Manual Actions Rising After the Spam Update: The Evidence

Some well-known SEOs say Google is issuing more manual actions than usual, but as of 9 October 2026 the evidence is anecdotal and Google has not commented. Marie Haynes reports going from almost no requests to several a week, and forum threads show thin content, "major spam problems" and scaled content actions, some scoped to /blog/ directories. If you have a manual action, the fix path is well documented: fix everything, then request a review.

Key Takeaways

• The "rise" rests on consultant inboxes and hand-picked forum threads, not a Google statement or a systematic count. Treat it as a signal, not a fact.
• The reported action types are thin content, pure spam, scaled content abuse and "major spam problems", some limited to a /blog/ directory.
• A manual action is visible in Search Console. An algorithmic demotion is not. Check the Manual actions report first.
• Partial fixes do not earn partial relief, per Google's own help page. Fix every listed issue on every affected page, then request review once.
• Do not mass-delete or mass-rewrite in panic. Sort pages into keep, improve, merge and remove, and log each decision.

What is being reported

The evidence, source by source

The main report is Barry Schwartz's piece on Search Engine Roundtable, Is Google issuing more manual action penalties?, published around 8 October 2026. According to that article:

• Marie Haynes, a long-time manual action consultant, says she went from essentially no requests to several per week, and that the cases are mostly legitimate, long-standing businesses. She says the volume is nowhere near the pre-Penguin era.
• Daniel Foley Carter, an SEO consultant, says he has seen more and more cases over recent months and links them to scaled content abuse and spam shortcuts.
• Forum threads: Schwartz reviewed recent threads on the Google Search Central help forum, including sites with "Major spam problems" actions scoped to a /blog/ section, "Thin content" actions, and rejected reconsideration requests.

PPC Land's write-up of the spam update completion repeats these points and adds specifics: one thread describes a site that removed 4,000 URLs and still has a thin content action; another cleaned over 6,000 URLs and had three reconsideration requests rejected (PPC Land).

The caveats you should keep in mind

I want to be careful here because this topic invites overreaction.

1. It is anecdotal. A consultant's inbox is a selected sample. People who have a problem ask a specialist; a rise in requests can reflect awareness as much as volume.
2. Schwartz himself hedges. He tried an AI-assisted count of forum complaints; ChatGPT and Gemini produced charts that disagreed with each other, and he found "not a super big spike." He also notes complaints were far more common a decade ago and is unsure whether the uptick is real or perception.
3. Causes are interpretation. Foley Carter's view, that businesses cut SEO budgets assuming AI could replace the work and then took shortcuts, is his reading, not something Google confirmed.
4. No link to the spam update is established. The timing is suggestive, since the September 2026 spam update finished on 8 October, but Schwartz dates the shift to several weeks earlier. Manual actions and algorithmic updates are separate systems.

How manual actions work

What Google says

Google's spam policies say Google uses automated systems and, when needed, human review, and that human review can result in a manual action. The Manual actions report help page explains the process:

• You see the action in the Manual actions report and in the Search Console message center.
• Expanding the description shows affected URL patterns, which may cover part of a site or all of it.
• You must address every listed issue on every affected page. In Google's words, fixing "just some pages will not earn you a partial return to search results."
• Pages must be reachable: not behind a login or paywall and not blocked by robots.txt or noindex, so use URL Inspection to test.
• You then select Request Review, explaining the quality issue, the steps taken and the results.
• Reviews usually take several days or weeks, and link-related requests can take longer. Do not resubmit while one is pending.

Manual action versus algorithmic demotion

Why the /blog/ scope matters

Several forum cases were scoped to a /blog/ directory. That is a useful pattern. Publishing a blog at volume is the easiest place for thin, templated or lightly edited content to build up, and a directory-scoped action tells you precisely where Google found the problem. If your action lists a URL pattern, start there and do not touch the rest of the site until you have fixed it.

Likely causes, ranked by how often they match the reports

I cannot give you a probability, so this is a ranking by how directly each one lines up with the reported action types.

1. Scaled content at low effort. Many posts produced in bulk with little human input. See my definition of scaled content abuse with examples.
2. Thin content with little added value. Pages that restate what is available everywhere, often affiliate-style or location-template pages.
3. Third-party or user-generated spam. Unmoderated comments, forum sections or guest-post sections. Foley Carter lists user-generated and third-party spam among the types he is seeing.
4. Site reputation abuse. Hosting third-party content to borrow your ranking strength. My earlier explainer on parasite SEO and site reputation abuse covers the mechanics.
5. Technical deception. Cloaking, sneaky redirects and hidden text, which Foley Carter also lists.

Recovery plan: a step-by-step sequence

Step 1: Read the notice exactly

Copy the action name and URL patterns into a document. The name tells you which policy you are dealing with and the pattern tells you where.

Step 2: Inventory the affected URLs

Export every URL under the pattern with traffic, links, publish date and author. Add a column for how the page was created (human-written, AI-assisted with editing, AI-generated at volume, imported from a feed).

Step 3: Sort into four buckets

• Keep: genuinely useful, original, accurate.
• Improve: a real topic, weak execution. Add first-hand experience, data, a named and real author.
• Merge: multiple near-duplicate pages. Combine into one stronger page with redirects.
• Remove: no purpose beyond ranking. Return 404 or 410 and remove from sitemaps.

The reports above show that removing thousands of URLs did not guarantee success (4,000 and 6,000 URL cleanups were still struggling), which suggests the issue was not volume alone but what remained. Look hard at what is left, not only what you removed.

Step 4: Fix process, not just pages

A reviewer wants evidence that the problem will not return. Document your editorial process: who writes, who reviews, how sources are checked, and what is now banned (bulk generation without review, auto-published feeds, anonymous contributors).

Step 5: Write the reconsideration request

Follow Google's own structure: the quality issue, the steps you took, and the outcome. Be specific and factual. Examples help: how many URLs you removed, which you rewrote, what the new workflow is. Avoid blame, drama or generic "we have fixed everything" language.

Step 6: Wait, and do not resubmit

Google's guidance is to wait for the outcome. While waiting, keep the site stable. If the request is rejected, read the reply and repeat the cycle with deeper changes.

If you have no manual action but traffic fell

Then you are probably looking at an algorithmic effect, or something unrelated like seasonality, a technical issue or an AI answer change. Use the process in my post-update content audit guide. Do not file a reconsideration request; there is nothing to reconsider.

Fabricated authors: a related risk

PPC Land reports, citing Marie Haynes, that Google's people-first content guidance now warns about fabricated creator profiles. I verified the current Google page shows deceptive authorship language; see my separate post on fake author bios. If you are cleaning up a blog, check bylines early. It is an easy fix and an easy problem to be accused of.

What I would do on Monday

1. Open Search Console and check the Manual actions report for every property you own, including old domains and subdomains.
2. If clear, export a template-level traffic comparison for 10 to 23 September versus 24 September to 8 October.
3. List every section produced at volume in the last 18 months and rate its effort and originality honestly.
4. Fix author information and remove placeholder or AI-generated author profiles.
5. Write the editorial standards down, even if it is one page.

Sources and limits

For the update itself, Google's Search Status Dashboard incident records the 24 September start and 8 October completion, and Search Engine Roundtable's 8 October recap links the completion and manual-action stories together. PPC Land's earlier rollout report gives the timing comparison with earlier 2026 spam updates. Google's people-first content guidance is the page to read for effort, originality and authorship.

I read the Roundtable article, the PPC Land report, Google's spam policies and the Manual actions help page. I could not verify any count of manual actions, because Google does not publish one. The names and quotes above are as reported by Roundtable and PPC Land.

FAQ

Is Google really issuing more manual actions?

Not proven. Some SEOs, including Marie Haynes and Daniel Foley Carter, report more cases, but the evidence is anecdotal and Google has not commented. Barry Schwartz's own analysis found "not a super big spike".

Are manual actions connected to the September 2026 spam update?

There is no established link. The spam update is algorithmic and finished on 8 October; manual actions are issued after human review. The timing overlaps but the systems are separate.

Where do I see a manual action?

In the Manual actions report and the message center in Search Console. A green check mark in the report means no manual action applies.

Can I fix only some of the pages?

No. Google's help page says fixing just some pages will not earn a partial return to search results. Fix every listed issue on every affected page before requesting review.

How long does a reconsideration review take?

Google's help page says reviews usually take several days or weeks, and link-related requests can take longer. You get emails when the request is received and when it is decided.

Does deleting thousands of pages solve a thin content action?

Not necessarily. The forum cases cited by PPC Land include sites that removed 4,000 to 6,000 URLs and still faced actions or rejected requests. What remains must be genuinely useful.

Can a manual action apply to only my blog?

Yes. The report lists affected URL patterns, and forum threads described actions scoped to a /blog/ directory. Start your cleanup in the listed pattern.

Should I disavow links?

Only if the action is about unnatural links and you have evidence of manipulative links you cannot remove. Most of the reported cases here are content actions, so disavowing would not address them.

What if my request is rejected?

Read the response, look for what you did not fix, and make deeper changes. Document them and submit again only after you have actually changed something material.

Want a second opinion on your cleanup?

If you are staring at a notice in Search Console and unsure where to start, have a look at my work at younusfardeen.in and use the contact form. I have 4+ years of marketing experience in SEO and content strategy, and I can help you sort pages, tighten editorial standards and write a request that a reviewer can actually act on.