Matt Cutts has posted a detailed synopsis of the reinclusion process for sites that have been removed from Google’s index under suspicion of spammy link content. He documents the misfortune of talkorigins.org and its owner, who was none to happy about being removed from Google user queries.
This is the dilemma that faced Wesley R. Elsberry, owner of talkorigins.org when he was informed by Google that his site was being removed from the index for abusive, spammy linkage.
In his blog, Elsberry laments his inability to pin down exactly what damage the hacker did that lead to the site being removed from Google:
So, what, precisely, was causing Google to not like us anymore? The essential lesson here is that Google would not tell us. That isn’t mere caprice; that is Google policy. I tried to find a more extensive explanation since the first thing was labeled “Summary”. No such luck. That is not available via Googe Webmaster Tools. There was a listed phone number for Google, so I tried calling them. After proceeding as directed through their phone menu, I got a recorded message that all issues to do with indexing were handled through the web site and that Google did not offer any customer service via the phone. There was, of course, nothing further available from the web site, with the exception of the form for requesting reinclusion of a site. That doesn’t tell you anything about your problem in particular.
Matt Cutts, however, offers a detailed timeline of the events that led to Google’s action, and the search engine’s attempt to contact Elsberry, informing him about the nature of the problem and what steps would need to be taken in order to resolve the issue.
Matt even goes on to pat Google on the back for how it handled the situation:
This site was hacked and stuffed with a bunch of hidden spammy porn words and links. Google detected the spam in less than 10 days; that’s faster than the site owner noticed it. We temporarily removed the site from our index so that users wouldn’t get the spammy porn back in response to queries. We made it possible for the webmaster to verify that their site was penalized. Then we emailed the site, with the exact page and the exact text that was causing problems. We provided a link to the correct place for the site owner to request reinclusion. We also made the penalty for a relatively short time (60 days), so that if the webmaster fixed the issue but didn’t contact Google, they would still be fine after a few weeks.
Matt doesn’t mention, however, that the reinclusion process requires agreeing to the the following statements:
• I believe this site has violated Google’s quality guidelines in the past.
• This site no longer violates Google’s quality guidelines.
• I have read and agree to abide by Google’s quality guidelines.
Elsberry gives his take on the reinclusion process:
Their stipulations for submitting a reinclusion request require an admission of guilt on the part of a webmaster who, as I found myself, could be the victim of a third party. Google’s policy of obscuring their reasons for de-indexing makes it much harder for honest, but cracker-victimized webmasters to return their sites to a state that is acceptable to Google. In fact, Google’s policy is far more burdensome upon honest webmasters than it is upon cheaters – the cheaters know what they have done that is out of compliance, and the honest webmasters have no such knowledge of where the problem may lie.
He makes an excellent point here. Why should a webmaster have to assume a posture of guilt when no wrongdoing occurred on his or her part? Shouldn’t Google reinclusion criteria incorporate a bit more flexibility, taking into account that the site in question may have be unknowingly, or even ignorantly, modified in such a way to bring it into opposition with Google’s guidelines for index inclusion?
Cutts does clearly outline how Google addressed the situation once it occurred. The issue of communication, while still no doubt an area that could be improved, seems of lesser importance than the rigid process of reinclusion as a whole.
Perhaps an incident like this will compel Google to re-examine its reinclusion guidelines, conceding that some webmasters are actually innocent until proven guilty.
Add to 
Joe is a staff writer for Murdok. Visit Murdok for the latest ebusiness news.
