Wednesday 17 April 2024 03:56 AM   Your IP:
Structural SEO
Home       SEO Enterprise Blog       Search Compliance       Structural SEO       The Semantic Imperative       About      

Enterprise SEO Blog

re1y roll
Gaming Google In The Gaming Industry
Bob Sakayama
2013-03-23 18:27:43
2012 SEO Disasters | Solutions
Bob Sakayama
2012-12-16 14:03:29
Google May Be Quietly Acknowledging Negative SEO
Bob Sakayama
2012-08-30 15:29:12
Unnatural Links Warning
Bob Sakayama
2012-07-25 17:05:11
Penguin Inadvertently Makes Paid Links More Valuable
Bob Sakayama
2012-04-29 14:01:46
Occupy Google
Bob Sakayama
2011-11-04 12:57:49
Google Has Lost The War Against Paid Links
Bob Sakayama
2011-05-07 16:33:19
Google Penalties Now Called Manual Actions
Bob Sakayama
2011-04-23 16:27:14
Google Bomb Today
Ryan Urban
2011-04-11 17:05:11
Penalized Site Seeks Help:
Valmir Fernandes
2011-03-17 17:56:06
Did The Hammer Come Down On Content Aggregators
Bob Sakayama
2011-03-02 22:22:24
Enterprise Search Manipulation
Bob Sakayama
2011-02-19 19:12:08
Google Has A Huge Cloaking Problem
Bob Sakayama
2011-01-21 20:33:20
A Sorry Tale of a Google Penalty in Action
Dr. Marc Pinter-Krainer
2010-12-13 11:46:50
A New Google Penalty
Bob Sakayama
2010-11-28 21:49:40
The Archive Link Magnet
Bob Sakayama
2010-08-12 20:39:05
Coping With The Loss of Link Metrics
Bob Sakayama
2010-07-25 03:10:26 Penalized
2010-07-22 15:19:42
Automating Compliance Via CMS
Rev Sale
2010-07-15 22:43:15
Caffeine May Have A Hidden Cost
Bob Sakayama
2010-07-08 11:35:34
Google Penalties And Nuked Domains
Bob Sakayama
2009-11-28 21:09:30
When Google Doesn't Like Your Business Model
2009-11-09 12:41:20
Search Compliance For Subdomains
2009-11-09 11:51:10
Google Penalty Solutions - An Example Unwind
Bob Sakayama
2009-11-04 21:21:01
Maintaining Search Compliance via CMS
2009-11-03 22:35:15
Still Reeling From The Affiliate Slap
2009-11-02 22:47:01
Most Popular Penalties
Bob Sakayama
2009-11-01 22:06:52
Link Obfuscation Necessary On New Sites
Rev Sale
2009-11-01 21:46:56
By: Bob Sakayama
2011-04-23 16:27:14
Are we starting to see some transparency from Google in their responses to reconsideration requests? So far, we've only seen 5 examples of this version of a new response, which denies "manual actions" (read 'manual Google penalties'), suggesting that fixing the issue will auto-correct the ranking losses. We welcome this change because it includes some real information regarding the rank loss, even though we can't tell whether they're acknowledging a penalty with it. This suggests that there is at least one other response that acknowledges 'manual actions' or denies automated actions. Note how the word 'penalty' is not present.

If you've seen a different response, please send it to us in a comment.


Reconsideration request for No manual spam actions found

April 22, 2011

Dear site owner or webmaster of,

We received a request from a site owner to reconsider for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines.

We reviewed your site and found no manual actions by the webspam team that might affect your site's ranking in Google. There's no need to file a reconsideration request for your site, because any ranking issues you may be experiencing are not related to a manual action taken by the webspam team.

Of course, there may be other issues with your site that affect your site's ranking. Google's computers determine the order of our search results using a series of formulas known as algorithms. We make hundreds of changes to our search algorithms each year, and we employ more than 200 different signals when ranking pages. As our algorithms change and as the web (including your site) changes, some fluctuation in ranking can happen as we make updates to present the best results to our users.

If you've experienced a change in ranking which you suspect may be more than a simple algorithm change, there are other things you may want to investigate as possible causes, such as a major change to your site's content, content management system, or server architecture. For example, a site may not rank well if your server stops serving pages to Googlebot, or if you've changed the URLs for a large portion of your site's pages. This article has a list of other potential reasons your site may not be doing well in search.

If you're still unable to resolve your issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.


Google Search Quality Team


This response suggests that this specific rank loss is the result of an algorithmic action, or automated Google penalty, that can be unwound by simply fixing the issue.

We know from previous posts by Matt Cutts & this video that manual penalties come with a clock - a time frame that determines the length of time you'll be punished. From the penalties experienced by our clients, we suspect those time frames somehow line up with the perceived severity of your non-compliance. We've seen the time frame on newly compliant sites range from 90 days to over 6 months.

This is controversial by itself - so you get put in jail for some period of time, even if your rank loss was triggered by an inadvertent error and you've corrected it. We'll be looking at this much more closely now to determine whether that time frame is started from the fix, or from the start of the penalty, and exactly what the time frames may be. We strongly suspect they start once the site is compliant, and a reconsideration request is filed. We doubt a manual action is going to self correct once the site is compliant.

For automated penalties, we suspect you're not getting out until you're compliant, and then have to wait out some additional period before release as the bots update the index.

Blog_id: 31 | Posted: 2011-04-23 16:27:14 | Views (9,893) | Comments (3)  
Comment By: dirtsgood
re: Google Penalties Now Called Manual Actions
(posted 2011-05-07 16:07:40)

Here's another response that also gives new information:

request for Site violates Google's quality guidelines May 5, 2011

Dear site owner or webmaster of,

We received a request from a site owner to reconsider for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines.

In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from may not appear or may not rank as highly in Google's search results, or may otherwise be considered to be less trustworthy than sites which follow the quality guidelines.

If you wish to be reconsidered again, please correct or remove all pages that are outside our quality guidelines. When such changes have been made, please visit and resubmit your site for reconsideration.

If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support.

Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team

Comment By: Jade
re: Google Penalties Now Called Manual Actions
(posted 2011-05-07 16:23:09)

Penalized sites should ask for reconsideration as a first step to gain info as to why. Very helpful info - thanks Bob!

Comment By: Bob Sakayama
re: Google Penalties Now Called Manual Actions
(posted 2011-05-07 22:21:53)

Not all responses give you information - here's one that just came in. Looks like the same old non-informative boiler plate:

We've processed your reconsideration request for May 7, 2011

We received a request from a site owner to reconsider how we index the following site:

We've now reviewed your site. When we review a site, we check to see if it's in violation of our Webmaster Guidelines. If we don't find any problems, we'll reconsider our indexing of your site. If your site still doesn't appear in our search results, check our Help Center for steps you can take.

Home       SEO Enterprise Blog       Search Compliance       Structural SEO       The Semantic Imperative       About
Enterprise SEO
Google Penalty Solutions
Automation & Search Compliance

Looking for SEO enabled content management systems with structural, semantic optimization built into the cms? You're on the right site. Research identified targets are implemented within the markup, content, and filenames to enable the site to rank as high as possible based upon semantic relevance. 34789366G off site content requirements