Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 34.204.203.142

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

Confused by Google's misinformation to webmasters? List yours.

     
3:39 am on Jan 15, 2015 (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
posts:3072
votes: 27


In the most recent hangout with Google's spokesman to webmaster's and site owners, John Mueller mentions that Google is going to upgrade WMT panel and some of it's messaging. The issue surrounds confusion.

It got picked up, and summarised here : [seroundtable.com...]

I know Google is guarded about it's algorithm ( and we shouldn't ask questions that cannot be answered, and do sometimes ) , but some of Google's guidelines could do to be more black and white, and avoid ambiguity, which leads to multiple interpretations. In another thread [webmasterworld.com...] I've raised the issue over confusing messages, that give rise to some SEO's providing reconsideration requests for partial manual actions. It doesn't seem at all logical to request a reconsideration for a partial penalty on a link/s outside of your control. I mean what are you asking to be reconsidered for.

Another, issue I have is over the administration of the disavow files for removing paid links to a site. If the file removes those links from any association, and the penalty is algorithmic ( not a manual penalty ), why would you be busy sending ( in some cases ) 1,000's of takedown notices, with approximately a 10-15% acknowledgement rate, and ask for reconsideration. We're not talking site-wide manual penalties here, we're talking algorithmic penalties. Then on the other hand, in another video from Google we hear that it's not even 100% essential to disavow [ of course it's desirable ].

This information confusion is stimulating lot's of site owners to potentially be overcharged for unnecessary work. That's not ethically cool of the SEO industry, but maybe they are confused. Many siteowner's are without budget and are likely spooked about the resources required to recover, with extensive costs - some simply cannot.

Are you confused? List yours, and let's hope Google can listen to your concerns.

btw - No flaming rants please , we are trying to engage Google's help and understanding here to the extent they are able and willing to. Let's keep it professional.
7:17 am on Jan 15, 2015 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 4, 2001
posts:1097
votes: 7


Not so much misinformation (which implies intent) as a lack of clarity.

If I indulge in black-hat techniques, I'm probably going to get a manual action notice in GWT. The notification (as I understand it) will provide an example(s) of the thing Google objects to. In other words, even though I get a penalty smack I still get an indicator of what to do to mend my ways.

But if I stay on the white hat straight and narrow, but nevertheless trigger a Penguin penalty, there is no message of any kind, no examples of what Google now sees as a problem…. just the train wreck that inevitably follows.

Why do black hatters, Google's arch nemesis, get guidance when white hatters, usually the good guys, get thrown under the train with not a word of guidance?

Solution: If Google knows enough about a site to penalise it, then start putting out the reasons why.
7:32 am on Jan 15, 2015 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:May 16, 2014
posts:141
votes: 0


Most of the ambiguity I've seen relates to people throwing out opinion and speculation regarding what they consider Google's actions.

I don't worry too much about disavow and paid links. That ship sailed a really long time ago, anything I maybe paid for has been gone for years. If links are obviously generated by scrapers, most SEs will probably be able to figure that out.

Reconsideration requests. Is there a notice of a manual action? If there is no manual action, then maybe talking about reconsideration requests is a waste of time?

I saw part of that, and it appeared to me John Mueller was saying they were going to improve the text messages in WMT.

let's hope Google can listen to your concerns

Google doesn't care about individual site operators. I'm not trying to be harsh, but it doesn't scale. Making posts hoping the search gods will hear you isn't really a good use of time.

Most of the time I work within SE guidelines, but I also test things on isolated servers. I don't pay too much attention to what people say, I look more at what reality reflects.