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
-
Google Indexing Request - Typical Time to Complete?
In Google Search Console, when you request the (re) indexing of a fetched page, what's the average amount of time it takes to re-index and does it vary that much from site to site or are manual re-index request put in a queue and served on a first come - first serve basis despite the site characteristics like domain/page authority?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEO18050 -
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 -
I think that Google incorrectly flagged my href lang return tags as missing. What do I do?
Hi there SEOs and other respected online marketing enthusiasts! Since a short while Google Webmaster Tools is flagging my href lang return tags as missing. However, these tags are available in the html and there should be no issue whatsoever. I often see other bogus flags raised by Google but this one is bothering us in particular. This is the code that we use for all our 18 languages: All pages link to all other languages variables. Is there something I'm missing? Or is it just an error on Google's site - and if so, how do I flag it as fixed? href lang no return tag incorrectly error in webmaster tools
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pimarketing0 -
Rankings Tanked since new Site redesign land new url Structure ? Anything Glaringly Obvious I need to check ?
Hi All, I've just checked my rankings and everything on my eCommerce Site has pretty much tanked really badly since my new URL structure and site redesign was put in a place 2 weeks ago. My url structure was originally long and had underscores but we have now made it clean, shorter and use hyphens. We also have location specific pages and we have incorporated these into the new url structure.Basically it now pretty much follows the breadcrumb trail on our website. We were originally a general online hire site but now we have become niche and only concentrating on one types of products, so we got rid of all the other categories/products and pages we do not deal with anymore. Our Rankings issue , was only bought to light in the most recent MOZ Ranking report so it's looking site google hates our new store. Someone mentioned the other day, that Google may have been doing a Panda/Penguin refresh last weekend, but I am surprised to have dropped like 20 to 50 places for most of my keywords. We have set up the 301 redirects, We have also made the site alot smaller and set up a few thousand 404's to get rid of a lot of redundant pages . We have cut down massively on the thin/duplicate content and have lots of good new content on there. We did new sitemaps , set up schema.org. , increase text to code ratio . Setup our H1-H5 tags on all our pages. made site mobile responsive.. Basically , we are trying to do everything right. Is there anything glaringly obvious , I should be checking ?. I attach a Short url link if anyone wants to have a quick glance- http://goo.gl/7mmEx i.e Could it be a problem with the new urls or anything else that I should be looking at ?.. I.e how can I check to make sure the link juice is being passed on to the new url ? Or is all this expected when doing such changes ? Any advice greatly appreciated .. Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Our Robots.txt and Reconsideration Request Journey and Success
We have asked a few questions related to this process on Moz and wanted to give a breakdown of our journey as it will likely be helpful to others! A couple of months ago, we updated our robots.txt file with several pages that we did not want to be indexed. At the time, we weren't checking WMT as regularly as we should have been and in a few weeks, we found that apparently one of the robots.txt files we were blocking was a dynamic file that led to the blocking of over 950,000 of our pages according to webmaster tools. Which page was causing this is still a mystery, but we quickly removed all of the entries. From research, most people say that things normalize in a few weeks, so we waited. A few weeks passed and things did not normalize. We searched, we asked and the number of "blocked" pages in WMT which had increased at a rate of a few hundred thousand a week were decreasing at a rate of a thousand a week. At this rate it would be a year or more before the pages were unblocked. This did not change. Two months later and we were still at 840,000 pages blocked. We posted on the Google Webmaster Forum and one of the mods there said that it would just take a long time to normalize. Very frustrating indeed considering how quickly the pages had been blocked. We found a few places on the interwebs that suggested that if you have an issue/mistake with robots.txt that you can submit a reconsideration request. This seemed to be our only hope. So, we put together a detailed reconsideration request asking for help with our blocked pages issue. A few days later, to our horror, we did not get a message offering help with our robots.txt problem. Instead, we received a message saying that we had received a penalty for inbound links that violate Google's terms of use. Major backfire. We used an SEO company years ago that posted a hundred or so blog posts for us. To our knowledge, the links didn't even exist anymore. They did.... So, we signed up for an account with removeem.com. We quickly found many of the links posted by the SEO firm as they were easily recognizable via the anchor text. We began the process of using removem to contact the owners of the blogs. To our surprise, we got a number of removals right away! Others we had to contact another time and many did not respond at all. Those we could not find an email for, we tried posting comments on the blog. Once we felt we had removed as many as possible, we added the rest to a disavow list and uploaded it using the disavow tool in WMT. Then we waited... A few days later, we already had a response. DENIED. In our request, we specifically asked that if the request were to be denied that Google provide some example links. When they denied our request, they sent us an email and including a sample link. It was an interesting example. We actually already had this blog in removem. The issue in this case was, our version was a domain name, i.e. www.domainname.com and the version google had was a wordpress sub domain, i.e. www.subdomain.wordpress.com. So, we went back to the drawing board. This time we signed up for majestic SEO and tied it in with removem. That added a few more links. We also had records from the old SEO company we were able to go through and locate a number of new links. We repeated the previous process, contacting site owners and keeping track of our progress. We also went through the "sample links" in WMT as best as we could (we have a lot of them) to try to pinpoint any other potentials. We removed what we could and again, disavowed the rest. A few days later, we had a message in WMT. DENIED AGAIN! This time it was very discouraging as it just didn't seem there were any more links to remove. The difference this time, was that there was NOT an email from Google. Only a message in WMT. So, while we didn't know if we would receive a response, we responded to the original email asking for more example links, so we could better understand what the issue was. Several days passed we received an email back saying that THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LIFTED! This was of course very good news and it appeared that our email to Google was reviewed and received well. So, the final hurdle was the reason that we originally contacted Google. Our robots.txt issue. We did not receive any information from Google related to the robots.txt issue we originally filed the reconsideration request for. We didn't know if it had just been ignored, or if there was something that might be done about it. So, as a last ditch final effort, we responded to the email once again and requested help as we did the other times with the robots.txt issue. The weekend passed and on Monday we checked WMT again. The number of blocked pages had dropped over the weekend from 840,000 to 440,000! Success! We are still waiting and hoping that number will continue downward back to zero. So, some thoughts: 1. Was our site manually penalized from the beginning, yet without a message in WMT? Or, when we filed the reconsideration request, did the reviewer take a closer look at our site, see the old paid links and add the penalty at that time? If the latter is the case then... 2. Did our reconsideration request backfire? Or, was it ultimately for the best? 3. When asking for reconsideration, make your requests known? If you want example links, ask for them. It never hurts to ask! If you want to be connected with Google via email, ask to be! 4. If you receive an email from Google, don't be afraid to respond to it. I wouldn't over do this or spam them. Keep it to the bare minimum and don't pester them, but if you have something pertinent to say that you have not already said, then don't be afraid to ask. Hopefully our journey might help others who have similar issues and feel free to ask any further questions. Thanks for reading! TheCraig
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheCraig5 -
Is there anything wrong with this 301 redirect?
I'll keep this one short and sweet 🙂 Many moons ago we used to have several different methods of sorting our products and this change in sort order was achieved by having ?dispmode=list or ?dispmode=grid after the product URL. Best part of a year ago we decided to scrap this feature and 301'd all the ?dispmode URL's back to the base URL. The funny thing is that Google don't seem to have dropped a single one of the old URL's from their index and a search for site:www.refreshcartridges.co.uk dispmode returns almost 8,000 results. This isn't a massive problem but I'd have expected in the past year they'd have picked up on a couple of the 301's and would have started removing the old results. I'd hate to think we were getting any kind of penalisation for duplicate pages. I know the answer to this question is going to be 'just be patient, the old results will disappear' but just to ensure we're not missing anything stupid. I'd really appreciate it if someone could check out www.refreshcartridges.co.uk/brother-c-223.html?dispmode=list to confirm there's nothing more we could be doing to get these old results removed from the index. Many thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ChrisHolgate0 -
Missing Title Tags on Include Files?
GWT is telling me 3 of my include files (Contact Form - Header - Footer) are missing a Title Tag. This has never happened to me before and don't know how to tackle it. On the other hand the warning refers to a subdirectory of my site to these respective include files… The main directory, with literally the same html structure and no Title, returns no errors. Any ideas as to why this error now? or how to fix it? Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dhidalgo10 -
Sitelinks: Does Google Recognize Your Requests for Removal?
I've been trying to influence branded SERPs recently by demoting certain pages from appearing in the Sitelinks feature provided in Google's Webmaster Tools. However, despite demoting various URLs, they continue to appear for the branded SERPs nearly a week after they should've been suppressed. What is your experience with Sitelinks? Do links you request to demote ever disappear or change positions in the SERPs for you?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eMagineSEO0
