|FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/13/12 11:53 PM|
I've read the FAQs and searched the help center.
My URL is: www.bournemouthhypnotherapy.co.uk
This was originally posted on 6th December and did not receive the courtesy of a reply, having followed all the instructions to the letter without success, I had hoped google might have the decency to reply?
Original Post follows:-
Back in March I received an unnatural links penalty notice via webmaster tools.
After investigation I found that a number of SEO companies I had used in the past (in good faith) had indeed set up spammy links to my site.
I contacted all the various webmasters and asked for the links to be removed, I was successful in about 40% of cases but the nature of some of theses links (eg forum/blog comments) made it impossible to remove all of them.
I then made a complete list of the remaining links and submitted with the new disavow tool.
ALL spammy links (and even a few that were genuine but I was worried might be seen as spammy) have been either removed or disavowed
YET to my dismay I have today received a reply to my reconsideration request stating that my penalty is to remain as google still see problematic links. This is impossible!!
Either google are in error about one or more of my genuine links or could it be that the disavowed links haven't been processed yet, if thats the case, how will we know when the disavow requests are actioned, will the number of links shown in webmaster tools reduce accordingly or will there be some other method of seeing whether the disavowal is in operation?
Very confused and frustrated.
Thank you in advance for your kind help and time, any assistance will be genuinely and very much appreciated
Dr Trev Roberts
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||seo101||12/14/12 12:17 AM|
So you paid a SEO company to spam to manipulate the search results in Google for your site and you complaining that Google won't give you the courtesy of a reply to your post. Spammers don't deserve anything!
It only took me a few seconds to find the spam that still exists
see the link to your site with the same blog comment spam that is on >40 other sites:
You were also involved in some sort of link scheme (might have been LinkPartners) and I still see a lot of those links to your site.
Google did not get it wrong. They got this one right.
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/14/12 12:45 AM|
With all due respect, I paid a couple of SEO companies to market my site, I did NOT know they were going to use spam tactics! If I'd had time and knowledge to do the work myself I would have but I didnt and had no choice but to find a company who could (so they claimed).
Frankly Google should be going after the actual villains in this ie the SEO companies concerned rather than using the victims as cannon fodder!
Furthermore the link to which you refer is indeed disavowed on the document I submitted, in fact the whole domain is!!!
If you are referring to the links from other hypnotherapists within the IAPH organsiation, this is a professional body to which I belong, are you really suggesting that links from people within this organisation is wrong?
Finally you have not answered whether there will be any indication within webmaster tools of if and when the disavow submission is processed?
Regardless I thank you for your time in actually replying.
Dr T. Roberts
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||luzie||12/14/12 2:54 AM|
>>> Finally you have not answered whether there will be
No, that's not needed. Your submission will definitely be processed in any case, from the very moment on Google received your disavow list. As to when this process is completed there's no way to tell, because that depends on the crawling schedule for each site involved. Links will only be flagged disavowed the moment Google recrawls the pages these links are on - could well take several months.
And no, you'll not see any difference between disavowed links and other links in the webmastertools link list, that's handled the same way as with nofollow and dofollow links.
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/14/12 7:09 AM|
Thank you Luzie, I appreciate your time and courtesy,
Lets just hope for a similar response to the other points from the powers that be, rather than the unprofessional (not to mention incorrect) "spammers dont deserve anything!" we have had so far.
Dr Trev Roberts
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||JohnMu||12/14/12 8:44 AM|
After reviewing the situation with your site, it appears that the unnatural links to your site were not really disavowed.. Looking into the details, the file you uploaded to the disavow tool appears to be a "DOCX" file, and not a normal text or CSV file. Because of that, we don't have much that we can process there. To our systems, these lines look mostly like gibberish, so while we try to use them for the tool, they don't map to the URLs that you probably wanted to submit.
I'd recommend submitting it again, in the proper format, so that it can be processed and used for the reconsideration request. As I don't know for sure that your file would contain all of the relevant unnatural links, a proper submission would definitely help. A good way to double-check that we're able to pick up the content is to use the "download" link after submitting, and to view it in Google Docs instead of downloading it as a CSV file.
Hope it helps!
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/14/12 9:57 AM|
Thank you so, so much!! Finally something that makes sense!!
You are a breathe of fresh air and thank you for restoring my faith, I will get onto that over the weekend
Thank you again!
May I ask one last quick question? Should I wait for a while between uploading a corrected disavow file and submitting a reconsideration request and if so approximately how long?
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||seo101||12/14/12 10:08 AM|
"With all due respect, I paid a couple of SEO companies to market my site, I did NOT know they were going to use spam tactics!"Nope. You paid them to spam. You are responsible and you are now suffering the consequences. You can try and rationalize this any way you like, but YOU are responsible for this.
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/14/12 10:21 AM|
You sir, are rude and unprofessional! I did NOT pay them to spam! I may have been naive but I am not a masochist, do you really think I would have paid if I had known they would produce crap blog comments pointing to my site such as the one you highlighted, wouldnt exactly fill a prospective patient with confidence would it!!
For your information, I tried to take legal action against the companies involved, suggest you get your facts right before you start mind reading and making assumptions. You are a disgrace to google as a company!!
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||seo101||12/14/12 11:33 AM|
Oh I got my facts right.
That is exactly what you did!
So you paid them to do something that you had no idea what they were doing for you? Is that how you always do business?
Which would have failed as they did exactly what you paid them to do!
Me? You are the one that is unprofessional and paying people to pollute the web with crap. I did not do that!
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||themuttsknutts||12/14/12 12:18 PM|
Go easy seo101. I'm sure it won't happen again.
We all make mistakes and it is costing him time and money as well as being frustrating to sort out.
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/14/12 1:06 PM|
Thank you themuttsknutts, I appreciate your support and compassion.
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/14/12 1:45 PM|
No, I took them at there word to (and I quote) "using only white hat techniques to build links via RELEVANT comments on psychology related forums and submission of RELEVANT bespoke articles which we will produce specifically for you"
I have already mentioned that I do not have the required expertise in these matters, so you are correct, in a sense I had no idea what they were doing until it was too late
The legal action is still in process.
I am sure you will respond with yet another unhelpful, pointless and acidic reply, I note a similar pattern in numerous other threads to which you have "contributed" and it is typical of your character type to need the last word. I however will not waste further time on you.
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||seo101||12/14/12 1:54 PM|
"No, I took them at there word to (and I quote) "using only white hat techniques to build links via RELEVANT comments on psychology related forums and submission of RELEVANT bespoke articles which we will produce specifically for you" "So you paid them to spam!! That is NOT white hat! There is no way that this contributes to the discussion on the RELEVANT blogs and forums; it was pure spam! What do you think those who own the blogs and forums actually think of what you paid these people to do? Do you actually have any idea how much time forum owners have to devote to deleteing and dealing with this crap. Time for an attitude adjustment. Did you even bother apologizing to those sites that you paid to get spammed?
Google give very explicit warnings not to do this. You did it! You got what you deserve!
Nope; you have now admitted to paying people to pollute forums and blogs, so you should be treated with contempt.
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||JohnMu||12/15/12 12:19 PM|
To be honest, as someone who has to regularly weed out spam from people adding "relevant" comments to blog posts and forum threads, I understand why seo101 is getting as upset as he is. Removing "relevant" content like that is a big hassle, it takes a lot of time (even when you have systems to catch 99% automatically), and that kind of content significantly degrades the quality of whole websites -- and the web overall. In short, hiring someone without any credentials to create "relevant" content and to spread it without permission on other people's websites, is just spamming... and to me personally, when that's done on medical topics, that seems particularly bad.
At any rate, I hope it's clear that this is something that is not only in violation of our Webmaster Guidelines, but also something that vandalizes other people's websites in ways that they often have to spend significant efforts at cleaning up. Anyway, I hope that's understandable now, and I'll refrain from lecturing more :). I would strongly recommend working to have that kind of content removed from other people's websites, and in cases where that's not possible, submitting them with the disavow links tool.
Regarding the timeframes, I'd submit the reconsideration request after you submit the disavow links file (and mention it in your reconsideration request). The exact timing isn't that critical, it's more important what the team finds there - and that it can clearly see a significant good-faith effort being undertaken to resolve the issues involved.
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/16/12 3:24 AM|
Thank you again for your time.
I take your point and apologise unreservedly, it is not that easy to check the credentials of such companies, there testimonials looked genuine and they ranked very highly in your search results and I took there use of the word relevant to mean exactly that, I have no argument with the fact I was naive and that people have been inconvenienced because of that. My issue is with being accused of deliberate intent, which is simply not the case.
I totally agree that the sort of comments which were placed degrade the web and look very bad for my company, again a good reason why I would never have deliberately sanctioned this, most of the sites concerned seem to be automated and or abandoned by the webmasters, on reflection I wonder if many of them were set up solely for these type of companies to place there nonsensical entries on.
Regardless I am genuinely sorry and have stated this since the first reconsideration request was submitted. I have worked very hard to try to resolve the situation and have contacted every single webmaster to request removal, these requests included an apology and an offer of a fee to cover any administration costs, they were also followed up with further contact if no response was received the first time. The remainder have been compiled into a disavowal file which I am correcting to a plain text format as we speak.
Furthermore I will never be engaging the services of any seo companies again, I simply cannot see a way to know who can be trusted and who cannot. It would be enormously helpful if Google had some sort of list of genuine experts, but I guess there must be a reason why they do not.
I will follow your suggestions in relation to submission to the letter and thank you again wholeheartedly for your time
Dr Trev Roberts
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/16/12 5:04 AM|
PS corrected disavowal file has now been uploaded, hope its all ok now?
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||JohnMu||12/17/12 2:06 AM|
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/17/12 2:30 AM|
Hi again John,
Really appreciate this more than you can know.
I will be with patients until 11.30pm tonight and tomorrow but will rectify that first priority on Wednesday.
Once again, my profound thanks
PS Just for info, I have had some good news this morning, one of the companies I have instigated legal proceedings against have been forced to provide me with the usernames and passwords they used to distribute this rubbish, I will therefore be able to remove a number of additional erroneous links over the next week or so. 1 down, 2 to go but does show that legal action can be successful
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/20/12 4:18 AM|
I managed to complete the amendments to the disavowal file that you suggested on Monday and yesterday received a reply(which was incredibly quick) to the reconsideration request....
Again it has been declined...
I am now totally at a loss, the only links that remain are genuine and have been checked and double checked, everything else has been removed or listed in the disavowal file.
Without some further idea of what is wrong I am at a loss as to what to do.
I really have tried to the absolute best of my ability, is there anything else you can suggest?
As always I appreciate your time and thank you in advance
|Re: FAO John Mueller, DO GOOGLE NOT CARE WHEN THEY GET IT WRONG? - 2nd Request!!||wpc5416||12/26/12 1:40 AM|
Hope you are having a great Christmas and enjoying a well deserved few days off.
Have been studying my problem last few days http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/webmasters/webmaster-tools/iiElea9mbkg
and wondered if the latest rejection might be down to the appearance of additional links (almost daily) due to parameters. eg just4links.info seem to add several links daily and 1196.81 shows as an added link on 4th December but the article was placed and the link went live on 25th September 2011 this is clearly shown if you follow the link. I know Matt Cutts said the most important thing in a reconsideration request was that all link building had stopped, could this parameter issue be making it look like I havent when I have?