What is the UGC link attribute?
rel="ugc" is a value for the rel attribute on an HTML link. It stands for user-generated content and tells search engines that the link was added by a visitor rather than the publisher: in a comment, a forum post, a review, a community profile. Google introduced it in 2019 alongside rel="sponsored", as a more specific alternative to the older rel="nofollow", which had been the catch-all signal for links a site did not want to vouch for. A link tagged ugc is treated as a hint that it should not pass editorial endorsement, which protects the site from being held responsible for links its users drop.
In the page's code it is simply an extra attribute on the link tag. Most platforms with comments, forums or reviews add it automatically, and a visitor never sees it.
Why it matters
Why the UGC link attribute matters
Search engines read links as votes. If anyone can add a link to a page and have it count as the site's endorsement, the page becomes a target: spammers post comments full of links, the site's authority leaks to places it never chose, and in the worst case the site is penalized for hosting link schemes. The ugc attribute separates what the publisher says from what its users say. For a brand with a community, a review section or a blog with open comments, it is basic hygiene that keeps the site's own links meaningful and its search standing clean.
It also matters for anyone doing outreach. A link in a comment section tagged ugc is not the same as an editorial link in an article, and a link-building effort that counts them equally is measuring the wrong thing. A fashion or beauty brand with a lively review section has thousands of ugc links on its own pages, none of which should be confused with coverage. For the people who run a site's search strategy, the attribute is also a reporting matter: a clean separation between editorial and user links makes the site's link profile easier to read and easier to defend.
In practice
How the UGC link attribute works in practice
- 01
A site adds rel="ugc" to any link whose destination it did not choose. Content management systems and forum software usually do this by default for comments and posts; a developer can add it in the template for reviews, profiles and anywhere else users can insert a URL. The values can be combined: rel="ugc nofollow" is common, and rel="ugc sponsored" covers a user-added link that is also paid. Search engines treat all three as hints rather than directives, which means they may still crawl the link and may, in some cases, count it.
- 02
Trusted contributors are the exception. A site that vouches for long-standing community members can leave their links untagged, which is a signal of editorial trust rather than a technical setting. The decision should be a policy, written down, so that whoever edits the templates next year knows why some links carry the attribute and some do not.
- 03
Checking it is simple. View the page source or use a browser's inspector, find a link in the comments or reviews and look at its rel attribute. SEO crawlers will also report which outbound links carry which attributes, which is the quickest way to audit a large site.
- 04
Pair the attribute with moderation. The tag tells search engines not to vouch for a link; it does nothing about the link being there. Spam filters, a review queue for first-time posters and a plain policy on what gets removed keep the comments worth reading, which matters more to the people on the page than anything in the markup.
Watch out
What people get wrong about the UGC link attribute
Using nofollow for everything and ignoring ugc and sponsored. The older attribute still works, but the specific ones give search engines better information, and sponsored is now expected on paid links. The second mistake is tagging editorial links as ugc out of caution, which throws away the site's own authority. The third is assuming ugc makes a site immune to link spam; it reduces the incentive, but moderation still has to exist. And the last is counting ugc links in an outreach report as if they were earned coverage. They are not, and a client who understands the difference will notice.
