Search Compliance Is Not A Choice

That means that (1) no one is able to create issues by accident, because all posts are prevetted for compliance either by an accountable party or automation.

That means (2) the automation has active redundancy discovery and redundancy handling, preventing automation errors and dupes.

And it means (3) periodic vetting of inbound links to pre-empt 3rd party interference.

If you don't have a robust strategy to address these 3 issues, your search positions are at risk, no matter how high your current ranks.

Large systems requiring multiple access and posting capabilities need to consider the search issues created by those capabilities. Beyond mere scale, unique functionality and content management protocols contribute complexities to the implementation that can directly impact the site's ability to rank.

Developers can very easily create systems that generate content or structures that can be seen as deceptive, redundant, or otherwise harmful to search positions. And many structures that work fine for small sites self destruct when scaled large. Very frequently we find huge sites with massive amount of redundancy, often across multiple sites and subdomains.

And if your Singapore office is posting the exact same boilerplate as your people in New York, is the inherent system redundancy being addressed by your automation? Or is the enterprise falling into deeper risk?

Many large enterprises have sites about to suffer in the natural search as a result of penalties triggered by legacy, non-compliant web implementations. Just because you're flying under the radar right now doesn't mean you're ok. In fact, putting off a compliance check is a bad idea. The last thing you need is to discover your systems are non-compliant by having a penalty imposed on your natural search positions.