Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Reconsideration requests. When to file?... clarification needed

6:20 am on Aug 28, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member whitey is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 28, 2005
votes: 27

I'm picking up a lot of confused folks across the forums in Google's communication on when to file a reconsideration request ( RR ) and when it's of no use, or not necessary.

I'm not talking manual domain wide penalties where a reconsideration request would be required if you wanted it reversed, by demonstrating actions you have taken to remedy the problem.

If you don't control the links pointing to your site, no action is required on your part. From Google's perspective, the links already won't count in ranking. However, if possible, you may wish to remove any artificial links to your site and, if you're able to get the artificial links removed, submit a reconsideration request. If we determine that the links to your site are no longer in violation of our guidelines, we’ll revoke the manual action. [support.google.com...]

Sure, that's logical. But then.....

In this hypothetical example, there isn’t a site-wide match, but there is a “partial match." A partial match means the action applies only to a specific section of a site. In this case, the webmaster has a problem with other people leaving spam on mattcutts.com/forum/. By fixing this common issue, the webmaster can not only help restore his forum's rankings on Google, but also improve the experience for his users. Clicking the "Learn more" link will offer new resources for troubleshooting.

Once you’ve corrected any violations of Google’s quality guidelines, the next step is to request reconsideration. With this new feature, you'll find a simpler and more streamlined reconsideration request process. Now, when you visit the reconsideration request page, you’ll be able to check your site for manual actions, and then request reconsideration only if there’s a manual action applied to your site. If you do have a webspam issue to address, you can do so directly from the Manual Actions page by clicking "Request a review." [googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com.au...]
So why show the reconsideration request button in Webmastertools?

I just don’t get it. Do you see my point? The manual action is against the link. You can’t change the link. What are you considered a request for? The more I think about it makes no sense.

Is Google saying that you need to do a manual reconsideration request because someone pointed a bad link to you ? The warning specifically says it may be beyond the webmasters control. You don’t want that link reinstated – it *is* a bad link. So what would the reconsideration request achieve, especially if you have submitted a disavow file?

What exactly does Google require on a partial match issues, outside of your control, with links that cause targeted action only?
8:58 am on Aug 28, 2013 (gmt 0)

New User

joined:June 12, 2013
votes: 0

This warning means

"Nice backlink profile for [blue widget]. Don't expect to rank for that term in the near future"

The advantage of filing a RR is that any good links using the spammed anchor text and accidentally discounted by Google along with your spam can be brought back into your ranking decision, I think. Also to make spammers run around a little.

I personally don't think there's any point filing a RR for an 'affects links' penalty, 404ing the page is much preferable. If you built to your homepage, well, good luck with that.
1:10 pm on Aug 29, 2013 (gmt 0)

Junior Member from US 

5+ Year Member

joined:Oct 24, 2011
votes: 1

Agree with pippo. if you want to rank for [blue widget], you are going to have to build enough natural links to further dilute any spam links you may have while building authority for the keyword phrase and avoiding additional scrutiny that could trigger an algorithmic filter or more severe action against your site.... and/or identify the artificial links referenced and ensure they are removed/disavowed and file a reconsideration request.

Personally, I would take the second option and get the manual action removed... just makes me feel like everything I do would be less under a microscope.

[edited by: phranque at 10:52 pm (utc) on Aug 29, 2013]