How does google know if rich snippet reviews are fake?
-
According to: https://developers.google.com/structured-data/rich-snippets/reviews - all someone has to do is add in some html code and write the review. How does google do any validation on whether these reviews are legitimate or not?
-
Hi Lingke!
Good feedback from everyone here. I just wanted to be sure to throw into the mix that fact that John Mueller specifically stated last December that Google does not want markup on on-site testimonials:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/wY1vF2RRos4/discussion
More on this here:
-
My guess is that Google is getting better and better at detecting false review data. There is a lot of academic research around this area, particularly in accounting fraud, where patterns created by humans to appear random do a poor job of actually representing standard data. A popular example of this is called Benford's Law where leading digits of certain data sets (like electricity bills) are more likely to be lower digits (starting with the number 1, for example). When people try and fake the data, they don't tend to follow this law.
Google has huge data sets on validated reviews and known-fraudulent reviews. If there is a way to detect unbelievable reviews, you got to believe Google is working on it.
That being said, this is probably the best reason not to start posting fake reviews... it's illegal.
-
The answer here is "no" Google has no idea if they are fake or not. Google may be able to tell if the reviews are duplicated on other sites (as it can do with other content) and so could in theory not rank the pages with the duplicate content/reviews. A common recommendation we give to a small business is to not copy reviews from other sites for this reason, and usually reprinting reviews are a violation of the TOS of the review site. I would speculate that Google could look at the overall reputation/authority of a site to see if they display snippets, but that it really only a guess on my part.
The only thing that Google can validate, to a degree, are the reviews that come through Google+ type profiles. They can do things like see if a profile was created, gave a single positive review and then the user never logs in again. That would obviously be a suspect pattern and there are for sure other examples. I have seen Google sometimes do things like look at a business, see if it has a validated Google Local profile and if they do, Google will pull in reviews from review sites and display them in the Google local cards. There is a bit of validation there as the business has taken the time to verify itself in Google Local.
That said, I would say many users can tell a fake review a mile away. We bring focus groups onto a review site I help with and they can tell when things look "off". I would not waste my time with fake ones for that reason alone.
Also, if you do have legitimate reviews, you do need to make sure the markup is correct if you want the snippets to show in the SERPs. If your markup is not valid the snippets will not show up. The Rich Snippets testing tool can help with this
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
-
Submitting a page to Google Search Console or Bing Webmaster Tools with nofollow tags
Hello, I was hoping someone could help me understand if there is any point to submit a domain or subdomain to Google Search Console (Webmaster Tools) and Bing Webmaster Tools if the pages (on the subdomain for example) all have nofollow/noindex tags ... or the pages are being blocked by the robots.txt file). There are some pages on a data feed onto a subdomain which I manage that have these above characteristics ... which I cannot change ... but I am wondering if it is better to simply exclude from submitting those from GWT and BWT (above) thereby eliminating generating errors or warnings ... or is it better to tell Google and Bing about them anyway then perhaps there is a chance those nofollow pages may be indexed/contextualised in some way, making it worth the effort? Many thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | uworlds
Mark0 -
What penalty would cause this traffic drop (Google Analytic Screenshot)
This ecommerce site was hit (mostly) slowly by updates but there is nothing in GWT. Below is the graph. Keep in mind that most of our traffic is return customers, so the drops don't look dramatic, but they are. "New Visitors" doesn't show the drop. This is a "Daily" Google Analytics setting. The drop I've circled is May 23-May 24, 2013. It was a huge hit in non-return customers. This graph is "Unique Visitors" I don't know why the "New Visitors" graph is not showing the dip Although we had some big drops, a lot of the drop was gradual. Any help in identifying what could be causing the problem is appreciated. ga.png
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
Will Google perceive these as paid links? Thoughts?
Here's the challenge. I am doing some SEO triage work for a site which offers a legitimate business for sale listing service, which has a number of FOLLOWED link placements on news / newspaper sites - like this: http://www.spencercountyjournal.com/business-for-sale. (The "Business Broker" links & business search box are theirs.) The site has already been penalized heavily by Google, and just got pushed down again on May 8th, significantly (from what we see so far). Here's the question - is this the type of link that Google would perceive of as paid / passing page rank since it's followed vs. nofollowed? What would you advise if it were your site / client? From everything I've read, these backlinks, although perfectly legit, would likely be classified as paid / passing pagerank. But please tell me if I'm missing something. My advice has been to request that these links be nofollowed, but I am getting pretty strong resistance / lack of belief that these links in their current state (followed) could be harming them in any way. Would appreciate the input of the Moz community - if they won't believe me, and the majority here agrees about nofollowing, maybe they'll believe you. Thanks! BMT
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CliXelerate1 -
Does Anybody Know Who Interflora's SEO Company Is (Or Was)?
In light of the recent penalty put on the Interflora site, does anybody know who their SEO company is or was (or if they were doing it in house)? Also, do you think SEO companies that are responsible for things like this should be named and shamed?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | jasarrow0 -
Blogger Reviews w/ Links - Considered a Paid Link?
As part of my daily routine, I checked out inbound.org and stumbled upon an article about Grey Hat SEO techniques. One of the techniques mentioned was sending product to a blogger for review. My question is whether these types of links are really considered paid links. Why shouldn't an e-commerce company evangelize its product by sending to bloggers whose readership is the demographic the company is trying to target? In pre e-commerce marketing, it was very typical for a start-up company to send samples for review. Additionally, as far as flow of commerce is concerned, it makes sense for a product review to direct the reader to the company, whether by including a contact phone number, a mailing address, or in today's e-commerce world, a link to their website. I understand the gaming potential here (as with most SEO techniques, black-hat is usually an extreme implementation), but backlinks from honest product reviews shouldn't have a tinge of black, thus keeping it white-hat. Am I wrong here? Are these types of links really grey? Any help or insight is much appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | b40040400 -
Is it outside of Google's search quality guidelines to use rel=author on the homepage?
I have recently seen a few competitors using rel=author to markup their homepage. I don't want to follow suit if it is outside of Google's search quality guidelines. But I've seen very little on this topic, so any advice would be helpful. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | smilingbunny0 -
Banned from google !
Hello, I realize (with GAnaltytics and command "link:") this morning that my domain host (share one) : "mlconseil.com" under which several websites are hosted has been banned from google. Here below the websites : www.amvo.fr :
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mozllo
www.apei-cpm.fr :
www.armagnac-les-vieux-chenes.fr
www.centraledelexpertise.fr
www.cleaning-pc-33.com
www.internet-33.fr
www.territoires-et-ntic.fr
www.vin-le-taillou.com
www.maliflo.asso.fr I don't kow why, i use since end of january 2011 IBP, only for some submissions to directories and for managing some lists of urls. I submitted about 30/40 directories never at the same time , but raher day after day, smoothly. On www.territoires-et-ntic.fr and www.amvo.fr which are blogs, i have installed some external rss feeds to display as articles, i decided to stop that but i don't know if it's related to such "blacklistage" from google. I don't use any nasty "blackhat" programs or else.. I'am really upset about that, i claim this morning with the same words as now, a new indexation but i don't know how long it will take ?Any idea ? Which are the tools which could help me to scan for maybe any malicious maleware on my hosting provider ? Many tks0