Google Manual Penalty

[chiragparekh]

I have been digging this topic since morning and I have my own views on Google's manual penalty.

I have straight question. Does Google manually review highly traffic and competitive keywords' Google listing? (without any report)

I don't think it should be. But this blogger (Wisdek | Your Guide to Understanding Google Manual Penalty) is saying that Google manually review top 3 sites for keyword like 'web design'.

What I believe is when Google detect unnatural links pointing to any website or they received spam report to that website, only then they manual review and apply penalty to the culprit website.

I am keen to hear your real experiences and thoughts. Any inputs will be appreciated.

thanks

[SEO Haven]

It mostly happen to pages ranked in the Top 10 search results on Google, maybe going as far as page 2 for very popular search terms. The "manual review" manual which is given to Google agents is actually available online if you look hard enough. It's a huge checklist, somewhat tricky to figure out, but definitely worth having a look at.

[Ents]

Even if that, do you think they have the man power for this? They do not even post their email to be easy to get too. From Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: More guidance on building high-quality sites Google is not the easiest to talk to. So my reasoning in thinking if they are not easy to talk to then why would they spend the man power to look at anyones site personally. They have an AI algorithm for that now...

[Dr.Marie]

From the article: "For instance, if you one of the top 3 spots for “web design”, there is a pretty good chance you will be reviewed. A site that is at the top for “my favourite web design company” will probably never grab Google’s attention. "

Says who? It sounds like that's just the author's opinion. There's no reference to back opinion up.

I've always believed that Google does manual reviews when someone reports a site. I see lots and lots of instances where sites are ranking high in a competitive niche using spam tactics and getting away with it.

I don't have time to find the reference but there was a recent Matt Cutts video where he says something to the effect of "If you have gotten a manual review there is a good chance that someone has reported your site."

[tstolber]

OK, so Google does algorithmic (i.e. automatic) analysis very well which is why it is the best search engine but ...... time and time again it is shown that there is little substitute for human intuition and interpretation. I would be amazed if Google doesn't have a regular manual review and conduct varied user testing to see if their results are valid and relevant.
Also, bearing in mind that Google conducts 2000+ algorithm changes per year it can be considered in a state of flux, which means that it needs to be in a constant state of analysis and user testing.

[ferminbee]

I don't have time to find the reference but there was a recent Matt Cutts video where he says something to the effect of "If you have gotten a manual review there is a good chance that someone has reported your site."

I always have thought of this issue this way. They won't probably even have that much time to review all the reported sites. How much more if they do a manual review of all the top 3 sites for every possible keyword.

[chiragparekh]

@Marie I watched that video... and I am on the same wavelength that Google can't review result manually. Actually this claim is hard to believe without any concrete reference.

Thank you all for your valuable replies...