Manual Webspam Error by Google!
-
Hi,back in June 2013, our company received a notice of unnatural links which resulted in 'a manual spam action' from Google.A reconsideration request was filed a week later which received the following response from Google:_'We reviewed your site and found no manual actions by the webspam team that might affect your site's ranking in Google. There's no need to file a reconsideration request for your site, because any ranking issues you may be experiencing are not related to a manual action taken by the webspam team.'_Naturally we are confused by what seems to be an error in Google's communication.We are also left questioning whether it was necessary to remove the links Google stated were unnatural.Since the notice was received, we have struggled to recover traffic even after implementing Google best practices. Some clarity on the issue would be greatly appreciated.My URL is: www.homefurnitureland.co.uk
-
Hi Jane,
to clarify, the site had been hit heavily by Panda in 2011 and again in 2012 by Penguin. Both are prior to the manual spam action, so we are aware of the impact each has had.
The purpose of the post was to see if anyone within the community has experienced a similar error in communication from Google and could recommend a course of address.
We are also aware of the backlink profile and manipulated anchors, but would like to thank you for your analysis.
Regarding the miscommunication, we have decided to approach a few individuals from the webspam team on Google + for a resolution.
Thanks again for your input : )
M.
-
Hi Marek,
Very few people get anywhere with the tweet-Matt option sadly
If you received a manual penalty, this has little to do with Penguin updates - the penalty has been handed out by a member of the Webspam team rather than by the algorithm.
What concerns me about your links is firstly how many links point to the site using commercial terms rather than brand terms as anchor text. This is one of the red flags Penguin looks for, but it's also amazingly easy for a person to discover: http://i.imgur.com/INcW11X.png
No backlink profile created "naturally" (and I realise how hard it is to create a natural backlink profile) would look like that. A Googler would take a dim view of that anchor text spread.
Secondly, I'm curious about the sites that link to you using those anchors. I tried visiting them and many of them returned the exact same 500 database error: http://i.imgur.com/lQHEk3p.png + http://i.imgur.com/zpw6YC7.png
All these sites have the same IP address. The other sites hosted on this IP are all down as well: http://www.bing.com/search?q=ip%3A176.67.167.170&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&filt=all&pq=ip%3A176.67.167.170&sc=0-3&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=fd590e3d130749f290febb6a76973ced
If links were placed on this network of sites all hosted on the same IP, this would absolutely be grounds for a penalty. The weird thing to me is not the penalty but the fact that you were later told you didn't have one.
It's also worth noting that I'd recommend removing those links, penalty warning / loss of rankings or not. There are some other low-quality pages linking to you multiple times with competitive anchors, like http://www.lanaintl.com/all-about-desks-and-its-types. This just looks ridiculously unnatural and manipulative: http://www.lanaintl.com/ - starts off talking about Albuquerque pest control, them keeps linking out to a UK furniture store
You've also got commercial links from sites with identical themes: http://www.house2homefurniture.com/lc-140-xx.html
Link removal is absolutely necessary here, I'm afraid. These bad links all have to go.
-
Hi Marie,
I think it depends on the level of impact and number of unnatural links.
After all, a website with 100% natural links will appear unnatural!
M.
-
In almost every case, if a site is affected by Penguin or Panda it happens right at the time of a Penguin/Panda refresh or update. Sometimes it can be a gradual decline, but it should start on the day that the algorithm refreshed. If you have a drop that happens at another time then there could be other issues there.
"In both cases, link removal would not have been necessary as the algorithm adjusted our rankings accordingly. "
I would disagree with this statement. For Penguin, while it's true that the algorithm has already devalued your bad links, having them still pointing to your site is not a good thing. Penguin tends to assign a level of trust to your site. If Google still sees unnatural links then not only are they devalued, but your site has sort of a stigma on it as well. You definitely want to remove or disavow any unnatural (i.e. self made) links that you have.
-
Hi Marie,
The site was hit by both Panda and Penguin, although not at the time of the supposed penalty.
In both cases, link removal would not have been necessary as the algorithm adjusted our rankings accordingly.
So its frustrating to be told by Google to remove links only to later discover this was not necessary.
Will try your suggested hangouts with John.
Many thanks Marie!
-
Hi Jane,
My clients ranking losses are correlated more closely to Panda updates, although Penguin has had some impact.
In both cases, link removal would not have been necessary as the algorithm adjusted rankings accordingly.
So to then be asked by Google to remove links, only to be told later that this wasn't necessary, has been both frustrating and damaging for the business.
Question is, how do we raise this with Google? Tweet Matt Cutts directly?!
-
Hi Marek,
I have a few thoughts. It's odd that you received a message and then when you filed for reconsideration you were told there was no penalty. Back in June of 2013 any site could file for reconsideration. But, now, you can only do so if you actually have a manual penalty. Otherwise, no "request review" button is visible.
John Mueller recently said in a hangout that if the manual spam actions viewer shows no penalty then you can be certain that there is no manual penalty. So, it's unlikely that there is still a manual penalty there and you just don't have access to see it. Still, one thing you could do is contact John Mueller through Google+ and ask if he could have the webspam team take a look. You may not get a reply, but if there has been some kind of error then it should come to light.
My guess though is that you are probably suffering under EITHER the Penguin or the Panda algorithm or possibly both. You've definitely got unnatural links such as this one: http://www.house2homefurniture.com/ which make Penguin a possibility. A lot of e-commerce sites were affected by Panda. A quick site:search shows a large number of pages in the Google index. Are they all adding unique, quality content?
It's probably a good idea to go through your organi bc traffic and see if you can pinpoint the day of your drop and see if it coincides with the date of a known Penguin or Panda refresh. http://moz.com/google-algorithm-change
-
William,
there are two place you can look for notices and webspam actions in WMT:
1. 'Site Messages'
2. 'Search Traffic > Manual Actions'
The 'webspam action' and 'reconsideration request' was received in 'Site Messages'. As was the subsequent message stating no webspam action was taken and a reconsideration request wasn't necessary. Clearly there's been miscommunication from Google resulting in links being removed and lost unnecessarily.
How do we take this up with Google? Tweet Matt Cutts directly?!
-
How did you know you received a manual action if there's no message about it in Webmasters? If there was a message there and now it's gone, then congratulations! You got it removed, and they had poor communication while informing you of such.
Also, just because a MANUAL action no longer exists doesn't mean you are free and clear. You could still be penalized for spammy links, just not manually.
Link cleanup is a good thing, with or without a manual action. Clean up your stuff, so you can know where you stand on that front. Then if you are still suffering, look into other areas.
-
Guys,
let me rephrase.
The issue is, Google said they implemented a manual spam action and then later said they didn't.
So we were made to remove links for no apparent reason!
If I check Webmaster Tools > Search Traffic > Manual Actions, there are 'no manual webspam actions found'!
M.
-
Hi Marek,
Agree with William that doing the reconsideration request in the same week is too soon, barring exceptional circumstances. By that, I mean that if you had been actively removing bad links in the weeks / months leading up to receiving the spam action notice / penalty, you could submit a reconsideration request and cite this. However, in general Google does like to see significant effort on a webmaster's part to get rid of bad links before asking for reconsideration. What this means is that your request should show the activity you've engaged in to try and remove links: how many emails you have sent to the websites hosting the bad links, how many replies you've had, how many of those links were removed as the results of your efforts and how man you feel you cannot remove due to inaction on the part of the webmaster or your inability to find a real person to contact.
It's confusing that you received a message saying that you did not in fact have manual action against your site if you were previously told that you did - this could just be a glitch, but if that first message coincided with a ranking problem that is persisting, I would say that it is necessary to remove the poor quality links pointing to the site, including those from low-quality sites, and those with overly-optimised anchor text.
Cheers,
Jane
-
From a quick glance at OSE, looks like you do have some backlinks to clean up. Your anchor text is heavily weighted towards money terms - primarily [oak furniture], [solid oak furniture], and [oak office furniture]. Plus sites like http://www.lanaintl.com/basic-info-about-real-estate-agents (which you have a backlink from) are clearly spammy.
-
I'm assuming you submitted a disavow report? If so, it must have been within a week of the reconsideration request, which is too short in my opinion. I like to give disavows longer than that to be recognized by Google.
Google wants to see you put a lot of work into link clean up, multiple contacts to the webmasters asking for removal and such.
Google is a slow moving machine and its tough to be patient. It's possible you were too fast for Google. I would recommend trying again. Update your disavow report, force crawl, wait 2 weeks, explain everything in a new reconsideration request.
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
-
Is my content being fully read by Google?
Hi mozzers, I wanted to ask you a quick question regarding Google's crawlability of webpages. We just launched a series of content pieces but I believe there's an issue.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TyEl
Based on what I am seeing when I inspect the URL it looks like Google is only able to see a few titles and internal links. For instance, when I inspect one of the URLs on GSC this is the screenshot I am seeing: image.pngWhen I perform the "cache:" I barely see any content**:** image.pngVS one of our blog post image.png Would you agree with me there's a problem here? Is this related to the heavy use of JS? If so somehow I wasn't able to detect this on any of the crawling tools? Thanks!0 -
Prevent Google from crawling Ajax
With Google figuring out how to make Ajax and JS more searchable/indexable, I am curious on thoughts or techniques to prevent this. Here's my Situation, we have a page that we do not ever want to be indexed/crawled or other. Currently we have the nofollow/noindex command, but due to technical changes for our site the method in which this information is being implemented if it is ever displayed it will not have the ability to block the content from search. It is also the decision of the business to not list the file in robots.txt due to the sensitivity of the content. Basically, this content doesn't exist unless something super important happens, and even if something super important happens, we do not want Google to know of its existence. Since the Dev team is planning on using Ajax/JS to pull in this content if the business turns it on, the concern is that it will be on the homepage and Google could index it. So the questions that I was asked; if Google can/does index, how long would that piece of content potentially appear in the SERPs? Can we block Google from caring about and indexing this section of content on the homepage? Sorry for the vagueness of this question, it's very sensitive in nature and I am trying to avoid too many specifics. I am able to discuss this in a more private way if necessary. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn_Huber0 -
Google not displaying meta description
Hi, one of my clients is receiving the following error in SERP - "A description of the page is not available because of this site's robots.txt". The site is built on WordPress and I realized that by default, the settings were checked to blocks bots from crawling the site. So, I turned it off, fixed robots.txt and submitted the sitemap again. Since, then it's been almost 10 days, the problem still exists. Can anyone tell me what should be done to fix it or if there's a way to get Google to recrawl the pages again.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mayanksaxena0 -
Google Sitelinks Search Box
For some reason, a search for our company name (“hometalk”) does not produce the search box in the results (even though we do have sitelinks). We are adding schema markup as outlined here, but we're not sure about: Will adding the code make the search bar appear (or at least increase the chances), or is it only going to change the functionality of the search box (to on-site search) for results that are already showing a search bar?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | YairSpolter0 -
Google News sitemap keywords
My company is a Theater news and reviews site. We're building a google news sitemap and Google suggests some recommended keywords we can use with their <keywords>tag: https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/116037</keywords> Our writers also tag their stories with relevant keywords. What should we populate the <keywords>tag with?</keywords> We were thinking we'd automatically populate it with author-added tags, in addition to one or more of the recommended ones suggested by Google, such as Theater, Arts, and Culture (all of our articles are related to these topics). Finally, many of our articles are about say, celebrities. An author may tag an article with 'Bryan Cranston,' and when this is the case we're considering also tagging it with the 'Celebrities' tag. Are all or any of these worthwhile?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheaterMania0 -
High ranked web site on Google GONE - but webspam team says nothing wrong
We purchased several weeks ago a .org blog that has been highly ranked (number 1 on competetive keywords) for at least a year. it is a blog We moved the blog to our IP range and it went from #1 on top keyword and first page on another to the home page just gone. Now there was a secondary page indexed that stayed on page 5 for the keyword the home page was ranked #1 but the home page (which was high ranked page is just gone) We wrote the Google Webmaster team for reconsideration but they wrote back and said the web spam team said nothing wrong. A contact of mine who works for one of the most well known SEO compaines in the world says because we moved it the site could disappear for a week or so but the "algos would realize" and return it to that top spot soon. Does anyone know anything about moving a site to new IP and issues that can result?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TBKO0 -
Getting Google Authorship to Work
Hi I set up authorship about 10 days ago at the suggestion of this great forum but haven't seen anything happen yet. Could someone take a quick look and check I've done it right? You can see a typical post here: http://www.touristisrael.com/neve-tzedek-tel-aviv/354/ Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ben10000 -
Magento Hidden Products & Google Not Found Errors
We recently moved our website over to the Magento eCommerce platform. Magento has functionality to make certain items not visible individually so you can, for example, take 6 products and turn it into 1 product where a customer can choose their options. You then hide all the individual products, leaving only that one product visible on the site and reducing duplicate content issues. We did this. It works great and the individual products don't show up in our site map, which is what we'd like. However, Google Webmaster Tools has all of these individual product URLs in its Not Found Crawl Errors. ! For example: White t-shirt URL: /white-t-shirt Red t-shirt URL: /red-t-shirt Blue t-shirt URL: /blue-t-shirt All of those are not visible on the site and the URLs do not appear in our site map. But they are all showing up in Google Webmaster Tools. Configurable t-shirt URL: /t-shirt This product is the only one visible on the site, does appear on the site map, and shows up in Google Webmaster Tools as a valid URL. ! Do you know how it found the individual products if it isn't in the site map and they aren't visible on the website? And how important do you think it is that we fix all of these hundreds of Not Found errors to point to the single visible product on the site? I would think it is fairly important, but don't want to spend a week of man power on it if the returns would be minimal. Thanks so much for any input!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Marketing.SCG0