action. We still recommend that you submit a reconsideration request if you see any manual actions, but don't be surprised if a "Hacked site" manual action disappears and saves you the trouble!
Example of a Hacked site manual action on a Partial match: if our systems detect that the hacked content is no longer present, in some cases we will automatically remove the manual action
3. Soliciting your feedback and taking action
Our improved communication and tools have come directly from feedback we've collected from webmasters of sites that have been hacked. For example, earlier this year we hosted webmasters who have been through the hacked reconsideration process in both Mountain View, USA and Dublin, Ireland for brainstorming sessions. We also randomly sampled webmasters that had been through a hacked reconsideration. We found that while only 15% of webmasters were dissatisfied with the process, the main challenges those webmasters faced were in clearer notification of their site being hacked and clearer guidance on how to resolve the hack. This feedback contributed directly our more detailed blog post on hacked recovery, and to much of the content in our latest #NoHacked campaign.
(for hi-res version) https://goo.gl/photos/TkvkwYt23MpVHBwz6
We will continue to support webmasters of hacked sites through the methods detailed above, in addition to the Webmasters help for hacked sites portal and the security, malware & hacked sites section of our forum. And we'd love to hear your ideas in the comments below on how Google can better support webmasters recovering from a hacked website!
In order to protect the quality of our search results, we take automated and manual actions against sites that violate our Webmaster Guidelines. When your site has a manual action taken, you can confirm in the [Manual Actions] page in Search Console which part of your site the action was taken and why. After fixing the site, you can send a reconsideration request to Google. Many webmasters are getting their manual action revoked by going through the process.
However, some sites violate the Webmaster Guidelines repeatedly after successfully going through the reconsideration process. For example, a webmaster who received a Manual Action notification based on an unnatural link to another site may nofollow the link, submit a reconsideration request, then, after successfully being reconsidered, delete the nofollow for the link. Such repeated violations may make a successful reconsideration process more difficult to achieve. Especially when the repeated violation is done with a clear intention to spam, further action may be taken on the site.
In order to avoid such situations, we recommend that webmasters avoid violating our Webmaster Guidelines, let alone repeating it. We, the Search Quality Team, will continue to protect users by removing spam from our search results.
When it comes to search on mobile devices, users should get the most relevant answers, no matter if the answer lives in an app or a web page. We’ve recently made it easier for users to find and discover apps and mobile-friendly web pages. However, sometimes a user may tap on a search result on a mobile device and see an app install interstitial that hides a significant amount of content and prompts the user to install an app. Our analysis shows that it is not a good search experience and can be frustrating for users because they are expecting to see the content of the web page.
Starting today, we’ll be updating the Mobile-Friendly Test to indicate that sites should avoid showing app install interstitials that hide a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page. The Mobile Usability report in Search Console will show webmasters the number of pages across their site that have this issue.
After November 1, mobile web pages that show an app install interstitial that hides a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page will no longer be considered mobile-friendly. This does not affect other types of interstitials. As an alternative to app install interstitials, browsers provide ways to promote an app that are more user-friendly.
App install banners are supported by Safari (as Smart Banners) and Chrome (as Native App Install Banners). Banners provide a consistent user interface for promoting an app and provide the user with the ability to control their browsing experience. Webmasters can also use their own implementations of app install banners as long as they don’t block searchers from viewing the page’s content.
If you have any questions, we’re always happy to chat in the Webmaster Central Forum.
Posted by Daniel Bathgate, Software Engineer, Google Search.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner