Is Google's reinclusion request process flawed?
-
We have been having a bit of a nightmare with a Google penalty (please see http://www.browsermedia.co.uk/2012/04/25/negative-seo-or-google-just-getting-it-painfully-wrong/ or http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/10093-why-google-needs-to-be-less-kafkaesque for background information - any thoughts on why we have been penalised would be very, very welcome!) which has highlighted a slightly alarming aspect of Google's reinclusion process.
As far as I can see (using Google Analytics), supporting material prepared as part of a reinclusion request is basically ignored. I have just written an open letter to the search quality team at http://www.browsermedia.co.uk/2012/06/19/dear-matt-cutts/ which gives more detail but the short story is that the supporting evidence that we prepared as part of a request was NOT viewed by anyone at Google.
Has anyone monitored this before and experienced the same thing? Does anyone have any suggestions regarding how to navigate the treacherous waters of resolving a penalty?
This no doubt sounds like a sob story for us, but I do think that this is a potentially big issue and one that I would love to explore more.
If anyone could contribute from the search quality team, we would love to hear your thoughts!
Cheers,
Joe
-
Thank you for your thoughts.
I agree that they must be swamped and most of the 'complaints' you can see on the Google forums fully deserve to be penalised in my humble opinion, but I think that the total lack of communication is more damaging than helpful.
If they want to improve the web, why do they not give more details about what is causing the problem? By being more transparent and helping webmasters to eradicate spammy techniques, everyone will be forced into improving their sites for all the right reasons.
If they don't have the resource to handle the reinclusion requests, then they shouldn't have it as an option.
I still feel that it is very poor not to even look at the files that were prepared - that shows a lack of respect.
I agree that it is likely to be something simple. The 'spike' theory is still the strongest contender for me, due to the timings of events, but that is alarming if it proves to be true as we were effectively penalised for doing exactly what Google encourages (creating good content that will naturally attract links).
Another possible cause is the fact that we have got a number of directory links over the years. Whilst I have never considered these to be high quality links, I have never seen Google saying that you shouldn't submit your site to them (indeed, they used to actively suggest that submitting to Yahoo! was a good idea) and it is a way for Google to outsource some human assessment of sites (assuming that the directories do check your sites).
If it is the directories, then the door for negative SEO is so wide open that it is alarming. As many have said, completely ignoring such links would be better than penalising you.
We are still no closer to understanding what we have done wrong, despite every effort to adhere to the guidelines and a lot of work trying to audit / document our link profile. With very little faith in the reinclusion process, where can we possibly turn to now?
We will see. There were multiple views of the open letter from Google, so somebody somewhere has seen it and I just hope that there is some form of response.
The irony is that we spend most of our life defending Google and encouraging clients to improve what they are doing online. On this occasion, I really find it hard to defend them. I appreciate that we are a drop in a mighty ocean, but the principle is one that I think is an important one and one that I will pursue.
Thanks again for your contribution,
Joe
-
Not sticking up for them but you have to appreciate the amount of people that would probably try to send them all sorts of viruses anyway they can, also they probably don;t have or want to take the time looking at everyone so closely, basically they will just see if the offending stuff is still there, if it is they won't give you any love.
Honestly, it's probably something so simple you have overlooked it. Keyword ratio's above 6% can be taken as spam depending on content amount, non relevent link coming in/going out, links from already penalzed sites, anything unnatural is now what google has been focusing on, not just backlinks, so go through your site, obviously the HP is the first point to start at, if you are really sure there is nothing going on in the way of spaminess or over optimization, comb through your other pages. It will usually be a problem one your best ranked pages. Or, ex best ranked pages if you have been hit with a penguin slap.
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
-
What is your experience so far, with the new Google's Meta Description length up to 320 characters?
I updated a few home pages and some landing pages, so far so good! Although, I wish to know about other experiences, before continue updating. Thanks for your comments!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mª Verónica B.2 -
Why isn't Google indexing this site?
Hello, Moz Community My client's site hasn't been indexed by Google, although it was launched a couple of months ago. I've ran down the check points in this article https://mza.seotoolninja.com/ugc/8-reasons-why-your-site-might-not-get-indexed without finding a reason why. Any sharp SEO-eyes out there who can spot this quickly? The url is: http://www.oldermann.no/ Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Inevo
INEVO, digital agency0 -
What's with the Keyword Apocalypse?
Hi, 9 of my tracked keywords have dropped by over 20 ranks since last week. The nastiest drops in ranking are by 36, 38, and 46 places. For the last month I have been chipping away at the duplicate content with 301 redirects and was expecting my keyword rankings to improve slightly as a result of this; not the opposite. I don't have any manual actions logged against my site and am at a bit of a loss to explain this sudden drop. Any suggestions would be most welcome.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McCaldin1 -
Will adding 1000's of outbound links to just a few website impact rankings?
I manage a large website that hosts 1000's of business listings that comprise an area that covers 7 state counties. Currently a category page (such as lodging) hosts a group of listings which then link to it's own page. From these pages links are present directly to the business it represents. The client is proposing that we change all listings to link to the representative county website and remove the individual pages. This essentially would create 1000's of external links to 7 different websites and remove 1000's of pages from our site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Your_Workshop
Does anyone have thoughts on how adding 1000's of links (potentially upwards of 3000) to only 7 websites (that I would deem relevant links) would affect SEO? I know if 1000's of links are added pointing to 1000's of websites the site can be considered a link farm, but I can't find any info online that speaks of a case like this.0 -
What's the deal with significantLinks?
http://schema.org/significantLink Schema.org has a definition for "non-navigation links that are clicked on the most." Presumably this means something like the big green buttons on Moz's homepage. But does anyone know how they affect anything? In http://moz.com/blog/schemaorg-a-new-approach-to-structured-data-for-seo#comment-142936, Jeremy Nelson says " It's quite possible that significant links will pass anchor text as well if a previous link to the page was set in navigation, effictively making obselete the first-link-counts rule, and I am interested in putting that to test." This is a pretty obscure comment but it's one of the only results I could find on the subject. Is this BS? I can't even make out what all of it is saying. So what's the deal with significantLinks and how can we use them to SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NerdsOnCall0 -
What NAP format do I use if the USPS can't even find my client's address?
My client has a site already listed on Google+Local under "5208 N 1st St". He has some other NAPs, e.g., YellowPages, under "5208 N First Street". The USPS finds neither of these, nor any variation that I can possibly think of! Which is better? Do I just take the one that Google has accepted and make all the others like it as best I can? And doesn't it matter that the USPS doesn't even recognize the thing? Or no? Local SEO wizards, thanks in advance for your guidance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rayvensoft0 -
Why is google ranking me higher for pages that aren't optimised for keywords those that are?
I am finding that our homepage and other pages are being ranked higher against keywords that we have optimised other pages for. e.g Keyword: Luxury Towels Google Ranks our homepage http://www.towelsrus.co.uk at 20 for this and the page I am trying to rank for it is nowhere to be seen http://www.towelsrus.co.uk/sport-spa/luxury-towels/catlist_fnct498.htm Why is this and is this why our position for certain keywords fluctuates? How do I remedy this problem?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Towelsrus0 -
Will blocking google and SE's from indexing images hurt SEO?
Hi, We have a bit of a problem where on a website we are managing, there are thousands of "Dynamically" re-sized images. These are stressing out the server as on any page there could be upto 100 dynamically re-sized images. Google alone is indexing 50,000 pages a day, so multiply that by the number of images and it is a huge drag on the server. I was wondering if it maybe an idea to blog Robots (in robots.txt) from indexing all the images in the image file, to reduce the server load until we have a proper fix in place. We don't get any real value from having our website images in "Google Images" so I am wondering if this could be a safe way of reducing server load? Are there any other potential SEO issues this could cause?? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James770