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
-
Google Webmaster tools -Fixing over 20,000+ crawl errors
Hi, I'm trying to gather all the 404 crawl errors on my website after a recent hacking that I've been trying to rectify and clean up. Webmaster tools states that I have over 20 000+ crawl errors. I can only download a sample of 1000 errors. Is there any way to get the full list instead of correcting 1000 errors, marking them as fixed and waiting for the next batch of 1000 errors to be listed in Webmaster tools? The current method is quite timely and I want to take care of all errors in one shot instead of over a course of a month.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FPK0 -
Organic Listings showing Google Tag Manager + Google Page Title...?
I'm a bit stumped with this. I optimise all my titles etc for Australia - and now the organic liatings are showing something strange. For example ( we sell health supplements ) Meta title = "My Product , Buy Online Australia" If I type "My Product" - the title in the organic listings says "My Product - My Company Limited" - and the only place I can see it getting that from is a combination of Meta Data used in Google Tag Manager + the Name on my Google places page. This is much more obvious for categories.. but it's a pain in the butt. If I type "My Product Australia" Then the original "My Product , Buy Online Australia" comes up. Any ideas on policy etc? I have taken the "Limited" off the Google business page - so hopefully this will change over time - but I can't find any information on why google would do something like this. If you had shed any light on this - would be much appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | s_EOgi_Bear0 -
How to leverage Google Images?
My Google search rankings are improving rapidly at the moment, but a lot of my rankings are for images (presume that means the images are appearing near the top in Google Images). How do I capitalise on that? It's not really much help to me that my images are popular unless it results in traffic to the pages where those images are used. I am running Wordpress so I have the option to have images embed as "no link", "link to attachment page", "link to original image", etc. Is there any advantage of using one of these over the other? I'd really like to set it up so that when a Google Images user clicks "View Image" it loads the attachment page or the host content page rather than the image. Bad SEO? I'm not sure if the fact that I'm using Jetpack Photon CDN image hosting will make this more complicated or not. Tony
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gavin.Atkinson0 -
Google is showing 404 error. What should I do?
Dear Experts, Though few of my website pages are accessible, Google is showing 404 error. What should I do? Even moz reports gives me the same. Problems:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Somanathan
1. Few of my Pages are not yet catched in Google. (Earlier all of them were catched by Google)
2. Tried to fetch the those pages, but Google says, page not found.
3. Included them in sitemap, the result is the same. Please advice: Note: I have recently changed my hosting server.0 -
Does Google see this as duplicate content?
I'm working on a site that has too many pages in Google's index as shown in a simple count via a site search (example): site:http://www.mozquestionexample.com I ended up getting a full list of these pages and it shows pages that have been supposedly excluded from the index via GWT url parameters and/or canonicalization For instance, the list of indexed pages shows: 1. http://www.mozquestionexample.com/cool-stuff 2. http://www.mozquestionexample.com/cool-stuff?page=2 3. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?page=3 4. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?mq_source=q-and-a 5. http://www.mozquestionexample.com?type=productss&sort=1date Example #1 above is the one true page for search and the one that all the canonicals reference. Examples #2 and #3 shouldn't be in the index because the canonical points to url #1. Example #4 shouldn't be in the index, because it's just a source code that, again doesn't change the page and the canonical points to #1. Example #5 shouldn't be in the index because it's excluded in parameters as not affecting page content and the canonical is in place. Should I worry about these multiple urls for the same page and if so, what should I do about it? Thanks... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
How to know if your site has been penalized by Google
Hello, One of my clients ranking drop dramatically.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ogdcorp
We believe it was due to an upgrade to his site. While the site was live www.clientdomain.com
Work was being done on the new site www.clientdomain.com/new (1 month) I think google crawled the /new link and took as a content duplication since both sites had the same content. Is there a MOZ tool to see if a site has been penalized or any online tool? Thanks0 -
Multiple Authors Google + Authorship
Hello, I took a look through past questions but can't seem to find a definitive answer on setting up Google + Authorship credit (for multiple authors) using a Wordpress blog. Has anyone had experience setting this up? Or could you recommend solid reading/research? I took a look at a couple of Wordpress plug in's but just found them very confusing (so did our IT contact who will ultimately be setting up code for this.) Any direction or advice is appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEOSponge0 -
Google plus
"Google+ members, and to a lesser extent others who are signed into Google, will be able to search against both the broader web and their own Google+ social graph. That’s right; Google+ circles, photos, posts and more will be integrated into search in ways other social platforms can only dream about." What is meant by " and to a lesser extent others who are signed into Google" ? Does it mean that non-google plus members won't be able to view Google+photos, posts ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoug_20050