5th Reconsideration Request, Have i missed anything...
-
Hi Guys,
I wonder if any of you can help me out.I'll be shortly submitting another reconsideration request to Google.I've been working on removing bad / spammy links to our site http://goo.gl/j7OpL over the past 6 months and so far every reconsideration request I have submitted has been knocked back with the following message:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear site owner or webmaster of http://goo.gl/j7OpL ,
We received a request from a site owner to reconsider http://goo.gl/j7OpL for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines.
We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines .
Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes .
We encourage you to make changes to comply with our quality guidelines. Once you've made these changes, please submit your site for reconsideration in Google's search results.
If you find unnatural links to your site that you are unable to control or remove, please provide the details in your reconsideration request.
If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.
Sincerely,
Google Search Quality Team
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've removed over 70% of all our links - we had some large sitewide links on big sites with exact match anchor text to our main money keyword, I've also removed a large link network that our previous SEO company setup.
Today I have completed an overhaul of all our internal links, near enough every blog post that we added to the site had a link back to the home page with an exact match money keyword.
1 thing that I did notice was when we got hit by the penalty it didn't affect every keyword we target just our main / most competitive keyword, yes some of our other keywords took a dip in rankings but not as much as our main keyword.
When I submit our next reconsideration request I'll also attach a spreadsheet of links that I can't remove either because I can't find any contact details / blocked by whois or I'm just not getting a response when I email them.
If anyone can point out anything else that I have missed or might have missed that would be great.
Thanks,
Scott
-
Ryan's given you a super generous answer! I wanted to add a couple of things:
You mentioned that you will attach a list of links that you couldn't get removed. It may help to go even further. What I usually do is attach a document that contains a copy of each email that I have sent for sites that I was unsuccessful with. And, if I got a negative response back I would include that email as well.
I also include screenshots of every contact form that I have submitted. It may be overkill but from Google's perspective if you just say, "I tried to contact them" that's not enough.
You're probably already doing this, but be super humble in your request and make sure that you tell Google you are committed to following the quality guidelines from this point on. I think part of the reason why Google makes webmasters go through this is because they want to be sure that they understand the gravity of trying to game the system with SEO tactics.
And like Ryan said...be really tough on yourself when it comes to links. I have seen a number of webmasters that say, "NO! That's not an unnatural link! It came from an article that I wrote", or something like that. But in reality almost every link that you have had a hand in creating is one that is considered unnatural to Google.
Good luck! If you are successful, it would be great for you to post about your success here in the Q&A to encourage others.
Marie
-
Great answer yet again Ryan.
Thanks for your detailed response.
Thanks,
Scott
-
Hi Scott,
Removing manual penalties for manipulative links is a complex task. The result for most people is to repeatedly have the Reconsideration Request declined. If you tried another 5 times, the results are not likely to change. At a high level there is likely an error in one of three areas:
1. You need to use a comprehensive list of all known backlinks to your site. Using the list from Google is not even close to enough. I use Google WMT + OSE + Raven (Majestic) + AHREFs + SEMrush + Bing. If you do not start with a comprehensive list of links, you will continue to miss addressing manipulative links and Google will not even pay any attention to your Reconsideration Request.
2. You need to ensure your idea of a manipulative link is calibrated with Google. The process begins with being intimately familiar with Google's Guidelines. A few questions to ask for each link:
-
if search engines did not exist, would this link be here?
-
who created the link / content? If the link was created by the site owner, it would likely be considered manipulative
-
how credible is the site? the web page? the content? is it focused on a specific topic or a grab bag?
-
what value does this link / page offer to users?
The above list is not comprehensive, and there are other factors to weigh. There are corner cases as well. What I can share is the PA and DA of the pages involved should not be given any consideration at all. Additionally, there is not any automated tool which can be used for making an organic vs manipulative link determination. I have reviewed several and, to put it nicely, they seem to offer completely false hope to desperate site owners.
3. You need to make a solid, good-faith effort to contact linking sites to request the links be removed. Do not simply change anchor text as that does not make the link any less manipulative. Don't give up simply because the WHOIS e-mail is not valid. Try the WHOIS e-mail, the site e-mail and the Contact Form (if any) on the site. If a site owner denies your link removal request the first time, respond to them in a very polite manner and ask in a different way.
I have been involved with the Reconsideration Request for numerous clients in your situation. Items 1 & 2 are the most common issues and they are show stoppers.
Good Luck.
-
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
What should I include in disavow file and/or reconsideration request?
My client got a manual penalty notice. Need to submit a disavow file and reconsideration request which is new territory for me. The task of contacting/disavowing 100's of sites to remove 1000's of links is a bit overwhelming. Answers to any of these questions would be greatly appreciated. Search console is showing 100's of hacked websites pointing to the site. Many of the incoming links showing in search console are already gone. Should I include in the disavow file or is the disavow file only for links that persist? I have read that Google does not actually read the #remarks in the disavow file. Since its manual penalty should I include them anyway since it's possible that a human could look it over? If anyone who has submitted a reconsideration request for unnatural links can comment on their use or non use of #remarks and the result that would be very helpful. You can tell that Google wants an effort to be made that the site owners are contacted. What is the best way to document that? In the reconsideration request?: The disavow file? or both.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KentH0 -
AJAX requests and implication for SEO
Hi, I got a question in regard to webpages being served via AJAX request as I couldn't find a definitive answer in regard to an issue we currently face: When visitors on our site select a facet on a Listing Page, the site doesn't fully reload. As a consequence only certain tags of the content (H1, description,..) are updated, while other tags like canonical URLs, meta noindex,nofollow tag, or the title tag are not updating as long as you don't refresh the page. We have no information about how this will be crawled and indexed yet but I was wondering if anyone of you knows, how this will impact SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FashionLux0 -
Null Alt Image Tags vs Missing Alt Image Tags
Hi, Would it be better for organic search to have a null alt image tag programatically added to thousands of images without alt image tags or just leave them as is. The option of adding tailored alt image tags to thousands of images is not possible. Is having sitewide alt image tags really important to organic search overall or what? Right now, probably 10% of the sites images have alt img tags. A huge number of those images are pages that aren Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
What makes a site appear in Google Alerts? And does it mean anything?
Hi All, I recently started using Google Alerts more and more and while sites I support never appear there (not surprising) I recently noticed few very poor and low quality sites that do. This site for example appears quite a bit in its niche. So to my questions... What makes a site appear in Google Alerts? And does it mean anything? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet0 -
Google reconsideration request processed - but same story.
We have been getting the same response from Google after several reconsideration requests. THE SITUATION:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SpadaMan
Our site displays 3 distinct product lines. We separated each product line by use of SUB-DOMAINS. All 3 product lines are integrated as part of the main NAVBAR. The product list pages run off the sub-domain; however, product detail pages run off the MAIN-DOMAIN. GWT
Google has taken manual action because the MAIN-DOMAIN.COM links to PRODUCT-A.DOMAIN.COM on every single page. I attempted several times to explain; but without success. It's only one SUB-DOMAIN causing a problem. The other 2 SUB-DOMAINS are setup the exact same what without issue. This week, we simply added a NO-FOLLOW on the link to the SUB-DOMAIN causing the issue; we will see if this helps. Anyone else ever experience this?0 -
Wordpress site, MOZ showing missing meta description but pages do not exist on backend
I've got a wordpress website (a client) and MOZ keeps showing missing meta descriptions. When I look at the pages these are nonsense pages, they do exist somewhere but I am not seeing them on the backend. Questions: 1) how do I fix this? Maybe it's a rel con issue? why is this referring to "non-sense" pages? When I go to the page there is nothing on it except maybe an image or the headline, it's very strange. Any input out there I greatly appreciate. Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SOM240 -
Urls missing from product_cat sitemap
I'm using Yoast SEO plugin to generate XML sitemaps on my e-commerce site (woocommerce). I recently changed the category structure and now only 25 of about 75 product categories are included. Is there a way to manually include urls or what is the best way to have them all indexed in the sitemap?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kisen0 -
Is Google's reinclusion request process flawed?
We have been having a bit of a nightmare with a Google penalty (please see http://www.browsermedia.co.uk/2012/04/25/negative-seo-or-google-just-getting-it-painfully-wrong/ or http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/10093-why-google-needs-to-be-less-kafkaesque for background information - any thoughts on why we have been penalised would be very, very welcome!) which has highlighted a slightly alarming aspect of Google's reinclusion process. As far as I can see (using Google Analytics), supporting material prepared as part of a reinclusion request is basically ignored. I have just written an open letter to the search quality team at http://www.browsermedia.co.uk/2012/06/19/dear-matt-cutts/ which gives more detail but the short story is that the supporting evidence that we prepared as part of a request was NOT viewed by anyone at Google. Has anyone monitored this before and experienced the same thing? Does anyone have any suggestions regarding how to navigate the treacherous waters of resolving a penalty? This no doubt sounds like a sob story for us, but I do think that this is a potentially big issue and one that I would love to explore more. If anyone could contribute from the search quality team, we would love to hear your thoughts! Cheers, Joe
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BrowserMediaLtd0