Partial Manual penalty to a URL
-
Hi Mozers,
I have a website which has got a partial manual penalty on a specific url. That url is of no use to the website now and is going to be taken off in 3 months time as the website is going to be completely redesigned. Till then I dont wont to live with the partial manual penalty for this url. I have few things in mind to tackle this:
1. take out the url from the website now (as the new redesign will take 3 months)
2. take out internal links pointing to this url in question
3. file for reconsideration with google stating we have taken off the url and have not generated any backlinks and the backlinks are organic. (no backlinking activity has been done on this website or the url)
Please let me know if this works or i will have to get the backlinks removed then the disavow then the reconsideration.
Looking forward for ur response
-
I'm in agreement Robert. Hitesh, it does feel like we're missing some part of the story. I have reviewed hundreds if not thousands of sites that were dealt unnatural links penalties and I have yet to see one that was given unfairly. I have seen the occasional example unnatural link given that truly was natural, but I've never seen a site get a penalty when all they had were natural links.
Again, if you'd like to share the url I'll take a look and give you my thoughts. But other than that I think any answer that you'll get here is going to just be speculation.
-
Hitesh,
I have looked at this and read your other comments like those to Marie. Unfortunately, a feeling remains that I am not seeing everything. From your reply to Marie you show a bit more of the Google message: "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."
Then you name some of the sources for the links and you also state that this page has some info regarding IP's in various countries and people are linking because of that, "which is totally natural." Also, "There are no unnatural links to this url but for the fact most of them are coming from forums and spammy sites."
I really get the feeling you are trying to define or redefine what "natural" is instead of realizing the problem you have and that it may shortly involve much or all of your site. You have been warned by Google and the easiest thing to do is to read what Jane Copeland wrote on the 30th and follow that direction:
I'd do a combination of trying to remove the links, disavowing what I couldn't remove, removing the page with a 410 and filing for reconsideration explaining what I did and how I've tried to fix it. I'd also explain that the page was obsolete to begin with and was always destined for the scrap heap.
Failing to take this action very soon could really negatively impact your site. Defining what is or is not natural will not help you.
Good luck,
Robert
-
I think the best place to start would be to contact the site owner, and see if they would be willing to remove the link pointing your way. If not, then use the disavow tool in webmaster tools.
If you have a bad feeling about a link, there is probably a good reason for that feeling. Try using Blacklistalert.com to see if the domains your site is listed on are blacklisted with any dns providers. You can also try MXtoolbox.com to see if thier IP address has been compromised. If you see any of the sites in question fail the test, then I would immediately remove the link by either of the methods mentioned at the start of this post.
Best of luck, I really hope you get it figured out.
-
Interesting. That type of penalty, to just one url is uncommon. Can you tell that there are unnatural links there? You can pm me the url if you'd like me to take a look. Can you tell why they were created?
I would probably still clean up the links to this page which means making efforts to remove them and then disavowing what you can't get removed. While Google says that they are no longer counting these links, we still don't know 100% whether they could affect you algorithmically such as in the eyes of the Penguin update.
-
the screenshots
-
Hi Marie,
Thanks for the response!
Yes the links are gained naturally. No efforts are taken for link building in our case. It was a useful file which users linked previously.
I have attached screenshots of the inbox message and the manual actions tab. Please have a loom and let me know, if the link removal needs to be done for the whole site or just the URL.
In my opinion i feel just the url as the penalty is only on the url and clearly google mentions that in both the messages
"As a result, Google has applied a manual spam action to ixx.xxxxxxxxxxg.info/node/view/54. There may be other actions on your site or parts of your site."
and
"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."
Looking forward for your response
-
Hi Robert,
I agree and will do the clean up act, disavow and reconsideration. But now the question is do i have to clean the links pointing to the whole site or just the url? As i have received manual penalty just for the url which is a sub-domain on the site and not the whole site.
have a look at the screenshot for the warnings received in both inbox and manual actions tab!
It clearly states it is just for the sub-domain url
Let me know your views
-
Is it possible you could post a screenshot of what you are seeing in your manual actions viewer? Or, tell us what wording is in there? Does the message tell you that it is just one particular page on your site that is being affected? Is it an unnatural links warning?
"...have not generated any backlinks and the backlinks are organic. (no backlinking activity has been done on this website or the url)"
The vast majority of the time when a site owner gets a penalty and says that there are no unnatural links to their site, they actually HAVE created links that are unnatural. A good example is a site that has done widespread guest posting for links. Many site owners have a hard time understanding that those links are actually unnatural. However, if you are certain that you have done no link building to this page (assuming it is a single page that has been targeted) and you have an unnatural links warning, then is it possible that someone else has been building links to it? An example would be if you wrote a story about a particular company that put that company in a favorable light and then that company built links to your site in order to boost their story higher in the SERPS.
If you'd like to PM me the url and the details of your penalty I'd be happy to take a look.
-
I would say that it depends on why the penalty happened in the first place, but if it's a manual penalty then removing the resource probably won't get rid of the penalty overnight. I'd do a combination of trying to remove the links, disavowing what I couldn't remove, removing the page with a 410 and filing for reconsideration explaining what I did and how I've tried to fix it. I'd also explain that the page was obsolete to begin with and was always destined for the scrap heap.
-
If you first remove the url, even with the 410, I do not believe you will get any action on the penalty in terms of a reconsideration. Remember, with a reconsideration Google wants to see penance. Removing the issue is not penance, it is easy in their eyes.
Yes, these actions remove the issue, but I am not sure they will have an affect as far as reconsideration.I am certainly open to being wrong.
Best -
1. Make sure you have no internal links pointing to that page
2. Put a rule in place with a 410, meaning GONE before filing the reconsideration request.
3. Do not redirect the page with a 301 or any other method. Remember, you want the page to disappear, not redirect.Also, what is the message you received stating that only that one URL was penalized? Very strange to hear that only one was affected. Run a link check to see what other sites or listings are pointing to that URL, and if possible, log in to the citation or platform and change the link to one you know is not affected.
-
Hitesh,
Just so I am clear, you got a partial manual penalty on a single url? While it seems odd to me, most who come to us have partial or full penalties that are affecting their entire sites. My concern with not taking an effort to clean it up, file a disavow.txt file covering any remaining links, and requesting consideration is that it might leave you open for further urls and even affect the new site. This would be assuming you are going to 301 the old url's to the new site. Even without the "bad" url, there is the potential for carryover IMO around the site having been assessed a penalty and never addressed it.
So, if you have the time, clean it up and then file for reconsideration.
Best
-
unfortunately taking the url out and taking internal links away will not get the penalty removed you need to work on getting external links removed for it as that's where the penalty has come from. You can disavow them (I also recommend dropping them an email) if you don't want the page. There are some great guide here on Moz if you take a quick search.
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
-
Does ID's in URL is good for SEO? Will SEO Submissions sites allow such urls submissions?
Example url: http://public.beta.travelyaari.com/vrl-travels-13555-online It's our sites beta URL, We are going to implement it for our site. After implementation, it will be live on travelyaari.com like this - "https://www.travelyaari.com/vrl-travels-13555-online". We have added the keywords etc in the URL "VRL Travels". But the problems is, there are multiple VRL travels available, so we made it unique with a unique id in URL - "13555". So that we can exactly get to know which VRL Travels and it is also a solution for url duplication. Also from users / SEO point of view, the url has readable texts/keywords - "vrl travels online". Can some Moz experts suggest me whether it will affect SEO performance in any manner? SEO Submissions sites will accept this URL? Meanwhile, I had tried submitting this URL to Reddit etc. It got accepted.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RobinJA0 -
Are businesses still hiring SEO that use strategies that could lead to a Google penalty?
Is anyone worried that businesses know so little about SEO that they are continuing to hire SEO consultants that use strategies that could land the website with a Google penalty? I ask because we did some research with businesses and found the results worrying: blog farms, over optimised anchor text. We will be releasing the data later this week, but wondered if it something for the SEO community to worry about and what can be done about it.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | williamgoodseoagency.com0 -
Why isn't a 301 redirect removing old style URLs from Google's index?
I have two questions:1 - We changed the URL structure of our site. Old URLs were in the format of kiwiforsale.com/used_fruit/yummy_kiwi. These URLs are 301 redirected to kiwiforsale.com/used-fruit/yummy-kiwi. We are getting duplicate content errors in Google Webmaster Tools. Why isn't the 301 redirect removing the old style URL out of Google's index?2 - I tried to remove the old style URL at https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals, however I got the message that "We think the image or web page you're trying to remove hasn't been removed by the site owner. Before Google can remove it from our search results, the site owner needs to take down or update the content."Why are we getting this message? Doesn't the 301 redirect alert Google that the old style URL is toast and it's gone?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
Non Manual penalties, should I trash my site?
My URL is: www.adserve.com.au I get no traffic from google and I am convinced that I have penalties from the links that point to my page. I have written to google previously and they told me that there are no manual penalties on the site. I give up... I am shelving my ENTIRE brand and starting again with a new site, http://www.trusignage.com, I do not want to do this but... If I do a search for
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AdAdam
"Using and implementing the AdServe digital menu board system couldn’t be easier! Just get any screen installed by a tradesman or electrician, plug the digital menu board device" two pages from within my site come up but my homepage does not, it comes up when you click on "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 2 already displayed" A search for
"The AdServe system comprises of only one tiny component that can plug directly into the HDMI port of a screen. Traditional digital signage systems require drilling into walls, running cables, a bunch of valuable space and the installation of several pieces of costly"
Brings up another 2 pages from my site, when clicking on "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 2 already displayed."
My homepage does not even come up... but the homepage of my new site http://www.trusignage.com comes up. My new site is at http://www.trusignage.com there is only 2 pages of duplicate content, the about us and the buy now page.
Is google going to penalise my new site? I WILL NOT DO ANY SEO, only on page......... I wont hire any SEO firm at all. My old site has a few great links to it
http://www.sixteen-nine.net/2013/06/24/android-digital-signage-closer-adserve/
http://www.crunchbase.com/company/adserve-digital-signage
I also have many of my REAL youtube videos that link to my site, maybe about 15
If I 301 redirect my penalised site to my new one am I just poisoning my new site as well? I could get the links changed instead. I will have to keep my old site www.adserve.com.au as I have customers who go to that site to lookup my contact details for support etc. will google see the same phone number and address etc and think I am trying to fill google up with duplicate websites? I would really prefer to keep www.adserve.com.au for Australian clients and usewww.trusignage.com for international clients, if the site layout is the same but all of the site passes copyscape then will I get hurt by duplicate content?
Google is ruining me.. I have no money to spend on adwords right now. I have a new highly inovative software product that has taken almost 2 years to develop and I think I deserve more than 4 visits per month. My actual business has been around for 7 years.
I invented SaaS digital signage in 2007 http://youtu.be/-YpyjLALoBU find me some web based digital signage system that was around prior to 2010?
This is me and my product http://youtu.be/ClXSiIA5DRY
Why should my site be treated as trash by google? I have in the past employed a SEO firm and if I search for "If you are looking for the top provider of digital signage in Australia, visit today" I find 70 absolute crap links to my site. I have disvowed them, there must be more links somewhere but I have no money or time to chase down site owners to remove them when I do not even know if I can get them all and have no guarantee that this will even help.. So bottom line, do I need to junk my www.adserve.com.au site? There is no getting away from what some SEO company has spammed in the past?
And again, using a tool to hunt down these spam links and try to get them removed will tie up my own time that needs to be spent on developing my software and I have no cash to pay people to do this for me. [edited by staff because line breaks weren't showing]0 -
Penguin 2.1 Penalty- Can't Understand why hit by it?
Hi, I have lost all my rankings after Penguin 2.1 update. I haven't did anything wrong. Want to know the root cause of the penalty so that I can overcome this. Any help would be appreciated. Website: http://tiny.cc/hfom4w
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | chandman0 -
Solved PayDay hack - but SERPs show URLs - what should I do?
We had the PayDay hack - and solved it completely. The problem is - the SERPs have over 3,000 URLs pointing to 404 on our website all of which have urls that are like this: <cite>www.onssi.com/2012/2/post1639/payday-loan-companies-us</cite> What should I do? Should I disavow every one of the 3,000? No Follow?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Ocularis0 -
Manual Penalty Removed - Recovery Times...
Howdy Mozzers, For anyone who has had experience of a manual penalty i'd appreciate your feedback. How long did it take to recover from a Manual Penalty? Of course every situation is different and its only been 8 days so perhaps it's to soon. Below is the email we received, I highlighted "believed" they didn't state we had. We highlighted a bunch of back links we didn't like however most of these remain in our profile in GWT so not sure what was really the problem. "Previously the webspam team had taken manual action on your site because we believed it violated our quality guidelines. After reviewing your reconsideration request, we have revoked this manual action. It may take some time before our indexing and ranking systems are updated to reflect the new status of your site." Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RobertChapman0 -
Over optimization penalty on the way
Matt Cutts has just anouced that they are bringing in a penalty for over optimized sites, to try and reward good content. http://searchengineland.com/too-much-seo-google%e2%80%99s-working-on-an-%e2%80%9cover-optimization%e2%80%9d-penalty-for-that-115627?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed-main
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | AlanMosley3