<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Google Reconsideration Request Replies; understanding the evolution</title>
		<description>Discuss Google Reconsideration Request Replies; understanding the evolution</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 May 2013 09:02:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/318/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Jerry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1734</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The first message i get from google was a unatural link message, then i have clean up the site i submited a 2nd and then 3rd reconsideration  request but still i get a rejected message but without mention anything about links, does it means that i have to focus on things going on the pages of the site? here is the message: "We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines. In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from http://www.xxxx.xx may not appear or may not rank as highly in Google's search results, or may otherwise be considered to be less trustworthy than sites which follow the quality guidelines. If you wish to be reconsidered again, please correct or remove all pages that are outside our quality guidelines. When such changes have been made, please visit https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/reconsideration ?hl=en and resubmit your site for reconsideration . "]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jerry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:56:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1734</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1570</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Please share the negative aspects that can happen after reconsideration ? will my other sites submitted in the webmaster can be affected?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 11:49:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1570</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Kathy says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1557</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree with Sean H. Well said, exactly what I was thinking.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Kathy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1557</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Thor says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1551</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is a very helpful article. thanks for sharing. These are the things that we ought to know as I am not an SEO expert. :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 20:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1551</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>sean Hennessy says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1550</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To answer your question " If Google can and has removed the value from the suspect links, why not just do that and call it a day?" Because they are making millions by penalizing great sites who don't pay them for ads. Now these sites which used to conduct business through natural search results are forced to pay or go bust. There is absolutely no other logical reason for it. Although there very may well be a good deal of unfriendly sites which were ranking well previously and shouldn't have been, there were an equal amount of high quality sites which should logically appear in the results regardless of what Google thinks of the links pointing to them. Instead of showing these sites they would rather show junk or just less worthy sites so that they can earn more revenue. The proof is in the earnings since these penalties started being issued. Do you really think wall street would allow them to act ethically when they have made so much money by doing the opposite?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>sean Hennessy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:51:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1550</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jerry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1397</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ In the video he says "on the manual side", and then says that they do expire based on the severity. So it sounds like manual penalties do expire, right?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jerry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:21:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1397</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Oleg Korneitchouk says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1396</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES01L4xjSXE Manual penalties do not expire. You need to make the fixes to your site, submit a reconsideration request and have a google employee re-evaluate your site and lift the penalty. If you did not get a letter from google, the penalty is algorithmic. After you make changes to your site, the crawler will pick up on this and adjust your rankings accordingly. In the video he says that the algorithmic slaps do expire based on severity of the manipulation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Oleg Korneitchouk</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1396</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jerry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1395</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Do all manual Google penalties expire at some point? Or does Google decide to keep some penalties on sites indefinitely (if the site doesn't fix the problem)? I thought I saw a video of Matt Cutts saying that all manual penalties are given expiration dates, but that they vary in length. Any thoughts on this?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jerry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:42:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1395</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dan says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1393</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hey I had a quick question after reading through these examples. You mention as a possible on site penalty affiliate links that go through a redirect script. What exactly do you mean by that? I have affiliate links on one of my sites. I put each affiliate link into bitly so that the links aren't so long. I then nofollow those bitly links which redirect to affiliate links which redirect to the advertiser. Is this not advisable? Could it bring on some kind of penalty? Did you mean something else by affiliate link redirect script?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1393</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1391</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I am not entirely convinced UpDowner is an issue really. We saw a lot of directories mentioned, many a low quality blog, types of links (like the WP theme approach) and so on. Scraper/aggregator sites such as UD didn't come up. Not to say it 'may' not be an issue, we simply didn't see that as of yet.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20120620318/General-SEO/google-reconsideration-request-replies-understanding-the-evolution.html#comment-1391</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
