Manual action or algorithmic?
Check Search Console first — manual actions appear in plain language. Algorithmic damage shows as traffic loss with no notice, usually coinciding with a known update.
The distinction drives everything: manual actions have a reconsideration path; algorithmic losses require fixing whatever the update targeted and waiting for reassessment.
Diagnose before touching anything
Map the loss: which pages, which queries, when exactly. Audit the link profile for the obvious patterns — spam anchors at scale, farm domains, PBN clusters. Check content quality signals and technical changes in the same window.
The sites that recover fastest are the ones that identify the single dominant cause instead of changing everything at once.
The cleanup
For link problems: stop the offending acquisition, attempt removal where feasible, disavow the rest — the disavow is surgery, not a cleanse. For content problems: consolidate thin pages, improve what deserves to survive, prune what doesn't.
Then document everything. If a reconsideration request becomes necessary, the documentation is the request.
Rebuilding afterward
Recovery doesn't restore rankings; it restores eligibility. Rebuild with the boring profile — branded anchors, relevant publishers, steady velocity — and treat the previous strategy as the tuition you paid.
Most recovered sites never need another dramatic intervention. The discipline is the moat.
Frequently Asked Questions
Manual actions: weeks to months after fixes and a successful reconsideration. Algorithmic: typically the next few core updates after genuine fixes.
No. Disavow for diagnosed problems, not anxiety. Misused, it throws away links you'd have wanted.
Related service
This guide connects to a package in our catalog.
Build links the safe way going forward