Google Penguin 2.0 - How To Recover?
-
Hi all,
Last year, we have engaged a SEO company who promised to bring us to the first page on Google. But after 4 months, we actually found out that he might be using doing non quality mass link building tactic and this caused our ranking for all 3 sites we given to him to drop in ranking overnight on 22nd May 2012 after the Google Penguin 2.0 rolled out.Is there anything we can do to recover?
-
Exactly. Because they take this stuff quite seriously. And they're not just going to do a 10 second review if you've got 50,000 links, let alone take your word for it.
And since we're now in the age of "Google needs to teach people a lesson and create an atmosphere of deterrence", they no longer hesitate to take action when they believe it will be a better motivator.
-
Yeah, the worst thing you can do is remove 5 links, then go to Google and say "Hey guys, is that enough?", then 5 more links - "How about now, guys?", etc. You're wasting somebody's manual labor at Google, and believe me, it does piss them off.
-
And I've got a new client who had not received a manual penalty notice, yet they lost rankings from Penguin 1, so they did a disavow, then a reconsideration request after only cleaning up a fraction of the mess first. A week later, they were manually penalized and got the dreaded notice.
This is why its so important to be wiling to do a real clean-up, and personally I just don't see the overwhelming majority of sites being trusted enough as a brand (from brand-like signals) to do things half-ass or in reverse order.
-
So, here's the problem - it depends on how big you are. I've seen companies use reconsideration as a back-channel in some cases where the penalty seemed algorithmic, and they were big enough for Google to communicate with them. I suspect it's not the "approved" method and it won't work for most of us.
What's irritating is that some Google reps have said that disavow is applicable to Penguin, but others have said that disavow doesn't work without reconsideration. So, if Penguin is algorithmic AND we're supposed to disavow links BUT disavow only works with reconsideration AND you can' use reconsideration for algorithmic penalties, then pardon my French, but WTF? Some piece of "official" information is wrong - we just don't know which one.
The picture from SEOs I've talked over the last couple of years is much murkier than the official advice, as usual.
-
Interesting reply Dr. Pete. I had not heard that reconsideration could be at all useful for Penguin. In this article (http://searchengineland.com/penguin-update-recovery-tips-advice-119650), Danny Sullivan said he was told by Google,
"Within Google Webmaster Central, there’s the ability to file a reconsideration request. However, Google says this is an algorithmic change — IE, it’s a penalty that’s applied automatically, rather than a human at Google spotting some spam and applying what’s called a manual penality.
Because of that, Google said that reconsideration requests won’t help with Penguin. I was told:
Because this is an algorithmic change, Google has no plans to make manual exceptions. Webmasters cannot ask for reconsideration of their site, but we’re happy to hear feedback about the change on our webmaster forum."
-
Good discussion here.
I'd like to echo Dr. Pete when he says that we have not seen many credible cases of Penguin recovery. I find it very interesting that it has been several days since Penguin 2.0 and I have yet to see a credible case of recovery. I really thought that with the advent of the disavow tool we would see a good number of recovery cases but this has not happened as far as I can see. As such, I think that anyone who tells you what you need to do in order to recover is just taking their best guess.
When the disavow tool came out I had a few people give me some Penguin hit domains. I disavowed a large number of domains and fully expected to see a boost in rankings after 2.0 and some of these sites dropped even further.
My gut instinct is that in order to recover, sites will need to remove a large number of unnatural links and then do a FANTASTIC job at attracting new links. The problem is that sites that were ranking well previously on the power of spammy links probably weren't doing a great job at attracting links naturally. Plus, new links that are attracted are not likely to be exact anchor text links so ranking high for a particular keyword is going to be a challenge.
What I don't know is whether Penguin just devalues all of the spammy links or actually causes some type of negative ranking factor to them.
I have many questions and no one that I have seen so far really knows what the answer is to recovering from Penguin.
-
Well I originally wasn't going to comment anymore, but...
-
Karl: "Reconsideration request and the disavow tool DO work and we have used them on 2 clients with proof. It can take anything from 4-12 months for you to actually see the positive results, they do work" **-- Correlation does not equal causation. Waiting 4-12 months and then thinking that was the cause is pure guesswork. **
-
Dr. Pete: I enjoyed your write-up first of all, and you seem to be giving some more realistic advice on what can happen. One thing is standing out in your comment: "Disavow can work, but Google needs to see a clear removal effort and it almost always has to be paired with reconsideration"
-- Recondsideration Requests = A reconsideration for manual penalties = No change for algorithmic penalties
So of course it's possible that the disavow tool does work, but it seems to be so rare that any time it does there is a specific thread started somewhere about it.
- Dr. Pete: Creative 301's DO work, as I have numerous sites built on just that. You are correct in saying that they do not work like 2 years ago. There needs to be "padded" links to help counteract the bad ones, and maximize trust in my opinion. At best, you will actually see a long lasting site without the penalty, not necessarily a temporary uptick (although still possible of course). I have done it multiple times, it's not theory.
Everything that I have mentioned thus far this is under the assumption that 2.0 is similar in nature as 1.0 and is just an extension on that.
Lastly, it should be obvious at this point that I like Grey Hat for some projects. I try not to just accept the same information that is fed to the herd without testing it myself to see if it's true. Through testing I have found what works and what does not for my needs, and have also discovered that a lot of what they tell is in fact just another way to try and deter what works. I have big rankings to back up everything that I say.
-
-
Even Google's reps don't seem to agree on whether reconsideration works for Penguin, but I've seen a fair amount of evidence that disavow won't solve any problems without reconsideration, so I actually think you do have to file reconsideration in these cases.
"Creative" 301-redirects are very dangerous and do not work like they did 2+ years ago. At best, you'll see a temporary uptick and end up in a worse position down the road. I've even seen some folks suggesting (on limited evidence) that Penguin 2.0 clamped down harder on bad, redirected links. We've absolutely seen 301s carry penalties, both manual and algorithmic, over the past couple of years.
-
Just wrote up some data on Penguin 2.0:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/penguin-2-were-you-jarred-and-or-jolted
I just want to add, though, that I'm not speculating about the new ranking factors yet, because we just don't have that information. No one has specifically recovered from Penguin 2.0, and I don't think anyone can tell you exactly what changed.
By the very fact that it's called "Penguin", though, I think it's safe to assume that these new factors are an extension of the old philosophy. I generally back Alan's procedure, because I've talked to reputable SEOs who have had success with it. That success often comes after a hard-fought battle, though. The number of Penguin 1.0 recovery stories that I can document are fairly few.
If you know for a fact you have bad links, you do need to try to remove them first. Disavow can work, but Google needs to see a clear removal effort and it almost always has to be paired with reconsideration, from what I'm seeing. Unfortunately, 2-3 Google reps have given us 2-3 stories on the process, so I'm going by what I've seen work for SEOs who I trust (who have shared details privately, in most cases).
-
Actually, I would agree with Alan. It would be best to try to get links removed first and then use disavow. As for the reconsideration requests I am picking up on a great deal of cynicism regarding these. Maybe this is just a strange coincidence but nowadays it seems that people always think their loss in traffic is penguin or panda. I actually had a situation where a site lost a bunch or traffic in late April of last year. Of course no one thought it was a manual penalty but in the end it was. After reviewing the information we didn't believe it was from the algorithm changes but a penalty. We did very little work because we weren't really aware of any wrong doing. Then we submitted forreconsideration and 3 days later received notice that there was a manual penalty and it had been removed.
Maybe this was a poor recommendation but I do believe that many people are trying to connect every loss of traffic to Panda and Penguin.
-
100% in agreement with Alan here. Reconsideration request and the disavow tool DO work and we have used them on 2 clients with proof. It can take anything from 4-12 months for you to actually see the positive results, they do work. Try and get the links removed first BEFORE using the disavow tool because Google wants to see that you have made an effort to get them removed rather than just take the easy way around!
It is true that you won't get responses from them all, especially if it is article websites where the webmaster rarely does anything on the site itself. That is when you use the disavow tool, just make sure that you are 100% certain that the links are doing your website harm.
Be honest though and look at which links are spammy and do your up-most to get them removed first. It takes time and a lot of effort but it will work....eventually!
-
Travis,
Please don't use this system to go on a political rant. If you personally have not to this point had any positive results from something it does not automatically mean that "solution" is invalid, fake, or provided purely for conspiracy reasons.
-
Google Best Practices = Propaganda to keep people poor.
The entire point of the spam team is to keep you from manipulating the rankings. They do this by any means necessary, including misleading propaganda.
Disavow tool = A tool for the Spam Team to gather information on platforms.
-
< sigh > and Travis is also not quite accurate. Disavow and Resubmit requests DO work when they're done properly.
-
Actually that first recommendation you got in this answer thread is both backward and flawed and does not follow best practices. No offense to Brad but it's just outright wrong.
The first step should be to clean up all the link mess - documenting the process - noting which sites were contacted, how they were contacted. Only after that is done should a disavow be submitted with all the links you couldn't get cleaned up.
And a resubmission request should only be made if a manual penalty was assessed, not if it was an algorithm penalty. So unless you got a manual penalty notice in Google Webmaster Tools, resubmission requests are not going to help.
-
Disagreeing here,
Following that advice will most likely not do anything except keep you in the dog house.
Let's go over it:
-
The disavow tool is complete rubbish and barely does anything (IF anything)
-
If your crappy SEO company is like most of the other crappy ones, they were simply building bulk links on platforms that can be posted to for free. No one who owns any of these sites is going to care, is even going to read a request, or even be able to. A lot of these sites get x,xxx+ links/posts added them daily. Your chances are slim to none, especially if there are a lot.
Asking your links to be removed will only ever work on smaller blogs where the links were posted and/or someone cares. Most of these links you would probably want to keep anyway.
-
Don't bother with a resubmission request. Again they are rubbish unless you have a squeaky clean link profile. More importantly though, as Brad pointed out, penguin is an algorithm update, NOT a manual penalty. Reconsideration requests will only work will manual penalties. IMO reconsideration requests will only get Google spam team employees eyes on your website for them to actually see your spam. The chances of them coming to the site otherwise are one in a million.
-
Can't argue with the comment of adding good content.
How To Actually Recover
-
Hopefully you were being smart and not doing the linkbuilding to your home page.
-
There are all kinds of creative 301-redirects that can be done to possibly shake the penalty without losing all your link juice. You have to create proper buffer links on the new pages.
-
In general new pages that you create will not have the penalty. Penguin is a page by page penalty, not a site-wide. So if you start with new things you should be fine. It sounds like your link building company was crap anyway so it shouldn't be hard to replicate the results of your old campaign.
-
If you want some hands on advice, I can make you a case study in recovery if your site fits the right criteria. Message me your details if interested.
Cheers
-
-
Thank you so much for your tips!
I will surely be doing that Brad!
-
My recommendation would to be to do the following items.
1. disavow all the links that you believe came from this practice
2. contact all the sites after disavow and ask them to remove the links to your site
3. submit a resubmission request through webmaster tools. Penguin 2.0 is not a manual penalty but in this case it would be good to alert Google that your site was hit hard but also you may have a manual penalty. I would want to try to fight against penguin 2.0 if it is possible that it was a manual penalty with strange timing.
4. change your strategy and start working on creating good content and earning good quality links.
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 Custom Search vendors and options
Hi everyone, We're in the process of finding someone who will be able to help set up Google Custom Search on our site and are having some trouble - most agencies we were hoping could help solely focus on Google Search Appliance, a hardware-specific approach that doesn't suit our needs. Specifically, we'd like to replace our current site search engine with Google Custom search, as well as configure it as deeply as possible for the best search experience I'm hoping people could give me some ideas on who might be able to help, or the best places to look. Thanks in advance!
Industry News | | digitalcrc1 -
Is it currently possible to have a company logo appear with a Google search result?
Hello, We're experimenting with rich snippets. It seems fairly easy to attain authorship through Google and have a headshot appear in a search result... However, we are wondering if it is possible to have a company logo appear (perhaps through rel="publisher"?). Surprisingly, I can't find much info on this. Thanks!
Industry News | | BBEXNinja0 -
Google Changes Up The Search Results Page
Hi Guys, As you Google has made changes on search results page. I have two points two discuss here : 1. Are we going to see more ads on left sidebar in future ? 2. I think it will also affect the CTR of top three ads in SERP ? Waiting for you guys opinion on it ? Reference: http://www.webpronews.com/google-changes-up-the-search-results-page-2012-11
Industry News | | SanketPatel1 -
Google Trends - what did you do?
So is it me or did Google make some crazy changes - The "trends" are no longer anchored to appropriate articles etc... Why do you think they would remove something so useful to us? http://www.google.com/trends/ - check it out for yourself. tumblr_m5jh04D65G1ry8grko1_1280.png
Industry News | | Chenzo0 -
Google Keyword Tool Showing Conflicting Data
Google Adwords Keyword Tool is showing different data for the same keywords. Broad Match Local Search Volume is 2400 apiece logged in from my main account. Local Search Volume 3600 and 1900 logged in from a different account. Can anybody explain this? I have screenshot of both.
Industry News | | Choice0 -
Google Webspam Algo Update 24/4/12
Having just checked our clients rankings 95% have not been affected, in fact many have moved up rankings. 1 or 2 have had big drops 😞 Who has been effected by this? The forums are full of people talking about sites being floored from the serp's. it will be interesting to follow the aftermath of this and get some insight into what exactly has changed!
Industry News | | ifluidmedia0 -
Has there been any feedback from Google regarding their mass mail blunder?
I received a mail yesterday from a Joseph Middleswart from Google welcoming me to the beta trial for real time analytics. But my enjoyment at finally being able to see what's happening with real time data on my site was tempered by the 100+ spam mails I received immediatly after from some of the 200 odd people he'd included in the bulk mailing. Coming less than a week after Google tells us it's withholding keyword data from GA in order to protect the privacy of logged in users, I'm absolutely dumfounded at their incompetence. How can they show such a flagrant disregard for my privacy in introducing a new service while dressing up a restriction on another service as a security / privacy matter? Did anyone else fall victim to this incompetence?
Industry News | | 2Stroke0 -
Google places rejected
google has rejected a few listing i have for certain businesses, i have read the guidlines and I am well inside them. It does say that if business name is changed you need to re-verify, but does not allow you to do so. I think google have lost their way, they should stop building operating systems and electric cars and get their web site sorted out.
Industry News | | AlanMosley0