Official statement
Other statements from this video 28 ▾
- □ Pourquoi le trafic n'est-il pas un facteur de classement dans Google ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment mettre tous vos liens d'affiliation en nofollow ?
- □ Les Core Web Vitals mesurent-ils vraiment ce que vos utilisateurs vivent ?
- □ Le JavaScript est-il vraiment compatible avec le SEO ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment éviter les redirections progressives pour préserver son SEO ?
- □ Peut-on vraiment déployer des milliers de redirections 301 sans risque SEO ?
- □ Pourquoi Googlebot ignore-t-il vos boutons 'Charger plus' et comment y remédier ?
- □ Pourquoi les pages orphelines tuent-elles votre SEO même indexées ?
- □ Faut-il arrêter de nofollow les pages About et Contact ?
- □ Les pop-ups bloquants peuvent-ils vraiment compromettre votre indexation Google ?
- □ Pourquoi votre contenu géolocalisé risque-t-il de disparaître de l'index Google ?
- □ Faut-il abandonner le dynamic rendering pour Googlebot ?
- □ L'index Google a-t-il vraiment une limite — et que faire quand vos pages disparaissent ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment vérifier tous vos domaines redirigés dans Search Console ?
- □ Comment Google pondère-t-il ses signaux de ranking via le machine learning ?
- □ Pourquoi votre site a-t-il disparu brutalement de l'index Google ?
- □ Les avertissements de sécurité dans Search Console affectent-ils vraiment vos rankings SEO ?
- □ Les Core Web Vitals d'AMP passent-ils par le cache Google ou votre serveur d'origine ?
- □ Pourquoi Search Console n'affiche-t-il aucune donnée Core Web Vitals pour votre site ?
- □ Le trafic est-il vraiment sans impact sur le classement Google ?
- □ Le JavaScript pour la navigation et le contenu nuit-il vraiment au SEO ?
- □ Faut-il vraiment s'inquiéter du nombre de redirections 301 lors d'une refonte de site ?
- □ Pourquoi les redirections en chaîne sabotent-elles vos restructurations de site ?
- □ Le lazy loading est-il vraiment compatible avec l'indexation Google ?
- □ Google crawle-t-il vraiment votre site uniquement depuis les États-Unis ?
- □ Faut-il abandonner le dynamic rendering pour l'indexation Google ?
- □ Pourquoi les pages orphelines détectées uniquement via sitemap perdent-elles tout leur poids SEO ?
- □ Les pop-ups partiels peuvent-ils ruiner votre SEO autant que les interstitiels plein écran ?
Google states that an internal link redirecting to an affiliate site upon click does not constitute cloaking, provided the nofollow attribute is used or the redirect URL is blocked by robots.txt. This official clarification removes a major ambiguity for monetized sites. Essentially, you can hide your affiliate links behind clean internal URLs without fearing manual penalties, as long as Googlebot doesn't follow those links.
What you need to understand
Why is this statement coming to light now? <\/h3>
Affiliate programs have always posed a puzzle for serious SEOs: how to monetize properly without ruining user experience with endless URLs stuffed with tracking parameters? The common practice has been to create internal redirects (like /go/product-xyz) that point to the actual affiliate URL.<\/p>
The problem? This technique technically resembles cloaking: the user sees a link that appears to lead to an internal page, but upon clicking, they end up somewhere else. Google has always been vague on this topic, creating a gray area that no one dared to explore. Mueller finally clarifies: it is not cloaking if you follow the rules of the game.<\/p>
What is the real difference between prohibited cloaking and tolerated affiliate redirection? <\/h3>
Classic cloaking shows Googlebot different content than what the user sees, with the intent to manipulate ranking. Here, the logic differs: the link is the same for everyone (both humans and bots), it's just that Googlebot should not follow it<\/strong>.<\/p> If you block the URL via robots.txt or use rel="nofollow", Google never crawls the destination. It only sees a neutral outgoing link, exactly as intended. The user clicks and bounces to the affiliate. No crawl manipulation, no differentiated content — therefore no cloaking in the strict sense.<\/p> Mueller offers two methods: nofollow on the link (the cleanest solution) or robots.txt blocking of the redirect URL. The second option is more subtle: you create /go/* and add "Disallow: /go/" in your robots.txt.<\/p> The result: Googlebot never crawls these URLs, thus never discovering the affiliate destination. To it, these links are dead ends. This approach avoids the need to add nofollow on each link individually, which can be practical on sites with hundreds of dynamically generated affiliate links.<\/p>What does it actually mean to "block the redirect URL via robots.txt"? <\/h3>
SEO Expert opinion
Is this statement consistent with observed practices in the field? <\/h3>
Let's be honest: thousands of sites have been using this technique for years without ever being penalized. Mueller's statement merely officially confirms a de facto tolerated practice. Major media sites, comparison sites, tech blogs — all redirect their affiliate links through internal URLs.<\/p>
What's changing is that we finally have a clear position from Google rather than an anxiety-inducing gray area. However, Mueller provides no figures or concrete examples of penalized sites for improper implementation. It's pure declarative talk. [To be verified] on real cases of sites that have faced manual actions for poorly configured affiliate redirects.<\/p>
What are the actual risks of incorrect implementation? <\/h3>
The real danger lies not so much in a manual penalty (very rare for this specific reason) but in the accidental dilution of PageRank. If you forget the nofollow on hundreds of outgoing affiliate links, you bleed link juice to third-party sites that don’t provide any return.<\/p>
The other risk: creating redirect chains (your /go/ pointing to an affiliate that redirects to the final merchant). Google follows up to 5 hops but it’s slow, consumes crawl budget, and degrades user experience. Every millisecond counts on mobile.<\/p>
In which cases does this rule not apply? <\/h3>
This tolerance only concerns transparent monetized links: affiliation, declared sponsorship, commercial links. It absolutely does not cover attempts to manipulate backlinks or satellite site networks that redirect to a money site.<\/p>
If you use internal redirects to hide footer links to SEO clients, or to artificially create mesh between your own domains, you are clearly in the red zone. Mueller is talking about legitimate monetization, not disguised black hat.<\/p>
Practical impact and recommendations
What concrete steps should be taken to secure affiliate links? <\/h3>
First step: audit all your monetized outgoing links. Identify those that go through internal redirects and ensure they have the nofollow attribute (or sponsored, which implies nofollow). If you generate these links dynamically, ensure your template consistently adds the attribute.<\/p>
Second approach: if you prefer robots.txt blocking, create a dedicated folder like /affiliation/ or /go/ and explicitly block it. Test with Google Search Console to see that Googlebot properly respects the directive. This method is cleaner for mass managing hundreds of links.<\/p>
What errors should absolutely be avoided in the implementation? <\/h3>
Never mix 301 redirects and affiliate links. A 301 indicates a permanent move and passes PageRank — exactly what you don’t want. Always use 302 (temporary) or 307 (method retained). Affiliates change, programs close, your redirect URLs must remain flexible.<\/p>
Another classic trap: forgetting to apply nofollow to URL variants (UTM parameters, AMP versions, etc.). If your /go/product-xyz has a nofollow but /go/product-xyz?source=newsletter does not, you have a leak. Work at the pattern level, not URL by URL.<\/p>
How can I check if my site complies with this directive? <\/h3>
Crawl your site with Screaming Frog or Oncrawl in Googlebot mode. Filter all outgoing links to affiliate domains and verify that they have the nofollow attribute or that their URLs are blocked by robots.txt. Look for anomalies: redirect chains, 301 instead of 302, follow links leaking outward.<\/p>
Also test the user experience: redirects should be instantaneous (< 200ms ideally). A slow affiliate that takes 3 seconds to respond degrades your Core Web Vitals and your bounce rate. Monitor the latency of your redirect URLs and consider switching affiliates if performance is disastrous.<\/p>
- Add rel="nofollow" (or rel="sponsored") to all outgoing affiliate links
- Or block the affiliate redirect folder in robots.txt (e.g., Disallow: /go/)
- Use exclusively 302 or 307 redirects, never 301
- Check that no redirect chain exceeds 2 hops (you → affiliate → merchant)
- Regularly audit with a crawler to detect nofollow leaks
- Monitor the latency of redirect URLs to preserve Core Web Vitals
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Puis-je utiliser des redirections 301 pour mes liens affiliés ?
Est-ce que rel="sponsored" suffit ou faut-il ajouter nofollow explicitement ?
Si je bloque /go/ dans robots.txt, Google peut-il quand même pénaliser ces liens ?
Les redirections affiliées consomment-elles du crawl budget inutilement ?
Dois-je déclarer explicitement qu'un lien est affilié à Google ?
🎥 From the same video 28
Other SEO insights extracted from this same Google Search Central video · published on 07/05/2021
🎥 Watch the full video on YouTube →Related statements
Get real-time analysis of the latest Google SEO declarations
Be the first to know every time a new official Google statement drops — with full expert analysis.
💬 Comments (0)
Be the first to comment.