Hijacking the back button and SEO: Gaming Navboost, Exploring Google’s Spam Policies, and Aggressive Advertising
SEO From The Front LinesShow Notes
In Episode 14 of ‘SEO From The Front Lines”, I cover how some publishers are hijacking the browser back button and providing a feed of articles that drives users to more publisher content, including sponsored content and ads. That’s versus allowing them to return to the sites they visited from… Disabling, or hijacking the back button, is a tricky and deceptive tactic, since users might not know they actually stayed on the same site. And that’s especially the case when visitors arrive on the site from Google Discover since the publisher feed looks very similar to the Discover feed.
I also cover some reasons that some publishers are choosing to hijack the back button. For example, driving users to a publisher’s feed after hitting the back button can yield more pageviews, more ad impressions, and more ad revenue. But there’s another possible benefit of doing this… It can lead to more engagement for users that remain on the site, even if that’s not what the user intended to do. And with Google’s Navboost system at play, which tracks 13 months of user interaction signals (and can impact rankings), publishers could be gaming Navboost. And that led me to Google’s spam policies, if Google should issue manual actions for hijacking the back button, or if they should just tackle it algorithmically. I also cover how hijacking the back button was often the tip of the iceberg from an aggressive and deceptive advertising situation (and how some sites employing that tactic have seen big drops during major algorithm updates, including broad core updates).
And I end the video with some advice for publishers that might be currently hijacking the back button. My recommendation is to run a user study to better understand how real, objective users feel about having their back button hijacked, not being able to easily leave a site, etc. By running a user study, publishers can listen to, and watch, frustrated users on their own sites. It might just lead to publishers reevaluating their decision to hijack the back button.
00:00 Hijacking the browser back button and its impact on SEO.
01:32 Reasons publishers are hijacking the back button.
02:59 What the feed of content and ads looks like when the back button is hijacked.
03:57 Google’s stance on publishers hijacking or disabling the back button.
05:42 An introduction to Navboost and Google tracking 13 months of user interaction signals.
07:53 Google’s spam policies.
09:40 A Navboost twist and negative user interactions signals.
11:21 Aggressive advertising and broad core update impact for sites hijacking the back button.
12:47 My case study about The SEO Engagement Trap.
14:11 Publishers have serious decisions to make about ‘back button hijacking’.
14:36 Running a user study to understand user frustration from hijacking.
16:02 Quick recap and read my latest blog post covering hijacking the back button.
Read my blog post covering 'back button hijacking' and its impact on SEO: https://www.gsqi.com/marketing-blog/hijacking-the-back-button-gaming-navboost/
Google’s Core Algorithm Updates and The Power of User Studies: https://www.gsqi.com/marketing-blog/google-core-ranking-updates-user-studies/
Visualizing The SEO Engagement Trap:
https://www.gsqi.com/marketing-blog/user-frustration-behavior-flow-google-analytics/
Follow me on X: https://x.com/glenngabe
Connect with me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/glenngabe/
More from SEO From The Front Lines
In August of 2025, 434 days ago to be exact, I tested AI Search platforms like ChatGPT and Claude to see how well they could render JavaScript-based content. The results were terrible. So I decided to rerun my testing to see how much the AI Search platforms have evolved since then. You would think that ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity would be rendering JavaScript-based content now in order to get a full picture of the content across websites...
Glenn covers four case studies based on Google's August 2026 spam update. The update was powerful and impacted many sites that were violating Google's spam policies. Glenn covers a number of important topics, including 'Scaled content abuse', AI-generated content, programmatic content, 'Thin affiliates', 'Malicious functionality', and more.
The May 2026 Google core update was a powerful algorithm update that rolled out on May 21, 2026 and completed on June 2, 2026. Unlike the March 2026 core update, the May update was extremely powerful and caused a lot of volatility across sites, categories, and countries.
I coined the phrase “Mt. AI” based on seeing many sites scale with AI-generated content, surge in Google, only to crash as Google’s systems pick up what’s going on (or Google applies a manual action to the site for “Scaled content abuse”.) Well, there was a great example of this happening recently, which provided a unique opportunity to see how citations in ChatGPT were impacted in real-time. The website National Today added a new directory recently containing over 850K AI-generated local news articles. And no, they are not a local news site... The site surged in Google and in AI search platforms like ChatGPT. But those articles got noticed... And then Futurism wrote an expose about the situation, Google picked up the issue, and then applied a manual action for “Scaled content abuse”. And as you can guess, the site tanked in Google’s 10-blue links, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. But how did the site fare in ChatGPT? Well, that's the topic of my case study, which I cover in this video. I dug into AI Search visibility for National Today’s /us/ directory where all of the AI-generated local news content resides. Like I would expect, citations dropped heavily in ChatGPT once the manual action was applied. My video contains all of the details. Chapters: 00:00 When “Mt. AI” crumbles, ChatGPT citations follow suit. 00:52 Scaled content abuse with 850K AI-generated news articles. 01:27 “Mt. AI” and the problem with scaling AI-generatedcontent heavily. 03:14 Google applies a manual action for “Scaled content abuse” 03:54 The site drops in AI Overviews and AI Mode. 04:24 What happens with ChatGPT when a site tanks in Google? 05:52 Examples of citations dropping in ChatGPT. 08:05 Some ChatGPT citations did remain (for now). 09:14 Summary: Don’t become the next “Mt. AI”. Beware.
“What do I need to do in order to be visible in AISearch?" I get that question a lot. So the "Gabeback Machine" is back, but with an AI Search twist :) In this video, I cover my blog post titled, “Straight From the (AI) Source: Is AEO/GEO different than SEO? Google, Microsoft, and others explain how to be visible in AI search [Quotes, videos, articles, and more]”. There's a lot of debate about how to make sure you are visible in AI Search. Some say AEO/GEO strategy and tactics are different than what you should be doing for SEO, while others say what you do for SEO should cover AI Search. Well, just like I did when covering Google's site-level quality evaluation, Iwanted to provide a central place where site owners could find all of the information that the various AI search platforms have explained about how to be visible across AI search. Join me as I cover quotes, videos, articles, and more covering what Google, Microsoft, and others have explained about SEO versus AEO/GEO. There is some great information directly from the source. I also plan to update my post as we learn more from the various platforms about AI search visibility.