| 7:43 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It is intriguing that such a search term seems to have triggered a manual inspection - or maybe it is automated in some way, eh? We know that Google keeps records of impressions for the domain and not just clicks. I'm thinking that any domain that spikes in total SERP impressions might automatically trigger some kind of reconnaissance event.
| 8:06 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Tedester we talking maybe 10 hits/impressions before the review. I to find incredibale that it happened so fast. I wonder if because a newly launched site is so new the owner really doesn't pay attention to the beginning referrals and Google's manual review is missed.
I just happened to be using the referrals that come in using "visitor path" and send the ones I can determine as a possible lead to our sales department so they can call on the company that searched the term, and saw Google Plex come in not as a referral but a direct type in.
| 5:14 pm on Jun 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am a little concerned now as Google has reviewed the site now 3 times since the launch.
I am wondering why so many manual reviews for a very defined nitch.
Hey lets hope that the Plex finds our sites information useful as well>>>>>:)
| 5:24 pm on Jun 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
maybe they just have people to spotcheck new domains at random?
or even more specifically - new domains that are on page 1.
| 5:43 pm on Jun 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Good point lethal0r. I did change the front page to a more call to action type page since review #2. I know this as I monitor the cache of the page and now see the new one cached.
There must be some type on monitor on changes made from the bot to alert the Plex to review a site that is either new or on page 1 of the results based on the last cache of the site if the page changes to much.
| 5:55 pm on Jun 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The answer may lie with the WHOIS information; you might be flagged as someone's whose sites merit a closer look.
| 7:12 pm on Jun 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Na this isn't an issue I am worried over we have always kept our sites clean white hat. Our company hasn't had a site banned/penalized since formation in 1999.
|The answer may lie with the WHOIS information; you might be flagged as someone's whose sites merit a closer look. |
| 9:40 pm on Jun 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm certain any domain that starts getting page #1 impressions for either a high-search frequency term or a bursty-fresh term gets a human look. Those are very important SERPs for Google.
| 2:02 am on Jun 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
How do you tell you got a manual review?
| 12:45 pm on Jun 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
frup there are several ways to tell one your log files were you see the Google IP address or in my case I use statcounter and view visitor paths were I get the IP number, the ip city state, and company domain name when possible.
Tedster my thoughts as well but 3 times in a month is unreal considering the sheer number of sites that will need to be reviewed.
Looks like we passed the test as the site has remained in the position and now we have 2 links with the extra link "More results for mydomain" under the 2nd link.
I felt I built a good site with good content easy to navigate and fast to load makes me feel real good Google reviewers felt the same way.
| 7:52 pm on Jun 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Wow this is fascinating I had no idea they were so proactive about reviewing new sites.
I would love to check for manual reviews on our network of sites but am using Analytics. Is there any way to do it using Analytics or perhaps just searching raw log files for a particular IP? What IP would I need to check for?
| 6:11 pm on Jul 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
olly I didn't either.
Another review by Google after I added a new page on the site on the 1st and had another manual review of the page I added on the 2nd. G came in on the new page so I know the site everytime there is an update gets some how kicked into a review folder or to an assigned employee with the URL of the added page.
| 6:28 pm on Jul 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It was an automated request, believe me. Look at the user agent, do you see an outdated Firefox version or IE 6? Did the IP start with 72.14.?
Manual checks come from 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124. Period. They come to my sites all the time and strangely positions drop 3 or 6 pages the next day. Thanks guys.
| 7:02 pm on Jul 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Intresting b2net I will look into that but would a automated request be considered a referral and activate the js script as well?
| 7:11 pm on Jul 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Would one be able to see a manual check in Analytics?
| 12:39 am on Jul 7, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Olly, I think you cannot see it in Analytics as there is no that level of details. On statcounter you can though as statcounter reports each pageview, whereas on analytics pageviews are consolidated.
@bwnbwn - We also have something which I am not sure it is manual review or not - is this similar to yours? The IP that visited the site was 126.96.36.199 and the browser is reported to be "Google Webmaster Tools 0".
On each visit there is a request to between 1 and 10 pages and there is no referrer. In cases where more than one page is looked at, there could be anything between 2 seconds and 15 minutes between page views. The host name reported in the statcounter is crawl-66-249-71-216.googlebot.com
We had these visits since beginning of June, every few days, and sometimes few days in the row. I am still not sure what they are, manual review or something else. Our ranking did not change (so far).
| 3:10 pm on Jul 7, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Statcounter counts this request as a live visitor response so this is what threw me off.