Is a reconcideration request required?
-
I have a smaller site that has a google penalty, webmaster tools says there might be a doorway page. Im wondering if, once the site is fixed, is it necessary to file a reconsideration request, or, if the site is no longer in violation, will the site be included eventually by itself, without a reconsideration request?
-
hehehehehe
I loved it: google hey, i want humans to come.
Very good.
-
A reconsideration request is fine, as long as you're sure that nothing else is bad about your site. You're telling Google that "hey, I want humans to come look at this site and look for anything they may find wrong about it, not just the stuff that I think I found". So as long as you think everything else is good, I think it should be fine. It's when you've only cleaned up half of the paid links coming into your site, and have a few pages of hidden text lying around still that it's not the best thing.
-
I think that reconsideration should be made to follow up the response from Google. I think it will not hurt you, and can help.
-
The reconsideration request is just to speed things up. Google will eventually crawl back over your site, but since you know about and have access to this short-cut, there really isn't any reason not to take it
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
-
Blocking Google from telemetry requests
At Magnet.me we track the items people are viewing in order to optimize our recommendations. As such we fire POST requests back to our backends every few seconds when enough user initiated actions have happened (think about scrolling for example). In order to eliminate bots from distorting statistics we ignore their values serverside. Based on some internal logging, we see that Googlebot is also performing these POST requests in its javascript crawling. In a 7 day period, that amounts to around 800k POST requests. As we are ignoring that data anyhow, and it is quite a number, we considered reducing this for bots. Though, we had several questions about this:
Technical SEO | | rogier_slag
1. Do these requests count towards crawl budgets?
2. If they do, and we'd want to prevent this from happening: what would be the preferred option? Either preventing the request in the frontend code, or blocking the request using a robots.txt line? The latter question is given by the fact that a in-app block for the request could lead to different behaviour for users and bots, and may be Google could penalize that as cloaking. The latter is slightly less convenient from a development perspective, as all logic is spread throughout the application. I'm aware one should not cloak, or makes pages appear differently to search engine crawlers. However these requests do not change anything in the pages behaviour, and purely send some anonymous data so we can improve future recommendations.0 -
Google rejected my reconsideration request of unnatural link manual action, and list one blog article twice as example?
Hi Moz Community, On April 22 my site received a manual action in Google Webmaster telling me it's caused by unnatural links. After some a deep cleaning of all the sitewide links, which I think is the major problem of my external links, I requested a reconsideration request on May 4. And Google rejected my reconsideration request of unnatural link manual action on May 29, and list one blog article twice as example, which is quite weird to me. Is it normal for Google to list one URL twice as example in the feedback? I don't quite see the reason for that. Does anybody have any idea about that? This is really quite frustrating to me. And to be honest, I don't see much problems about the article Google listed as well. Yeah it's all about our product and it has 3 do-follow links to our site. But it contains no words such as sponsor, advertisement, or rewards... And the blog itself is quite healthy as well. The post also get rather high engagement, with organic comments and shares. How did Google flag that out? I don't think it's possible that Google will go into all our site links one by one... Hope you guys can help me with that. Thanks in advance! Ben
Technical SEO | | Ben_fotor0 -
Error got removed by request
hey there, I have website, Which is Doing best on google, But from last 2-3 times i am Getting error in Google Search Console, removed by request., here is screenshot http://prntscr.com/iva5y0 My Question is i have Not Requested Google to Remove My Homepage URL, Then 1. Why I am Getting This warning again & again, ?? 2. Will this Harm My Sites Current traffic & Ranking Status ? 3.What Steps I need Take to stop This warning came again & again ??? Thnx in advance & please Help Out on this Query
Technical SEO | | innovative.rohit0 -
Is there an percentage of duplicate content required before you should use a canonical tag?
Is there a percentage (approximate or exact) of duplicate content you should have before you use a canonical tag? Similarly how does Google handle canonical tags if the pages aren’t 100% duplicate? I've added some background and an example below; Nike Trainer model 1 – has an overview page that also links to a sub-page about cushioning, one about Gore-Tex and one about breathability. Nike Trainer model 2,3,4,5 – have an overview page that also links to sub-pages page about cushioning , Gore-Tex and breathability. In each of the sub-pages the URL is a child of the parent so a distinct page from each other e.g. /nike-trainer/model-1/gore-tex /nike-trainer/model-2/gore-tex. There is some differences in material composition, some different images and of course the product name is referred multiple times. This makes the page in the region of 80% unique.
Technical SEO | | punchseo0 -
Page Indexing increase when I request Google Site Link demote
Hi there, Has anyone seen a page crawling increase in Google Web Master Tools when they have requested a site link demotion? I did this around the 23rd of March, the next day I started to see page crawling rise and rise and report a very visible spike in activity and to this day is still relatively high. From memory I have asked about this in SEOMOZ Q&A a couple of years ago in and was told that page crawl activity is a good thing - ok fine, no argument. However at the nearly in the same period I have noticed that my primary keyword rank for my home page has dropped away to something in the region of 4th page on Google US and since March has stayed there. However the exact same query in Google UK (Using SEOMOZ Rank Checker for this) has remained the same position (around 11th) - it has barely moved. I decided to request an undemote on GWT for this page link and the page crawl started to drop but not to the level before March 23rd. However the rank situation for this keyword term has not changed, the content on our website has not changed but something has come adrift with our US ranks. Using Open Site Explorer not one competitor listed has a higher domain authority than our site, page authority, domain links you name it but they sit there in first page. Sorry the above is a little bit of frustration, this question is not impulsive I have sat for weeks analyzing causes and effects but cannot see why this disparity is happening between the 2 country ranks when it has never happened for this length of time before. Ironically we are still number one in the United States for a keyword phrase which I moved away from over a month ago and do not refer to this phrase at all on our index page!! Bizarre. Granted, site link demotion may have no correlation to the KW ranking impact but looking at activities carried out on the site and timing of the page crawling. This is the only sizable factor I can identify that could be the cause. Oh! and the SEOMOZ 'On-Page Optimization Tool' reports that the home page gets an 'A' for this KW term. I have however this week commented out the canonical tag for the moment in the index page header to see if this has any effect. Why? Because as this was another (if not minor) change I employed to get the site to an 'A' credit with the tool. Any ideas, help appreciated as to what could be causing the rank differences. One final note the North American ranks initially were high, circa 11-12th but then consequently dropped away to 4th page but not the UK rankings, they witnessed no impact. Sorry one final thing, the rank in the US is my statistical outlier, using Google Analytics I have an average rank position of about 3 across all countries where our company appears for this term. Include the US and it pushes the average to 8/9th. Thanks David
Technical SEO | | David-E-Carey0 -
Removal request for entire catalog. Can be done without blocking in robots?
Bunch of thin content (catalog) pages modified with "follow, noindex" few weeks ago. Site completely re-crawled and related cache shows that these pages were not indexed again. So it's good I suppose 🙂 But all of them are still in main Google index and shows up from time to time in SERPs. Will they eventually disappear or we need to submit removal request?Problem is we really don't want to add this pages into robots.txt (they are passing link juice down below to product pages)Thanks!
Technical SEO | | LocalLocal0 -
How do you implement pages requiring login?
I'm running a site with a member area and some public accessible pages. The member area obviously requires users to authenticate, while the public pages are indexable by search engines. Our global navigation includes links to the restricted pages. At the moment, when a user isn't logged in and accesses a restricted page, we're 302-redirecting them to a login page. We have a lot of external links pointing to restricted pages (eg. profile pages), and since we're 302-redirecting the juice from these links are lost. I've been thinking about changing the redirect from 302 to 301. How would this look from a search engines view? The pages aren't per se permanently moved - the current user just isn't authenticated to view the content of the page at the moment. Would it be a problem that navigation contains multiple internal links that all 301 redirect to the same login page? Any suggestions? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | jonesjitter0 -
We're working on a site that is a beer company. Because it is required to have an age verification page, how should we best redirect the bots (useragents) to the actual homepage (thus skipping ahead of the age verification without allowing all browsers)?
This question is about useragents and alcohol sites that have an age verification screen upon landing on the site.
Technical SEO | | OveritMedia0