Partial Manual penalty to a URL

[HiteshBharucha]

Hi Mozers,

I have a website which has got a partial manual penalty on a specific url. That url is of no use to the website now and is going to be taken off in 3 months time as the website is going to be completely redesigned. Till then I dont wont to live with the partial manual penalty for this url. I have few things in mind to tackle this:

1. take out the url from the website now (as the new redesign will take 3 months)

2. take out internal links pointing to this url in question

3. file for reconsideration with google stating we have taken off the url and have not generated any backlinks and the backlinks are organic. (no backlinking activity has been done on this website or the url)

Please let me know if this works or i will have to get the backlinks removed then the disavow then the reconsideration.

Looking forward for ur response

[GPainter]

unfortunately taking the url out and taking internal links away will not get the penalty removed you need to work on getting external links removed for it as that's where the penalty has come from. You can disavow them (I also recommend dropping them an email) if you don't want the page. There are some great guide here on Moz if you take a quick search.

[RobertFisher]

Hitesh,

Just so I am clear, you got a partial manual penalty on a single url? While it seems odd to me, most who come to us have partial or full penalties that are affecting their entire sites. My concern with not taking an effort to clean it up, file a disavow.txt file covering any remaining links, and requesting consideration is that it might leave you open for further urls and even affect the new site. This would be assuming you are going to 301 the old url's to the new site. Even without the "bad" url, there is the potential for carryover IMO around the site having been assessed a penalty and never addressed it.

So, if you have the time, clean it up and then file for reconsideration.

Best

[David-Kley]

1. Make sure you have no internal links pointing to that page
2. Put a rule in place with a 410, meaning GONE before filing the reconsideration request.
3. Do not redirect the page with a 301 or any other method. Remember, you want the page to disappear, not redirect.

Also, what is the message you received stating that only that one URL was penalized? Very strange to hear that only one was affected. Run a link check to see what other sites or listings are pointing to that URL, and if possible, log in to the citation or platform and change the link to one you know is not affected.

[RobertFisher]

If you first remove the url, even with the 410, I do not believe you will get any action on the penalty in terms of a reconsideration. Remember, with a reconsideration Google wants to see penance. Removing the issue is not penance, it is easy in their eyes. 
Yes, these actions remove the issue, but I am not sure they will have an affect as far as reconsideration.

I am certainly open to being wrong. 
Best

[JaneCopland]

I would say that it depends on why the penalty happened in the first place, but if it's a manual penalty then removing the resource probably won't get rid of the penalty overnight. I'd do a combination of trying to remove the links, disavowing what I couldn't remove, removing the page with a 410 and filing for reconsideration explaining what I did and how I've tried to fix it. I'd also explain that the page was obsolete to begin with and was always destined for the scrap heap.

[MarieHaynes]

Is it possible you could post a screenshot of what you are seeing in your manual actions viewer?  Or, tell us what wording is in there?  Does the message tell you that it is just one particular page on your site that is being affected?  Is it an unnatural links warning?

"...have not generated any backlinks and the backlinks are organic. (no backlinking activity has been done on this website or the url)"

The vast majority of the time when a site owner gets a penalty and says that there are no unnatural links to their site, they actually HAVE created links that are unnatural.  A good example is a site that has done widespread guest posting for links.  Many site owners have a hard time understanding that those links are actually unnatural.  However, if you are certain that you have done no link building to this page (assuming it is a single page that has been targeted) and you have an unnatural links warning, then is it possible that someone else has been building links to it?  An example would be if you wrote a story about a particular company that put that company in a favorable light and then that company built links to your site in order to boost their story higher in the SERPS.

If you'd like to PM me the url and the details of your penalty I'd be happy to take a look.

[HiteshBharucha]

Hi Robert,

I agree and will do the clean up act, disavow and reconsideration. But now the question is do i have to clean the links pointing to the whole site or just the url? As i have received manual penalty just for the url which is a sub-domain on the site and not the whole site.

have a look at the screenshot for the warnings received in both inbox and manual actions tab!

It clearly states it is just for the sub-domain url

Let me know your views

2XsArWa.jpg l79mh9F.jpg

[HiteshBharucha]

Hi Marie,

Thanks for the response!

Yes the links are gained naturally. No efforts are taken for link building in our case. It was a useful file which users linked previously.

I have attached screenshots of the inbox message and the manual actions tab. Please have a loom and let me know, if the link removal needs to be done for the whole site or just the URL.

In my opinion i feel just the url as the penalty is only on the url and clearly google mentions that in both the messages

"As a result, Google has applied a manual spam action to ixx.xxxxxxxxxxg.info/node/view/54. There may be other actions on your site or parts of your site."

and

"Some links may be outside of the webmaster’s control, so for this incident we are taking targeted action on the unnatural links instead of on the site’s ranking as a whole."

Looking forward for your response

[HiteshBharucha]

the screenshots

2XsArWa.jpg l79mh9F.jpg

[MarieHaynes]

Interesting.  That type of penalty, to just one url is uncommon.  Can you tell that there are unnatural links there?  You can pm me the url if you'd like me to take a look.  Can you tell why they were created?

I would probably still clean up the links to this page which means making efforts to remove them and then disavowing what you can't get removed.  While Google says that they are no longer counting these links, we still don't know 100% whether they could affect you algorithmically such as in the eyes of the Penguin update.

[HiteshBharucha]

This post is deleted!

[David-Kley]

I think the best place to start would be to contact the site owner, and see if they would be willing to remove the link pointing your way. If not, then use the disavow tool in webmaster tools.

If you have a bad feeling about a link, there is probably a good reason for that feeling. Try using Blacklistalert.com to see if the domains your site is listed on are blacklisted with any dns providers. You can also try MXtoolbox.com to see if thier IP address has been compromised. If you see any of the sites in question fail the test, then I would immediately remove the link by either of the methods mentioned at the start of this post.

Best of luck, I really hope you get it figured out.

[RobertFisher]

Hitesh,

I have looked at this and read your other comments like those to Marie. Unfortunately, a feeling remains that I am not seeing everything. From your reply to Marie you show a bit more of the Google message: "Some links may be outside of the webmaster’s control, so for this incident we are taking targeted action on the unnatural links instead of on the site’s ranking as a whole."

Then you name some of the sources for the links and you also state that this page has some info regarding IP's in various countries and people are linking because of that, "which is totally natural." Also, "There are no unnatural links to this url but for the fact most of them are coming from forums and spammy sites."

I really get the feeling you are trying to define or redefine what "natural" is instead of realizing the problem you have and that it may shortly involve much or all of your site. You have been warned by Google and the easiest thing to do is to read what Jane Copeland wrote on the 30th and follow that direction:

I'd do a combination of trying to remove the links, disavowing what I couldn't remove, removing the page with a 410 and filing for reconsideration explaining what I did and how I've tried to fix it. I'd also explain that the page was obsolete to begin with and was always destined for the scrap heap.

Failing to take this action very soon could really negatively impact your site. Defining what is or is not natural will not help you.

Good luck,

Robert

[MarieHaynes]

I'm in agreement Robert.  Hitesh, it does feel like we're missing some part of the story.  I have reviewed hundreds if not thousands of sites that were dealt unnatural links penalties and I have yet to see one that was given unfairly.  I have seen the occasional example unnatural link given that truly was natural, but I've never seen a site get a penalty when all they had were natural links.

Again, if you'd like to share the url I'll take a look and give you my thoughts.  But other than that I think any answer that you'll get here is going to just be speculation.