1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I'm just about convinced. G won't approve reconsideration.

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by reallife, Sep 22, 2013.

  1. reallife

    reallife Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    531
    So I had a site that I used to 301 SAPE links to another site, and it got trashed.
    All links to the site were removed and I applied for reconsideration.
    It took three tries to get them to remove the unnatural links penalty - and they immediately slapped me with a thin affiliate penalty.
    The site isn't the most robust I've ever built, but it isn't thin by any stretch of the imagination, either.
    I'm now just about convinced they won't let you revive a site once they trash it.
     
  2. Scritty

    Scritty Elite Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    4,496
    Occupation:
    Affiliate Marketer
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    I've recovered quite a few sites now, both mine and clients. In all but one case I have NOT used reconsideration.
    The one time I did use it, explicitly at the clients request, I removed what I considered the offending links.

    In each case - reconsideration or not, I remove paid links ONLY - I never remove or ask for removal of any other links - in many clients case, essp those in finance they were clearly spammed their by competitors as neg SEO.

    I would have to have charged some clients say $60-70 thousand dollars to contact the (literally) thousands of webmasters their links were on, monitor replies and recheck the links. It would have been a monumental task taking hundreds of hours (literally months of labour) In other words, it was never going to happen - a full link removal of the type Google insist on before they let you even use the disavow tool is not an option for someone who has been negative SEO with 50,000 links - and lets face it you can neg SEO 100,000 links a day to some poor sucker with just scrapebox and a free list available on this forum, more or less free.

    The recovery effort is a factor of many thousands of times greater than the effort required to cause the damage in the first place....but then it turns out Google don't give a damn about those anyway 9 times out of 10. They are just a wasted effort whether created by the webmaster or by someone attempting negative SEO. WHat they target are link swaps and private network paid links.

    The reconsideration request was a ball ache, they kept saying "no there's more" - or words to that effect, in the end I gave up with the RR and just did effective on and offsite SEO on it, and it came back. My link checking tools and Google WMT said they only had 80 odd links to the entire site, and they all looked bloody good. Mentions in authority blogs (not comments, body mentions and not "guest blog" either - genuine "owner placed" links), some directory stuff (Moz included) a few genuine forum referrals (aged users, guys with 5000 plus posts linking that sort of thing) and Google were still piss assing about "there's more bad links"

    In the end I came to the conclusion that they don't have a fucking clue OR were sending out a standard bullshit email reply. So I just forgot all about it, added content and started creating more decent links. The site was recoving for many of the keyphrases it ranked for in weeks, after about 3 months it was clearly on the road to recovery and Google referral traffic was over 50% returned.

    My take-away from this is that the reconsideration link disavow process is a 100% placebo. A chance for the "sinner to repent" and Google to make a note on your permanent record as a self confessed spammer, then keep a special eye on you and everything you do in future to see if you are a recidivist.

    Fuck them I say. From all the talk I've read and case studies I've seen, the reconsideration process has not had any greater success than just ignoring them and respeccing your SEO onsite and off AS LONG AS YOU GET RID OF PRIVATE NETWORK/PAID LINKS.

    Last thing - Note. Some services give you private/paid links that you may not have been aware of. In my work I've uncovered several people who bought link packages that had terms like

    "We then add some links from out own network" or
    "Our special SEO Page Rank 'hot sauce' "

    In some cases these terms meant private network links. People then got the un-natural linking notice and thought it was a neg SEO attack or some tiny details they did wrong on content or "too many WIKI links" or some such crap. In every single case I've seen, private/paid links were somewhere involved.

    Not saying some people have not had the notice who didn't have PN links, just saying I've never seen a genuine case.
    Often the client will swear blind they had no private links - indeed they genuinely had no idea they had any - but after digging, they always did.

    Scritty
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  3. reallife

    reallife Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    531
    Thanks for the detailed response, which I agree with 100%. Another very respected member of this forum gave more or less the same advice.
    Just one question, I'm guessing that even though the site you mentioned recovered nicely, it never had the unnatural links message removed and never hit the top three?
     
  4. Gyuman82

    Gyuman82 Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    1,120
    Occupation:
    SEO Specialist
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Home Page:
    I also agree Disavow Tool and Reconsideration Requests are just placebos.

    It's Google's way of appeasing angry webmasters since they obviously have not figured out a way to deal with negative SEO.

    They give the illusion of trying to help, but really it's them covering their asses regarding a glaring weakness in their algorithm.
     
  5. Scritty

    Scritty Elite Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    4,496
    Occupation:
    Affiliate Marketer
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    For some terms yes. These were sites that were looking to hit hundreds of medium and long tails. Even those sites that were hit hardest have recovered "a bit". even after doing nothing other than removing the paid network links.

    It's knowing you've got them and remembering where they might have come from that's the hard bit, often after getting over the clients insistence that they have never bought a private link in their life.

    Private links are often brilliant, but it should always be absolutely clear on any service that you are getting them.
    I'd make it a rule on here and every forum selling services. If you give any links at all from a closed network...and you charge clients for them, then you HAVE to tell the clients they are buying private network links, and then they can balance the risk/reward themselves, and the rewards are often great to be sure.

    But you go in with your eyes open knowing that Google ab-so-fucking-lutely HATE these more than anything else and in the end get just about every network one way or another. If you've made great bank and ROI while it lasted..then that's brilliant and simple - that's just where these links should be used for.

    If it's a major site, something you work on night and day - maybe your only cource of online income?... And you didn't even know you bought private links becasue it was hidden in some sales blurb "Our Special PR booster links" or some such term that isn't explicitly telling the buyer they are getting into private paid networks? Then and one day Google stomps all over your site and it's going to take 6 months to recover? You have every right IMO to be really really pissed off.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. UNCLEBUCK

    UNCLEBUCK BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    254
    Great advise scritty... One question I have is, HOW would you find these paid links/private links amongst thousands of links? How does Google know if it's a paid link or not?
     
  7. Scritty

    Scritty Elite Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    4,496
    Occupation:
    Affiliate Marketer
    Location:
    UK
    Home Page:
    It finds paid links by infiltrating the provider. It's paid PRIVATE links it hates. It doesn't know if you just paid someone to put your content on a public site. It can't really know that. But high PR link farms it seems to target and infiltrate. BMR, Linxboss and others were all taken down by infiltration in 2011 (It's assumed Google just pony up a few hundred bucks to become a member and then look where their links are coming from - it's not hard - they do own and run the index after all..(natch)

    They don't even need to hit 100% of the sites in any link farm - hitting just "most" of them and taking down the lsites linked to will get most sites (as link farms give most members links across a lot of different sites over time). Say you have 20 links wioth a service on 20 different sites. They only need to hit one or two of those sites and find your links alongside theirs and that's probably it. No need to find the other 18.

    Remember - it's their index, their rules. They don't need to "search Google" looking for links ...they ARE Google - it's their index, if it's there - they will find it and it will cost them nothing.
    None of this "proxies" and "captchas" crap. They aren't going to ban themselves...

    What amazes me is how long they take to get some networks. I've had SAPE on some microniche sites for about a year and they went straight to number one for the product, stayed there and one went PR N/A to PR 5 in one update purely on SAPE. If gaining PR5 in one go for a site with 5 pages of crappy "4£ for 500 words" sales pitch and blurb - 100% commercial content, no value for the visitor what-so-ever.
    I mean other than 300 words on the root getting the visitor to buy, the rest is utter garbage....
    Well, if that doesn't ring any bells with Google then I don't know what does.

    Seems though that they just wait, infiltrate, and take down the host and benefit sites overnight and then you come here to BHW and see the chaos as everyone is QQing about it..as if the dangers of paid private networks isn't talked about every frikking day on this forum.

    They are brilliant if you go in with your eyes open. For ranking microniche sites that will sell a product with a short lifespan (shelf life) raking in the cash for a few months, and then go obsolete.. SAPE rules the roost.

    For ranking your personal private blog, the website you invest hundreds of hours a year of sweat and toil. SAPE is a shit idea. It will go one day - and your pride and joy website will go with it for at least 3 months - in many cases 1 year plus.
    Recently they have also understood how SAPE is used to power second tier sites and it's shown that they trace the path to the money site and slap it.

    Following links to see a pattern in link building is nothing new. It's why inter-connected link rings got hammered 5 years ago. We knew then that Google knew how to "join the dots" and work out who the real benefit was going to. Seems we now assume they forgot, or can't apply the same logic vertically as well as horizontally. More fool us.

    Scritty
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2