Does Google assign "SEO credit scores" to webmasters?

[goodroi]

If you have ever tried to apply for a home loan or a car loan you know how important it is to have a good credit score. If you don't have a good credit score you quickly realize how hard and long it is to improve your credit score.

Why am I talking about financial credit scores in a Google SEO forum?

In another thread about Google Sandbox Sgt_Kickaxe mentioned that he has a "sneaking suspicion that Google has a version of this social dynamic playing out in rankings and that the credibility of the site builder/owner plays a role ... Like your credit score it's hard to build a good rep, and easy to destroy one too"

Do you think Google is assigning website owners a SEO credit score that impacts how current and future websites perform?

[EditorialGuy]

I think sites have any number of scores, such as:

- Trust
- Authority
- Quality

And while Google seems to have a policy of "sin, suffer, repent" in terms of spam penalties, it's reasonable to think that even a site that's been forgiven might lose some trust.

[nomis5]

it's reasonable to think that even a site that's been forgiven might lose some trust.

.

But that's side stepping the question being asked, which is about website owners not "a site".

Going back to the original question, I can well believe that website owners are "credit scored". Why not?

[EditorialGuy]

Why not, indeed?

[rainborick]

Well, one reason this is unlikely to be true is that it doesn't scale well - especially within the universe of webmasters who would be the intended targets - because domain name ownership information is an unreliable indicator of the person responsible for actually running the site. Google could supplement the domain name information with Webmaster Tools account data, but even then the relationship between that information and the true operator of the websites involved is often murky. And there's (almost) nothing to stop a black hat SEO from having as many WMT accounts as he wants.

Then you run into situations where the website owner gets bright idea of doing his own link building and starts carpet bombing the web with directory submissions, signature links, article syndication, etc. long after the website designer or SEO has stopped actively working on the site although he remains a client and in his WMT account. Who gets the blame then?

At best, you might be able to flag some bad actors who are too arrogant or lazy to take steps to avoid it.

[Clay_More]

rainborick hits some valid points.

I have some sites listed in WMT(one account), others are not listed. Generally, I have privacy enabled on most sites, different computers are used to access different sites.

Black hat? No. But I certainly don't believe Google has any right to any more information than I have to give them.

If I thought Google was looking at an SEO credit score, I suppose it would be a good time to build one. So is this concept going to be the new Page Rank?