Manual penalty

Definition

A Manual Penalty, more formally referred to by Google as a Manual Action, is a negative adjustment applied to a website’s search ranking or indexing status directly by a human reviewer at a search engine, primarily Google. Unlike algorithmic devaluations (which result automatically from search algorithms identifying patterns of low quality or spam), a manual action occurs when a human reviewer determines that a website, or a section of it, violates specific guidelines outlined in Google’s Search Essentials (formerly Webmaster Guidelines).

These actions are typically communicated to the website owner via a notification in the “Manual actions” report within Google Search Console (GSC). The impact can vary significantly, ranging from demotions in search results for specific pages or keywords, disqualification from appearing in certain SERP features (like Top Stories or rich snippets), to a site-wide ranking demotion, or even complete removal of the site from the Google index in severe cases.

Is It Still Relevant?

Yes, manual actions remain highly relevant in 2025. While Google’s algorithms have become incredibly sophisticated at detecting spam and low-quality content automatically, human reviewers still play a crucial role:

• Catching What Algorithms Miss: Human reviewers can identify nuanced guideline violations, complex manipulation schemes (like sophisticated link networks), or emerging spam techniques that algorithms may not yet be programmed to detect effectively.
• Investigating Spam Reports: Google relies on user-submitted spam reports, which are often investigated by human reviewers, potentially leading to manual actions.
• Enforcing Egregious Violations: Manual actions are often applied in cases of clear and deliberate attempts to manipulate search results or deceive users, such as aggressive cloaking, sneaky redirects, or large-scale unnatural link schemes.
• Direct Consequence & Deterrent: The possibility of receiving a direct penalty from a human reviewer serves as a strong deterrent against violating Google’s guidelines. The need for a direct fix and a reconsideration request makes recovery a deliberate process.
• Targeted Impact: Manual actions can be targeted very specifically (e.g., affecting only links, or only user-generated content sections), providing clear feedback on the exact issue needing resolution.

While broad algorithmic updates affect more sites overall, a manual action represents a direct judgment from Google that specific practices on a site are unacceptable and require correction.

Real-world Context

Manual actions are triggered by specific violations of Google’s guidelines. Here are common scenarios:

• Unnatural Links to Your Site: A website actively buys links, participates in extensive link exchanges, or uses private blog networks (PBNs) to artificially inflate its authority. A Google reviewer identifies this pattern. The site receives a manual action in GSC, often leading to a significant drop in rankings. To recover, the site owner must identify, remove (or disavow via the Disavow tool), and document the removal of these manipulative links before submitting a reconsideration request.
• Thin Content with Little or No Added Value: A site publishes large amounts of low-quality, automatically generated, scraped, or shallow content (e.g., doorway pages, thin affiliate pages) that doesn’t provide unique value to users. A reviewer applies a manual action. Recovery involves removing the thin content or substantially improving it to offer real value, then requesting reconsideration.
• User-Generated Spam: A forum, blog comment section, or user profile section becomes overrun with spammy posts or comments containing irrelevant links, often created by bots or users trying to manipulate rankings. If unmanaged, the site might get a manual action. Fixing requires implementing robust spam prevention measures (moderation, CAPTCHAs, `rel=”ugc”`), cleaning up all existing spam, and submitting a reconsideration request.
• Cloaking and/or Sneaky Redirects: A website shows different content to Googlebot than it shows to human users (cloaking) or redirects users from the page they expected to see to a completely different and often irrelevant page (sneaky redirect). These are considered severe violations and often result in harsh manual actions, potentially de-indexing. Recovery requires complete removal of the deceptive techniques.
• Pure Spam: The site exhibits multiple aggressive spam techniques, auto-generated gibberish, cloaking, scraping, and generally appears to have been created solely for manipulation with no user value. This typically results in the most severe manual actions.

In all cases, the process starts with identifying the notification in the GSC “Manual actions” report, understanding the specific violation, fixing it thoroughly across the site, and then submitting a detailed reconsideration request to Google explaining the fixes.

Background

Manual intervention by search engine employees to combat spam has likely occurred since the early days of search engines, but the process became more structured and transparent over time.

• Early Spam Fighting: Search engines initially relied more heavily on algorithms, but manual reviews were necessary for blatant manipulation that bypassed automated systems.
• Google Webmaster Tools (GSC): The introduction and evolution of Google Webmaster Tools (now Search Console) provided a crucial communication channel. Google began explicitly notifying webmasters about certain manual penalties via this platform.
• Formalization of Reconsideration Requests: A formal process for “reconsideration requests” was established, giving penalized webmasters a way to appeal the penalty after they believed they had fixed the violating issues.
• Focus on Link Spam: Manual actions became particularly well-known in the context of Google’s fight against manipulative link building, especially around the time of the Penguin updates. Human reviewers were essential for investigating complex link networks and schemes.
• Expansion of Scope: Over time, the types of manual actions communicated via GSC expanded beyond links to include thin content, cloaking, hidden text, keyword stuffing, user-generated spam, and other violations of the published Webmaster Guidelines (now Google Search Essentials).
• Transparency Efforts: Google has generally aimed for more transparency regarding manual actions, clearly stating the type of violation found in the GSC notification to help webmasters diagnose and fix the problem.

The system evolved to provide clearer feedback and a path (albeit sometimes difficult) for recovery for webmasters willing to comply with guidelines.

What to Focus on Today

To avoid manual penalties and address them if received in 2025, adhere to these best practices:

• • Know and Follow Google Search Essentials: Treat Google’s official guidelines as mandatory reading. Understand the principles of creating helpful, reliable, people-first content and avoiding deceptive or manipulative tactics.
  • Prioritize Long-Term Value: Focus your SEO efforts on sustainable strategies that provide genuine value to users, such as creating high-quality content, improving site usability, and building relationships naturally. Avoid shortcuts that violate guidelines.
  • Practice Ethical Link Building: Earn links through merit. Do not buy links that pass PageRank, engage in link schemes, or use PBNs. Use `rel=”sponsored”` or `rel=”nofollow”` appropriately for advertisements or compensated links.
  • Conduct Regular Site Audits: Periodically review your site for potential guideline violations – check content quality, backlink profile health (using tools like Ahrefs, Semrush, Moz), and user-generated content areas.
  • Implement Robust UGC Spam Prevention: If your site accepts user content, use tools and processes (e.g., Akismet, CAPTCHAs, moderation, `rel=”ugc”` attributes on links) to prevent spam from overwhelming your site.

• • Monitor Google Search Console:** Regularly check the “Manual actions” report in GSC (under Security & Manual Actions). This is where official notifications appear. Also monitor security issues.

If You Receive a Manual Action:

• 1. Don’t Panic, Understand:** Read the GSC message carefully to know the exact violation type and scope (site-wide vs. partial).
  2. Investigate Thoroughly:** Identify *all* instances of the problem across your site based on the violation type.
  3. Fix Comprehensively:** Take decisive action to rectify the issue (remove bad links/content, implement spam filters, stop deceptive practices). Document everything.
  4. Submit a Detailed Reconsideration Request:** Through GSC, explain clearly what the issue was, exactly what steps you took to fix it (provide examples/documentation), and how you’ll prevent it in the future. Be honest and concise.
  5. Be Patient and Persistent:** Review can take days or weeks. If rejected, carefully read any feedback provided (if any), make further improvements, and resubmit.

The best approach is prevention by consistently adhering to Google’s guidelines and focusing on creating a valuable experience for your users.

Back to Glossary