Can someone that had (or seen) a Manual Action in WMTs tell me.....
-
This is a repost of this question http://moz.com/community/q/manual-action-found-in-wmts-no-email-no-message-in-wmts
But I'm sure there is someone in the moz fourms that have had/seen manual action
Someone I know said that they were looking though their WMTs and under Manual Actions they found they had a partial penalty. There is no date against it and they never got an email and there are no messages WMTs for it. I haven't personally dealt with a Manual penalty before, but I would have expected there to be a message in WMTs for it ( an email might have been missed because of a spam filter etc). Could it be a very old penalty?
-
Thanks for confirming that.
As its a old partial penalty, and from a quick look at their analytics I can't see any main pages that have been penalised , is it best to leave it alone ( in the short term at least)?
-
Hey Paddy Displays!
Sounds like an older penalty to me. I would highly suggest creating an email filter for @google.com so that future emails from WMT or other G related services won't go into spam. Just to play it safe!!
-
Hi there
I think you're inkling is correct, this would be an old penalty.
The manual action tab is relatively new, coming up to just a year old this month. Both myself and some agency buddies have seen sites that have had penalties in there when previously the site owner (and sometimes even the agency!) did not think there was a penalty.
If you have Webmaster Tools set up, you should always receive a message whenever manual action has been taken (bar a system error). However, in the past, for example, you may not have had WMT set up when a penalty has been applied, or you didn't have access to the account then. Therefore, the message would not be there for you to read, due to it not being sent or deleted. However, the manual action tab will show any penalties that the site has, regardless of when it was applied, when WMT was set up, or if a message was sent or not.
Therefore, if you're seeing a penalty notice in the tab but no message was received, I believe that means it would be an old penalty - as a new one would have also sent a message as well.
Hope that all makes sense.
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
-
Can we validate a CDN like Max in Webmasters?
Hi, Can we validate a CDN like Max in Webmasters? We have images hosted in CDN and they dont get indexed in Google images. Its been a year now and no luck. Maxcdn says they have no issues at there end and images have ALT and they are original images with no copyright issues
Technical SEO | | ArchieChilds0 -
How can I best handle parameters?
Thank you for your help in advance! I've read a ton of posts on this forum on this subject and while they've been super helpful I still don't feel entirely confident in what the right approach I should take it. Forgive my very obvious noob questions - I'm still learning! The problem: I am launching a site (coursereport.com) which will feature a directory of schools. The directory can be filtered by a handful of fields listed below. The URL for the schools directory will be coursereport.com/schools. The directory can be filtered by a number of fields listed here: Focus (ex: “Data Science”) Cost (ex: “$<5000”) City (ex: “Chicago”) State/Province (ex: “Illinois”) Country (ex: “Canada”) When a filter is applied to the directories page the CMS produces a new page with URLs like these: coursereport.com/schools?focus=datascience&cost=$<5000&city=chicago coursereport.com/schools?cost=$>5000&city=buffalo&state=newyork My questions: 1) Is the above parameter-based approach appropriate? I’ve seen other directory sites that take a different approach (below) that would transform my examples into more “normal” urls. coursereport.com/schools?focus=datascience&cost=$<5000&city=chicago VERSUS coursereport.com/schools/focus/datascience/cost/$<5000/city/chicago (no params at all) 2) Assuming I use either approach above isn't it likely that I will have duplicative content issues? Each filter does change on page content but there could be instance where 2 different URLs with different filters applied could produce identical content (ex: focus=datascience&city=chicago OR focus=datascience&state=illinois). Do I need to specify a canonical URL to solve for that case? I understand at a high level how rel=canonical works, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around what versions of the filtered results ought to be specified as the preferred versions. For example, would I just take all of the /schools?focus=X combinations and call that the canonical version within any filtered page that contained other additional parameters like cost or city? Should I be changing page titles for the unique filtered URLs? I read through a few google resources to try to better understand the how to best configure url params via webmaster tools. Is my best bet just to follow the advice on the article below and define the rules for each parameter there and not worry about using rel=canonical ? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687 An assortment of the other stuff I’ve read for reference: http://www.wordtracker.com/academy/seo-clean-urls http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/3857-SEO-When-Product-Facets-and-Filters-Fail http://www.searchenginejournal.com/five-steps-to-seo-friendly-site-url-structure/59813/ http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html
Technical SEO | | alovallo0 -
Webmaster Tools Manual Actions - Should I Disavow Spammy Links??
My website has a manual action against it in webmaster tools stating; Unnatural links to your site—impacts links Google has detected a pattern of unnatural artificial, deceptive, or manipulative links pointing to pages on this site. Some links may be outside of the webmaster’s control, so for this incident we are taking targeted action on the unnatural links instead of on the site’s ranking as a whole I have checked the link profile of my site and there are over 4,000 spammy links from one particular website which I am guessing this manual action refers to. There is no way that I will be able to get these links removed so should I be using Google's Disavow Tool or is there no need? Any ideas would be appreciated!!
Technical SEO | | Pete40 -
Can I mark up breadcrumbs without showing them? (responsive design)
I am working on a site that has responsive design. We use faceted search for the desktop version but implemented a style of breadcrumbs for the mobile version as sidebars take up too much screen real estate. On the desktop design we are putting a display:none in front of the breadcrumbs. If we mark up those breadcrumbs and they are behind a display none, can we still get the rich snippets? Will Google see this is cloaking? In follow up, is there a way to markup breadcrumbs in the or somewhere else that is constant?
Technical SEO | | MarloSchneider0 -
No manual spam actions found - still my site does not rank
I noticed it on the 1st of October 2012 - that all my rankings disappeared - i filed a reconsideration request w google and i got this - No manual spam actions found. I have no idea why my site would have been subject to an algo change which made my rankings completely go away - i have not used spam, not used any kind of linkbuilding. Can you guys look at my site and see if you have any ideas: http://tinyurl.com/9a5k38u Thank you, Cary
Technical SEO | | CMTM0 -
How do I deal with my pages being seen as duplicate content by SeoMoz?
My Dashboard is giving my lots of warnings for duplicate content but it all seems to have something to do with the www and the slash / For example: http://www.ebow.ie/ is seen as having the same duplicate content as http:/ebow.ie/ and http://www.ebow.ie Alos lots to do with how Wordpress categorizes pages and tags that is driving me bonkers! Any help appreciated! Dave. seomoz.png
Technical SEO | | ebowdublin0 -
What tool can i use to get the true speed of my site
hi, i am trying to get the true speed of my site. i want to know how fast www.in2town.co.uk is but the tools that i am using are giving me different readings. http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/DkHoNWmZh/www.in2town.co.uk says the speed is 1.03s http://gtmetrix.com/reports/www.in2town.co.uk/i4EMDk34 says my speed is 2.25s and http://www.vertain.com/m.q?req=cstr&reqid=dAv79lt8 says it is 4.36s so as you can see i am confused. I am trying to get the site as fast as possible, but need to know what the correct speed is so i can work on things that need changing to make it faster. can anyone also let me know what speed i should be working for. many thanks
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Is there such thing as a good text/code ratio? Can it effect SERPs?
As it says on the tin; Is there such thing as a good text/code ratio? And can it effect SERPs? I'm currently looking at a 20% ratio whereas some competitors are closer to 40%+. Best regards,
Technical SEO | | ARMofficial
Sam.0