ColourOfSpring - 10:22 am on Jun 4, 2013 (gmt 0)
Manual Reviews are primarily used (today) when PENGUIN fails to detect the webspam and a search user submits a spam report and the Webspam Team agrees with the submission.
I can assure you Google would prefer to do all webspam automatically through algorithmic divine... but they aren't spammers so they are playing catchup here like they are with Facebook and the social game.
PENGUIN 1.0 COULD NOT address all forms of webspam (links or otherwise) it remains to be seen what PENGUIN 2.0 can do but PENGUIN 1.0 in general could not detect advertorial links.
PENGUIN 2.0 CANNOT detect lots!
There are also content oriented Manual Reviews for thin pages, affiliate pages, doorway pages, auto-generated pages & copied pages but those are a completely different topic.
fathom, I find a lot of what you say unfathomable...like "PENGUIN 2.0 CANNOT detect lots!" - what does that mean? That Penguin 2.0 literally can't detect a lot of spam?
...but to recap my own point:-
- it's been reported over and over and over across many sources that recovery from Penguin is extremely difficult and there are only rare cases of a recovery. The nature of Penguin is such that Google don't want us to "backward engineer" it, so we can't understand the nature of it, so how can we hope to recover using just guess work and waiting for a refresh every 6 months? Sounds like a TERRIBLE business model. Your suggestions of cleaning up keyword stuffing, spammy links, over-optimisation with content is as old as the hills and has been tried and tried and tried by many webmasters to no avail. My advice is to utilise your energy drawing in traffic from sources outside of Google.
p.s. what's the deal with capitalising PENGUIN? Do you believe it's some kind of acronym?