A reconsideration request is a formal request, sent through Google Search Console, asking Google to review a website after its owner has fixed the problems behind a manual action. If the reviewer agrees the issues are resolved, the action is lifted and the affected pages can appear in results normally again.
How a reconsideration request works
A manual action is a penalty applied by a person at Google, not by an algorithm, when a site breaks Google’s spam policies. You see it in the Manual actions report in Google Search Console, with the type of issue (for example unnatural links to your site, thin content with little added value, user-generated spam or cloaking) and whether it affects the whole site or only some pages. Google also emails verified owners.
Once you have fixed the problem, the same report offers a “Request review” button. You write an explanation of what was wrong, what you changed and the evidence for it, then submit. A reviewer at Google checks the site against the policy. Reviews can take from several days to a few weeks, sometimes longer for link-related actions, and you receive a message with one of three outcomes: the action is revoked, the request is rejected because problems remain, or the request has been processed (often meaning the action was already resolved or has expired).
A reconsideration request is only for manual actions. If traffic fell after a core update or a spam update with no manual action showing, there is nothing to request; recovery comes from improving the site and waiting for Google’s systems to reassess it.
Why it matters
A manual action can remove a business from search results almost entirely, or quietly cap how well its pages can rank. For a UK company that relies on organic enquiries, every week with an unresolved action costs real business. A well-prepared request is the fastest route back. A rushed one usually gets rejected, and each rejection adds weeks.
A common situation is a site that bought links years ago, often through an earlier supplier, and now carries an unnatural links action. The current owner may never have known about the links, but the clean-up is still theirs to do.
Common mistakes
- Submitting before the work is finished. Reviewers check. A partial clean-up nearly always fails.
- Relying only on a disavow file. For link actions, Google expects you to try to remove bad links first. A disavow file covers the links you could not get removed.
- A vague explanation. “We have fixed everything” tells the reviewer nothing. Describe what was found, what was done and how you will prevent it recurring.
- Blaming someone else and stopping there. It is fine to explain that a former agency built the links, but the request must still show the problem is gone.
- Filing a request for an algorithmic drop. With no manual action listed, a request achieves nothing.
How to act on it
Read the manual action message carefully and note exactly which policy and which pages are involved. For unnatural links, export your full link data from Search Console and a third-party tool, identify every manipulative link, contact site owners to request removal, log each attempt in a spreadsheet, and disavow whatever remains. For content actions, remove or substantially improve the pages concerned.
Then write the request in plain language: the issue, the cause, the specific actions taken with dates, a link to your evidence in a shared document, and the steps you have put in place to stop it happening again. If the request is rejected, read the response, address what remains, and resubmit. Diagnosing the cause and planning the clean-up is something I cover in an SEO audit when a site carries a manual action.