Google Spam team replied to site contact form! What do we do now?

[miozio]

We have been struggling with Panda since its first interaction in February with no results. 2 reconsideration requests failed with senseless messages in WMT. After the last Panda update we got the notice "detected unnatural links" in WMT.

We cleaned up some links pointing to the affected site from 3 of our own domains and submitted another (3rd) request.

This time the reply came sooner and straight through our site's contact form:

Hello,

Thank you for your request.

We know that perhaps not every link can be cleaned up, but we need to see a substantial effort to remove the links, and this effort should result in a decrease in the number of bad links that we see. Once you are confident that you have done everything you can to remove these links, please reply to this email with the details of your clean-up effort.

Sincerely,

The Google Search Quality Team

Due to the fact that this domain dates back to 2004, it gained thousands of links and it was difficult to go through each one. We still had to do it and "Bingo", we found a spam attack from more than 150 low quality article directories registered in mid 2010 under one name!

In January 2009 we submitted 10 different articles to Articlesbase and Ezinearticles (these are reliable article directories with editorial staff who review submitted content for quality)

And now we see our articles on those spam directories who took content from Articlesbase and Ezine. Of course nobody responded when we tried emailing them 3 times.

I responded to this message explaining everything ( as seen on those spam sites, articles were submitted Jan 2009 but the domains were created in mid 2010).
Still waiting for the reply from Google.

Possible fix.
Those articles have links to 2 different pages, so I was thinking to change the URLs of these pages without 301 redirect and delete the old ones from index. I know we will drop many many other natural links but to save the whole site we can easily do it.

Has anyone fixed similar issue due to link attack by removing the linked pages?

[Bewenched]

Google really REALLY should not penalize for incoming links. This can lead to intentional sabotage of one's competitors, especially for small businesses. All someone would have to do is find a weakness in say a vbulletin forum software or blog software and start hacking forums, not enough to make them notice, but enough to spam the crud out of someone.

[FranticFish]

Am I the only one that finds Google's behaviour unfathomably obtuse?

They don't like some links the site has, but they appear to like the site. WELL JUST IGNORE THE F***ING LINKS THEN AND SAVE EVERYONE SOME TROUBLE!

Isn't the algorithm supposed to be a trade secret? Does it help Google to admit that certain links actually do work so long as the site doesn't get a human review? If I were into spam I would find this thread illuminating and encouraging.

[ryankent]

I am sure to attract negative attention for this post but here goes...

Google's process is logical. They devalue known or suspected manipulative links. Those blogs from Asia with comments which offer followed links from PR 7+ sites are all devalued. Some of those articles have thousands of links with new ones being added daily as if they offered value.

I recall Matt Cutts sharing how a site was reported from a competitor due to it's 10k+ manipulative links. Google investigated the links and determined NONE of them flowed any PR.

The problem is when a certain percentage of a site's links are manipulative in nature, a manual penalty can be applied. This issue is what affected Miozio's site and is presently affecting the site of my client.

I would prefer to set the philosophical discussion aside until the penalty has been lifted. Once the penalty has been resolved I would be happy to share any learnings with the community. In the mean time, any information from site owners who have received a similar manual penalty would be appreciated.

[londrum]

The problem is when a certain percentage of a site's links are manipulative in nature,

if that is true then maybe there's another solution to miozio's problem... just work on getting a load more legit links.

[miozio]

We are especially loved by huffingtonpost editors and community as well as wikipedia and multiple other highly respected sites.
Thank you

[ryankent]

@londrum, I agree adding authentic links would help non-penalized sites avoid a penalty. Once a manual penalty is applied, it seems Google is specifically looking for a reduction in "bad" links. Google specifically stated "We know that perhaps not every link can be cleaned up, but we need to see a substantial effort to remove the links, and this effort should result in a decrease in the number of bad links that we see."

[jsherloc]

@ryankent, not looking to delve TOO deep into Google Zen within this thread, but I think what folks take issue with is following statement:

"The problem is when a certain percentage of a site's links are manipulative in nature, a manual penalty can be applied. This issue is what affected Miozio's site and is presently affecting the site of my client."

What exactly defines "manipulative", and why are Webmaster's not allowed to know this information? Aren't all links essentially "manipulative" if they carry some type of incoming kw-anchored text? The whole "percentage" thing really makes no difference when you still have zero control over what that "percentage" is, ya know?

So now at its current state we seem to have Google penalizing people purely based on how they view the webmaster's "intent", after their site triggers some sort of flag for "potential link manipulation"?

These stories I am reading here and other major web forums seems to indicate people are dealing with this issue in regards to basic linkbuilding methods that have been around forever and that can easily be abused, BUT do in fact offer 100% legitimate uses, such as article marketing, web 2.0's, blog posts, etc...not necessarily chinese spammers launching hundreds of thousands of spam blog comments.

For five dollars someone can send TONS of anchored links at your site at any time. For five dollars someone can blast these links with links from bad neighborhoods, etc...

How does Google judge a webmaster's "efforts to clean up" when the above can happen all day every day?

But please do let us know what type of clarification they give you, as by my guess you have several thousands going through the exact same thing trying to make heads or tails of things. Expecting clarification within this type of environment is being a bit optimistic IMO though, but I can only hope along with the masses for even a sliver of "clarity".

[ryankent]

@Jsherloc, we can go back and forth over exact terms such as "manipulative" but I think everyone has a very clear understanding. The term Google prefers to use is "inorganic" meaning unnatural, meaning either paid links or links generated by the site owner with the sole intent to manipulate (i.e. boost) their PR.

We can discuss how the system could possibly be abused, and you are welcome to explore those techniques. In this instance, the client did purchase links in the past. As much as I dislike the penalty from Google, it was appropriate. It's likely the same was true for Miozio.

Once again, we are hopeful this issue will be resolved soon and I will gladly share any information which can help webmasters comply with Google's Guidelines.

[ohno]

How does Google trat links in forms to a website? We are members on many support forums helping people with products queries, many posts incorporate a link to the product they require. This isn't being spammy, it's helping people find what they want!

[Planet13]

How does Google treat links in forms to a website? ...This isn't being spammy, it's helping people find what they want!

To play it safe, you could nofollow those links. After all, they are for helping people find what they need, not for manipulating page rank.

Otherwise, you are at the whim of google.

[Planet13]

@ ryankent:

Is it fair to say that your client who was punished had paid links that were in content and would be very difficult for people - even google employees - to realize that they were paid links?

Would it also be fair to say that the sites with paid links to your client also had other pages with paid links to other sites?

In essence, did you client get links from sites that were "made for links" types of sites that regularly sold links to many different sites?

Thanks in advance.

[miozio]

And they keep pointing to the links from sites who copied our full pages. Also the sites who copied Wikipedia pages with our links!

HEre is a new thing they suggested:

We recommend that you continue reaching out to the webmasters of the sites with the inorganic links on them.

[brinked]

doesnt sound kosher to me. If another site copies your full pages, isnt it good practice to link back to the source?

You can not control this, why would google expect you to have it removed?

[miozio]

I exchanged 3 emails with them Yesterday, explaining stuff about copied content. You can clearly see we had nothing to do with those sites. The final verdict by Google is:

We recommend that you continue with your clean-up effort, and only reply back with details when you have made significant progress (removing more than one or two backlinks).

They end every message with:

If you would like more specific advice, we suggest you post in our Webmaster Help Forum, where members of the webmaster community may be able to help you: Their forum link..

Looks like they want more people to talk about being being penalized for whatever links and make this issue more public!

[miozio]

I am posting an update, just to make sure you guys didn't lose hope.

Here is my last message to Google:

Sir, you are pointing at sites who copied our content or a Wikipedia copy from 2007 as well as Sitepoint open forum post signatures from 2007. Why are you doing it to us?

We are not spammers, can't you see that? I downloaded the sample links and those are exactly the type you pointed at! We have NOTHING to do with them!

Respond from this morning:

Thank you for your request.

After reevaluating your site's backlinks and your progress in reducing the amount of inorganic links to your site, we are now able to treat your backlinks even more granularly.

Moving forward, we encourage you to continue to be aware of the quality of backlinks to your site, making efforts to remove any remaining backlinks which may be viewed as inorganic. As a reminder, the best way to generate good links to your site, and improve your rankings overall, is to focus on creating the highest quality site possible for your users.

Please be aware that it can take time for changes to be reflected in our search results, so you may not immediately see the effects of our adjusted actions.

Sincerely,

The Google Search Quality Team

[tedster]

Sounds like you got through to someone! It make take a short while, and granted you probably got a boilerplate reply - but it is a different one and a hopeful one, too.

[miozio]

I will post an update if anything positive happens.
Also,
the last message came at 4AM EST following a home page visit from Mountain view. Looks like they work night shifts too as it was 1AM in Cali

[chrism]

After reevaluating your site's backlinks and your progress in reducing the amount of inorganic links to your site, we are now able to treat your backlinks even more granularly.

The part "we are now able to treat your backlinks even more granularly" seems a very odd statement to make, I'm not sure I really understand what that means, or is supposed to mean. Even more granularly than what? Are they saying that by removing the questionable links they can now trust their algorithm to take over again?

I'm not questioning the fact that this is genuine, but I really struggle with these communications Google have a habit of sending. As tedster says, it's probably boilerplate, even though it sounds like it has received human attention.

[martinacastro]

Congratulations miozio!

One question, your first responses from Google, told you about links or the send you the tipical message: All or some pages of your site still violates...?

I asked you this, because you said:

senseless messages in WMT

I want to know which type of message they sent you.

Regards
Martin

[miozio]

Hello Martin
The first few messages were very general. They started being more specific after we had managed to take down that network of article directories.

There is nothing to celebrate and I am seeing a complete vacuum right now, it got worse, seems like.

Chrism, all I have is just hope, no clear messages as usual.

[martinacastro]

Thanks miozio for your response. I hope that you will see positive things soon!

About the message:

they told you something like:

"We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines." ?

or this one

"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."

Regards
Martin

[miozio]

Martin,
They started like this but the rest that is a bit more interesting, I posted here.

[martinacastro]

Thanks miozio, I see that you recieved later more interesting messages.

I only want to understand and share with other how Google works with their Messages.

To make a brief:

Google First sent messages like "your site still violates ... " as response to your Reconsiderations and weeks later more specific messages about links...

Regards

Martin

[miozio]

Months later :)

[martinacastro]

how many reconsiderations you sent before you recieved the more specific messages?

Thanks miozio

[miozio]

Just one and they chose communicating via direct email address assigned to my WMT account. Something like 20 messages

[miozio]

Update:

It's been 10 days and nothing had changed until today. We lost the last two fair positions that went to the 2nd page.

I was very close to throwing my computer against the wall, should I do it now or wait for another week to be sure we are penalized forever?

[Whitey]

Think of the positives , you have been alerted by Google to your backlink profile, hold on a few weeks to see what Google did to your links ; neutralised , untouched or if your site is penalised e.g. -50 penalty etc which goes with excessive linking strategies.

You just need to hold off a bit, then work out your best strategy for " escape " or do remedial improvements. I imagine many more knowledgeable folks here can help out with options.

It's a double whammy when folks are combating both Panda and link related issues. Some folks may be largely out of Panda , but may not know it.

Don't destroy your computer - you need it :)

[miozio]

Thanks for your support. I wish I knew what I am dealing with. How long does it usually take for the site to be reranked after the manual penalty had been removed?

[ryankent]

Miozio, as I shared previously my client experienced the same issue. Once Google shared the manual penalty was "partially revoked", my client's rankings were restored. They rank #1 for their site name, and have relatively good rankings for various keywords related to their site.

The ranking restoration was almost immediate. You should expect to see rankings restored within 48 hours of the penalty removal.

With respect to the more granular link adjustments Google referenced, if your site's ranking had benefited from manipulative links, that benefit will now be gone. It is likely all questionable links to your site have been devalued. Basically, you are likely proceeding with your site as if it had no backlinks other then a few solid links you may have earned. After 30 days, where ever your rankings wind up is likely permanent. At that point you need to apply SEO best practices in order to improve rankings.

-Ryan