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
-
Is paper.li a Penguin no-no?
One of our blog posts was just linked to from a paper.li site; the post on the site was then tweeted by the site's owner. From what I was able to determine, paper.li is little more than an aggregator, and the tweet was most likely automated. So, this is my two-part question: 1) Is the paper.li platform one that Penguin disapproves of, and 2) if so, should I prepare to disavow?
Industry News | | RScime250 -
Does Penguin Help Negative SEO?
With negative link targeting seeming to become more and more of a ‘standard practice’ for more and more agencies and freelance SEOs (I, for one, have had to use the disavow tool far more than I ever thought I would) and the fact that there are more “link building services” that really only build ‘crap’ links than there were when that type of link building worked, I am honestly a bit afraid that Google is really just pushing SEO’s to the ‘dark side’ or at least handing black hat link builders a great tool for bringing down the competition. I had one SEO actually say to me “If my client can’t recover than at least I can target everyone that jumped ahead of them and only spend around $300 on bad link building”. This came from someone I NEVER thought would say anything of the sort and really got me to thinking’ “will this be the future of SEO?” I know the answer is no but still, it seems more and more people are just throwing their hands up and targeting competition rather than working on their own websites and with updates like Penguin I am afraid that more of my time will be spent disavowing links than building them.
Industry News | | Vizergy0 -
Penguin 2.0 Update - Just Hit - Google Messes up again, can anyone on SEOMOZ please tell me why or how some of these websites are ranking?
I am getting a bit tired now writing all of this so please excuse grammar and spelling mistakes, I wanted to post this up quickly tonight so I could possibly get some feedback by morning. So I feel I figured out some of the new update that just hit and I am sure the update will continue to keep coming and rankings will most likely change for a while, but I do have a few questions in the mean time if they stay. Please look below, why would some of those sites be ranking? Some sites utilize no onpage SEO, some no backlinks, one of the sites is a single page site and every page is a broken link even the contact us page and it's rank 1..... I am not 100% sure that Google got this one right. I see many instances below where other sites are much higher quality and have more authority. It's as if Google took terrible sites and said here is a site for you, now deal with it and I hope it works out at the top. I do see several sites that belong on the first page, but I see others that are very questionable. This is how the following is written below. Before the url is the anchor text density % for the site. This indicates the percentage of the amount of times the anchor text was backlined versus other anchor texts they used. Issues with the sites. Most of these sites don't utilize onpage SEO and it's clearly not a factor for onpage density purposes, there is a site with 37% keyword density on it. Some sites even have broken links. Please note: I already know that there is a lot of data that is analyzed to determine rankings more than this, but PA/DA is suppose to be a major factor according to everyone that believes in SEOMOZ.org. So I am taking in account for many of those factors being calculated due to this. These are just some random keywords I picked, because I know you need to analyze other SEO firms after and update to figure out what lasted and what didn't. All of my sites lasted due to ethical tactics, but I had some rankings move down and others go up, very odd. Keyword Analyzed: CHEAP SEO Not Knowng http://searchengineland.com/the-hidden-cost-of-cheap-seo-social-labor-131585 92-DA 75-PA - A lot of content 4715 words on the page including comments. not known http://www.searchenginejournal.com/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-cheap-seo-or-link-building/45932/ 87DA 63 PA Words on page 3673 Not known www.cheap-seo-solutions.com 26 DA -- 38 PA 1112 words on page 9.52% www.cheapseocompany.com 34 DA ---- 41 PA 10 + anchor texts but 623 words on page 10.26% seocheap.net 35 DA --- 45 PA 10 + anchor text 855 words on the page I am not 100% sure why this is ranking lol, the services page isn't even working it errors out. The onpage SEO is sloppy and the writing looks forced. Why is this even ranking? The site also looks low quality. The density is higher than SEOMOZ even and it has less words. In this case DA + words carried this site up, not the anchor ratio being low. 6.17% http://www.cheapseo-services.com cheap seo Page Authority DA 28 -- PA 38 276 Words No onpage, 35 duplicate pages, free template, etc.. etc.. 10% www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-do-seo-cheap DA 94 --- PA 56 only 5 anchor texts used on this page. 8651 Words I am willing to bet if you diversified this with about 5 more anchor texts this could be number 1 easy. This only has 5 total diverse anchor text backlinks for this page. Keyword Analyzed: Affordable SEO Services Rank 1 47% www.affordableseoservicesx.com/ 24DA PA36 New site It still has broken links all over the page The Contact us page doesn't even work lol. Great going Google on ranking such a high quality 1 page website. 471 words How is this site ranking? How could Google even rank this site? Rank 2 The Term isn't mentioned at all accept in title and header not known mbseoservice.com/ da 20 pa 32 PR 0 Just has affordable seo services in title anchor Possible New Site 627 words Rank 4 12.77% affordableseoservices.net 22 DA 35 DA - Proof Exact match domains still work great with high diversity rates, low word amounts, bad DA, etc..... 348 words Rank 5 4.24% www.howardsemgroup.com DA 39 PA 49 893 words. Rank 6 2.49% www.i4.net/ 59 DA and 66 PA 588 words Rank 7 4.71% www.bluefrogseosolutions.com/ DA 31 PA 42 527 Words This site looks like it was created in 1998 and never updated. Low quality site IMO Rank 8 Not Known www.mainstreethost.com/ 76 DA 81 PA possible co occurrence added in with main domain name /url 281 Words not 1 exact anchor text match Rank 10 2.7% bestcheapseoservices.com/ 18 DA 29PA This is just a blog site, come on Google... 4379 Words
Industry News | | MarketingOfAmerica0 -
How do i get a description in my google local listing
My site is listed in the serps at number one but where google used to list the name of my site with the meta description below it, now Google lists my site title with my address to the right side and below it says Google+page instead of listing my meta description which had my key search phrase in it and also a call to action to see my video on my site. My click through was much better with the meta description below it and the call to action. is there any way i can get the description back under my title in the serps? Maybe by deleting my Google + page? Thanks in advance, Ron
Industry News | | Ron100 -
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 -
Does anyone have a copy of the 2011 Google Quality Raters Handbook that was recently leaked?
http://searchengineland.com/download-the-latest-google-search-quality-rating-guidelines-97391 Google has been on a conquest taking them down online but I would really like to take a look at it if you have a copy! [moderator note - please use the PM system and exchange email addresses there. We've removed emails from this thread before it gets indexed and exposed to the world]
Industry News | | altecdesign4 -
How to achieve the highest global and local relevance in google?
Let's say I have a company that has its main business in Europe for thefollowing languages: English German Portugese French Italian And let's say some other markets (e.g. the Portugese one in south america) is also important. The question now is how should we structure the Domain if we want onlyone top level domain (www.company.com)? a) By using subdomains to target users with Google Webmaster Tools for the relevant country: portugal.company.com/pt (same content) brasil.company.com/pt (same content) germany.company.com/de england.company.com/en etc. or b) by using virtual folders www.company.com/pt www.company.com/de www.company.com/en
Industry News | | imsi
etc. or c) something completely different I do not know about? What do you reckon is best? I appreciate all suggestions!0