How to prepare a Google reconsideration request after a manual action

A reconsideration request is not a persuasive essay. It is a concise record of what was wrong, what changed, and why the violation should no longer apply.

Reconsideration evidence packet

A reconsideration request should read like a concise case file. The page below keeps context, remediation, and recurrence controls visible together.

Intent boundary

Help searchers understand what belongs in a reconsideration request after remediation.

Reconsideration memo
What changed, why it changed, and how it stays fixed
01 Context
State the manual action plainly

Name the Search Console label, affected scope, and the root causes found during review.

02 Remediation
Document completed fixes

Summarize what was removed, rewritten, disavowed, consolidated, blocked, or governed.

03 Controls
Show what prevents recurrence

Explain workflow, moderation, publishing, or technical controls that changed.

Submit when remediation is complete enough to defend

Submitting too early is one of the easiest ways to lose time. The request should follow real remediation, not promise future cleanup. Google reviewers need to see that the cited issue was addressed.

The strongest requests are specific and modest. They do not overclaim, blame Google, or bury the reviewer in irrelevant background.

A useful request has three parts

First, acknowledge the policy issue and explain how it happened. Second, describe the completed cleanup with enough detail that the reviewer can understand the work. Third, explain the controls that reduce the chance of the same pattern returning.

Evidence What the manual action notice said
Evidence What URL, link, template, content, or governance patterns were found
Evidence What changed, with examples where useful
Evidence What process prevents recurrence

What weakens a reconsideration request

Generic apologies, keyword-stuffed narratives, claims of good intent, and promises to improve later do not substitute for evidence. The request should make the remediation easy to audit.

Evidence Submitting before the underlying issue is fixed
Evidence Describing work without showing scope
Evidence Sending a template that does not match the actual violation
Evidence Arguing that previous performance proves the site should be restored

Questions this guide should settle

Short answers for teams trying to choose the correct manual-action workflow.

Is there a universal reconsideration request template? +

No. A structure is useful, but the content must match the manual action, affected scope, and completed remediation.

How long does reconsideration take? +

Timelines vary. Google makes the review decision and turnaround is not guaranteed.

Can a denied request be fixed? +

Often, yes. A denial usually means the remediation, evidence, or explanation did not satisfy the review standard.