Google Penalty Recovery Services & SEO Consultancy

I start with the Manual Actions and Security Issues reports in Search Console, then compare the loss with indexing, site changes and performance data. A manual action has a specific notice. A ranking decline without that notice needs investigation; it may involve an algorithmic reassessment, a technical problem, demand changes or several causes together.

Yes. Across my 18+ years in SEO, I have helped multiple websites recover from manual actions and regain visibility after algorithm-related declines. I use that experience to investigate your situation, not assume the same correction fits every site. We discuss the relevant work, the evidence available and the responsibilities before starting.

The work can include diagnosis, affected-page analysis, content and link review, technical checks, a prioritised correction plan, implementation oversight and recovery monitoring. For a confirmed manual action, I can help prepare the reconsideration submission after the issues have been addressed. The proposal identifies the site sections, review depth and delivery responsibilities covered.

No. A manual action is a review-based action reported in Search Console. An algorithmic decline does not carry that same notice or a manual-action reconsideration route. I compare the affected pages and searches with update timing, technical changes and competing results before recommending improvements. A core update can change relative rankings without the site having broken a spam policy.

Yes. I help identify the full scope of the notice, document corrections and prepare a clear account of what changed. The submission should explain the problem, the completed work and the evidence. We use the appropriate Search Console review process when the site is ready, rather than send repeated requests before the underlying issue is fixed.

Yes, for the search-recovery work and coordination with your security team. I review injected URLs, redirects, indexed spam, affected templates and Search Console notices. Your qualified developer, host or incident-response specialist must remove the compromise and close the entry point. Once cleanup is verified, I support the applicable search checks and security or manual-action review process.

No. A third-party score is not a Google penalty finding. I review the actual links, their history and any manual-action evidence before proposing removal or disavow work. Google says most sites do not need the disavow tool. Where it is justified, we document the rationale and protect legitimate links rather than submit a blanket list.

I can audit the affected content and its publishing process. The important questions are accuracy, originality, purpose and value to the reader, not whether an AI tool touched the draft. I recommend what to improve, consolidate or remove from search, with subject specialists validating claims. Rephrasing the same weak material is not a complete correction.

No. Material removals, redirects, disavow submissions and changes to valuable pages need an agreed plan and approval. I identify dependencies, preserve an appropriate record and coordinate testing. The first audit is a diagnosis, not permission to make irreversible changes across the site.

Yes, within the agreed audit. I review the relevant notice or evidence for issues such as doorway abuse, hidden text, deceptive redirects, scraped content, user-generated spam or misuse of third-party content. I apply the current policy to the actual implementation rather than label every similar-looking page a violation.

I first establish the cause, correction scope and practical milestones. Implementation, recrawling and any Google review each affect timing. Removing a manual action and regaining previous rankings are separate milestones; past positions are not automatically restored. I report the changes completed and the search response so you can assess progress against a realistic plan.

Yes. I segment the investigation by country, language, directory, device and page type where the data supports it. A decline in one market can be hidden by a stable site-wide total. I can connect the work with international SEO and multilingual SEO, with local editorial review where needed.

I address accessibility, useful content and reliable evidence that can support both conventional search and AI-assisted discovery. I assess those outcomes separately: a ranking improvement does not prove that an AI system recommends the business. An AI visibility audit can identify additional gaps once the underlying recovery priorities are clear.

Usually I begin with the website, approximate date of the loss, Search Console information and a history of important site or SEO changes. Appropriate read-only analytics access can help establish the baseline. Do not send passwords or customer records through the enquiry form. We agree least-privilege access and confidential handling before sharing sensitive material.

Yes. I can provide an independent diagnosis, review a proposed correction plan or guide delivery with your team. Each task has an owner, approval point and validation step. For a consultancy-only engagement, I supply the priorities and review work without implying that development, security cleanup or content production is included.

I quote against the affected site sections, complexity, evidence available and support required. The options separate diagnosis, a corrective project and ongoing consultancy. Reporting tracks completed changes, review status where applicable, visibility and qualified visits or enquiries. Major development, incident response, legal advice and extensive content production are separately agreed.